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 March 5, 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: The arm of the law just got longer. For years, U.S. officials have been largely untouchable by the International Criminal Court -- but a ruling today allows the court's top prosecutor to investigate alleged war crimes committed by Americans in Afghanistan.

CH: Misleading the masses. Televangelist Jim Bakker is under fire for marketing what he says is a potential treatment for COVID-19. We talked to an actual doctor about why the so-called "Silver Solution" is one serious delusion.

CO: Exit stage left. Elizabeth Warren has dropped out of the Democratic primary. One of her supporters tells us it's a dark day for people who want to see real change in who's running for office.

CH: Fleeing the fallout. The family of a student who died when Iran downed a commercial jet last month will seek refugee status in Edmonton -- our guest says their loved one's death was just the beginning of their nightmare.

CO: Ice fishing. An Australian retailer is netting himself some attention for sharing details of a robbery at his store in which the burglar used a fishing rod and an angler's patience to snag himself some jewelry.

CH: And a hand in the bird. A pelican in Florida swallowed a cell phone. But fortunately for that bird, our guest was there to lend a hand, literally. As It Happens. The Thursday Edition. Radio that knows there's nothing more disturbing than opening a giant phone bill.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Guantanamo detainees' lawyer celebrates ICC probe into alleged U.S. war crimes

Afghanistan: International Criminal Court Probe

Guest: Katherine Gallagher

CH: The International Criminal Court is going to investigate allegations of war crimes committed by the United States in Afghanistan. In a decision handed down today, the court overturned an earlier ruling that blocked any such investigation. Investigators will also look into allegations against the Taliban, the Afghan government, and private contractors. Katherine Gallagher has been fighting for this decision for years. She's a lawyer at the Center for Human Rights in New York. And she represents two men who allege that they were tortured at CIA black sites in Afghanistan. We reached Katherine Gallagher at the airport in Amsterdam.

CO: Ms. Gallagher, what does today's decision in The Hague mean for your client?

KATHERINE GALLAGHER: Well, I represent two men, Sharqawi Al Hajj and Guled Duran, who are still detained in Guantanamo. These are men who have spent more than 15 years trying to get some measure of accountability for U.S. torture. These are individuals who were picked up in the post-9/11 period, subjected to CIA detention in black sites, held in countries like Jordan and Afghanistan at the hands of the U.S.. And today was a very big day. This is the first time in those many years of seeking some measure of justice and accountability that my clients and other victims of U.S. torture see that there may, in fact, be some kind of accountability.

CO: You know that this is a very difficult decision for the court to make, given the amount of pressure they've been under from the United States and from Washington. So how big a step do you think this is for the International Criminal Court to take?

KG: Well, in some ways, this was a very easy decision to take. The situation of Afghanistan includes three dimensions: crimes by the Taliban, crimes by Afghan forces, and crimes by the U.S. actors -- including CIA, military, and private contractors. And there has been zero accountability for any of those groups. And there have been well documented crimes by the governments themselves, by the United Nations, by the European Court of Human Rights, by countless NGOs. And accounts from the victims themselves. So in some ways, this was a very easy case. And the investigation should have been opened already two years ago. Now, no doubt the Trump administration has put massive pressure on the court. But this is a court of law. This is not a political court. And so what the appeals chamber did today was actually bring the ICC back on the right track. There are many who believe, including myself, that the pretrial chamber, when it denied the investigation last April, was, in fact, feeling the weight of the political pressure from D.C..

CO: But how will the ICC, the International Criminal Court, be able to proceed with an investigation to support attempted prosecution of the United States and its activities in Afghanistan? Given that they have called the court illegitimate, there have been statements about what they might do to the court if it pursued Americans. Mr. Pompeo vowed to revoke visas for anyone involved in any investigation against American citizens. That's already happening. So how difficult is it going to be to actually proceed?

KG: What we've seen, unfortunately, during the years of the Bush era torture program is far too many countries that are members of the ICC cooperating with the United States. Poland, Lithuania, Romania are known to have hosted black sites. Many countries in Europe and allowed flights to stop over on their territory. Jordan hosted proxy detention sites. Djibouti is a location where one of my clients was picked up from. These ICC member states have an obligation to the court to cooperate with investigations. So we actually don't need the United States to cooperate. We need those member states to bring forward the information they have and then add that to the investigations already carried out by the U.S. military, the U.S. Congress. There is a massive Senate torture report already with just the executive summary. We see well documented global torture program. So we don't need more information from the Trump administration. In fact, George W. Bush admitted in his own memoir that he authorized torture. Dick Cheney continues to praise the torture program. So we have unrepentant former administration officials, and we have a current administration where Donald Trump speaks positively of torture. So it's very important that the rest of the world at this moment stand firm in saying that there cannot be policies of state sanctioned torture.

CO: Okay. So even if the ICC can investigate and proceed as you've described it, what's the significance of any indictment or conviction if the United States doesn't even recognize the power of this court -- they call it an illegitimate body?

KG: Yes. Well, you can't have prosecutions at the International Criminal Court without defendants. There are no trials in absentia. So we may get to a point where there are arrest warrants issued and charges that are out there against senior U.S. military or intelligence officials or even contractors. And then it is up to the 123 member states of the ICC to act on those arrest warrants, if Americans come into their territory. We also have an election coming up in the United States, and we may have a future administration in the United States that thinks, unlike Donald Trump, that war criminals should be pardoned, but rather that they should be punished. So I think we have to take a long view here. I know that my clients who continue to languish at Guantanamo hold out hope for some justice.

CO: We know that orders came from very un-high for what happened to detainees in Afghanistan. So I'm wondering how far up the chain of command you would like to see indictments issued. You mentioned the CIA, the military, private contractors in the United States. Who are the big fish perhaps that you might like to see caught in this investigation?

KG: Well, I think the ICC is a court that is built to hold those who bear the greatest responsibility accountable. So this would not be a court where you'll see low level military members prosecuted and you should not see them prosecuted -- even if they were the direct perpetrators of torture. The individuals who should be held to account at The Hague are people like the former civilian leadership: George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld. We should see the investigations of senior leadership of the Central Intelligence Agency. We should see an investigation of some of the lawyers who gave legal cover to the torture program. We have a current head of our CIA, Gina Haspel, who ran a black site. I think she is someone who should be investigated. And some of the private contractors that we know helped to set up the torture program should also be investigated. So I think that there are names that are clearly out there that should be the starting point for the investigation. And they are high level and well-known names.

CO: We will just point out that both Canada and Afghanistan are signatories of the International Criminal Court and have their cooperation. Ms. Gallagher, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

KG: Thank you.

CH: Katherine Gallagher is a lawyer at the Centre for Human Rights. We reached her in Amsterdam. And you can find more on that story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Warren drops out

Guest: Sayu Bhojwani

CH: Elizabeth Warren became known for her phrase, "I have a plan for that." But the senator's decision to step down from the presidential race today was not the plan she initially had in mind. She campaigned on stamping out financial corruption, providing free universal health care, and cancelling student debt. Last fall, she was considered a frontrunner. But after a disappointing night on Super Tuesday, including a third place finish in her home state of Massachusetts, her path to the nomination became all but impossible. Today, a journalist asked Senator Warren what role gender played in the race.

SOUNDCLIP

ELIZABETH WARREN: Gender in this race? You know, that is the question for every woman. If you say, "Yeah. There was sexism in this race." Everyone says, "Whiner." And if you say "No. There was no sexism." About a bazillion women think, "What planet do you live on?"

CH: Sayu Bhojwani supported the senator's run for president. She's the founder of New American Leaders, a group that encourages women and immigrants to run for office. We reached her in New York City.

CO: Sayu do you think Elizabeth Warren made the right decision today in dropping out of the presidential race?

SAYU BHOJWANI: That's a hard question. I think one of the things that Elizabeth Warren did was to elevate the conversation by bringing an intersectional understanding to many issues. And she helped push candidates on the debate stage. So I'll have to say that I think we are going to miss her in the next debate. We're going to miss her in the conversation.

CO: How did you feel when you heard the announcement that she made?

SB: You know, I'm still going through a range of emotions. But the first emotion was discouragement, sadness, frustration are some of the feelings that I think I and other women are experiencing. You know, we're very aware that this is a system that doesn't allow women to rise to the top, and wants to relegate us to second position or behind-the-scenes. And it's really sad to watch that play out on the national stage. And most importantly, to lose her voice in this campaign -- a voice that, you know, she's demonstrated throughout the campaign that she can be a fast learner, that she will listen and learn. And to lose that intelligence and wit and personality and understanding from the conversation is really hard.

CO: So even though her voice, her intelligence, her wit, as you say, are no longer going to be in it -- and you lament that -- do you feel that she has had a lasting effect that this campaign can't ignore?

SB: I hope so. I hope that Sanders and Biden will learn something from Elizabeth Warren about what it means to be humble, to learn from, to be strategic, to be bold. That's what I would like to see. I think that's what she brought. That's what we're going to miss. But in the best case scenario, the two front runners will learn from that.

CO: She also said in her speech that it shows that we have been willing to fight when necessary and we will leave plenty of blood and teeth on the floor -- and I can think of one billionaire who's been denied the chance to buy this election. So, of course, she's speaking of Mike Bloomberg. Do you think that is something that she did contribute to this campaign?

SB: Absolutely. I mean, I think she reminded us -- and when I say us, I'm talking about many women in America -- of what it means to be unapologetic about what you stand for. And "blood and teeth" is absolutely going to be a legacy of her campaign. And it's something that sounds gruesome, but I think it's something that we will associate with a fighting stance rather than as something gruesome.

CO: So, again, the fighting stance and the woman who says nevertheless, she persisted -- you talk about her policies, her resume, her charisma. So why wasn't that enough? What why couldn't she keep in the race?

SB: Well, I mean, the reality is that it's never enough, right? It seems that we are living in a time in America, or continuing to live in a time, where no woman is perfect enough. You hear in backroom conversations constantly. What I was hearing was "we like her, but if only this." You know there's a standard of perfection that is applied to women that we don't see apply -- I mean, look at Biden. Biden lost every single state in his first two presidential campaigns. And then he gained all of this momentum in large part from winning the first state in any campaign that he's ever run. And so the standard for him is so much lower. And there's a lot more -- I think that the complexity of why voters chose Biden should not be ignored. But the reality is that if a woman had the kind of mannerism, the kind of stands, that kind of single mindedness that Sanders has, she would be roundly criticized. And Warren raised the standard in terms of understanding the issues, in terms of being bringing strategic solutions to things like black maternal health, to evolving on immigration. While she brought all of that, it just wasn't enough for the American electorate. And I think we can say many things about this political moment that we're in, but they're frankly all excuses. They're all excuses for misogyny. They're all excuses for the unreasonably high standard that we set for women leaders.

CO: So where does this leave people like you? What choices are before you? You're looking at two white guys. Do you see anything that inspires you at this point?

SB: Well, I'm inspired by the fact that there are so many young people who see something in Sanders. I think that his policy agenda is very inspiring. I think the fact that many black voters chose Biden is also something to listen to. And so where it leaves me is, you know, I'm taking advice from Senator Warren. I'm going to take a moment to breathe. I'm going to take a moment to see what the campaigns show that they've learned from the last few days and weeks, and then make a decision about who I would personally support.

CO: You've said elsewhere that you thought we'd moved on from having two men, basically cockfighting on the debate stage. Is that what you're now faced with?

SB: Oh, yes. Two in the Democratic primary, and then two in the general. And I think, you know, that's one of the really hard things that many of us are experiencing right now, right? That today so early in 2020, it's very clear to us what the rest of the year is going to look like. And it's not necessarily -- I mean, it's absolutely not inspiring. That is not to say that there won't be inspiring moments. And many of us are rolling up our sleeves and going to go to work to get Donald Trump out of the White House. But it's you know, there are many more inspiring things that I could imagine than two old white men fighting it out in the primary and then in the general.

CO: Sayu we'll leave it there. I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

SB: Thank you.

CH: Sayu Bhojwani is the founder of New American Leaders, and a supporter of Elizabeth Warren -- who dropped out of the Democratic presidential race today.

[Music]

Pelican intern

Guest: Emma McCarthy

CH: When there's a tough job to be done, ask volunteers to raise their hands and once their hands are up, take some time to compare them -- you know, to see whose are the smallest. That was the key factor recently when there was a particularly dirty job to do at the Florida Keys Wild Bird Rehabilitation Centre. A job that involved reaching deep into the stomach of a pelican. Emma McCarthy is an intern at the Florida Keys Wild Bird Rehabilitation Centre. We reached her in Tavernier, Florida.

CO: Emma, what did you think when you were asked to reach into the belly of a pelican?

EMMA MCCARTHY: I thought it was certainly different and out of the ordinary from my daily work. But I did volunteer to do it at the time. So I was ready and willing to go right in.

CO: [Chuckles] So what's the sensation of actually sticking your hand down the throat of a pelican right to its gut?

EM: It was a little slimy, a little warm, but pretty smooth. That's a straight shot right down the neck to the stomach.

CO: And did you have help?

EM: Yes. So our hospital technician, Adam, was there to help contain the pelican and keep him calm while I was going in.

CO: Okay, so what was the procedure? What did you have to do?

EM: It was pretty straightforward. We didn't have to put him under anesthesia because birds are pretty sensitive to that and we try to avoid it when we can. And it wasn't too painful for him. It was just a little bit of discomfort.

CO: Somebody had to hold his beak open, I guess.

EM: Yeah, that was kind of the main thing to keep steady.

CO: All right. So the question becomes: why? Why did you need to go in? What were you trying to retrieve?

EM: So we had been told that this particular pelican had swallowed a cell phone.

CO: How did the pelican come to swallow a cell phone?

EM: So when we received the call about this particular bird, it was from a local marina. And we were told that a pedestrian had been walking by, holding a cell phone in her hand behind her back, and that the pelican had just grabbed it out of her hand. And we think that's because the pelican likely mistaked it for a fish.

CO: Oh gosh. And so the pelican swallowed it before anyone could stop it. And then they called your center, is that right?

EM: Yes, correct.

CO: Now, so was there a discussion about what was the best way to retrieve that cell phone?

EM: Not really. There was really only one option, which was to reach down and grab it. So it just had to be done.

CO: And this was back at your centre -- you brought the bird back to...

EM: Yeah. We have a functioning rehab hospital here.

CO: How did you get chosen for the job?

EM: Adam went to go pick up the bird and he texted me when he was on his way down there to ask if I could stop by the hospital later when he came back and help -- since it was after our regular hospital hours. And he did actually try first to reach down and grab it. But since his hands are a little bit bigger, he couldn't get all the way into the stomach. And since mine are pretty small, I was able to work my fingers in and grab the phone.

CO: And so you pulled the phone up. And what was the state of that cell phone when you got it out?

EM: It was pretty gross. It had some bits of partially digested fish and some parasites on it. And the phone itself did not turn on at the time. We're not really sure if it's broken or maybe the battery just died. We were able to return it to the owner, but we haven't heard from her whether it made it through the ordeal.

CO: And how is the bird doing?

EM: The bird is totally fine. Luckily, he was very cooperative throughout the process. And we were able to release him shortly after we got the phone out. We kept him at our hospital for a little while just to make sure he didn't have any other injuries and that he was functioning fine. Yeah.

CO: Now, do you know if the Florida Keys Wild Bird Rehabilitation Centre has seen this before -- well, not cell phones perhaps -- but pelicans, do they do they swallow a lot of things like this?

EM: I don't think this is particularly typical. We do get a lot of kind of swallowed hooks and fishing lures, stuff like that. But I haven't heard of anything like this of a cellphone or such large items before.

CO: There is a video of you fetching it and you do [laughs] look like, "Okay .I guess this is what I have to do." You're an intern, right?

EM: Correct.

CO: Okay. So is this encouraging you or discouraging you from continuing this work? [Both chuckle]

EM: I thought it was encouraging. I definitely was interested in this type of work because I like that going to work is different every day and you never know what you're going to get. So I think it was more encouraging than discouraging. [Chuckles]

CO: Did anyone in school tell you might be having to reach into the belly of a pelican?

EM: [Chuckles] No. No one foresaw this one.

CO: [Chuckles] All right. So is there a moral to the story? Anything that people can learn from pelicans and what they eat and what to avoid having them eat?

EM: Yeah. So the main thing here is that we think it happened because the pelican mistakenly thought that this person was holding a fish. And the reason they would think that is because in this area, a lot of people are feeding the wildlife and particularly the pelicans because they're so prolific here. So it definitely reminds us that people need to not feed wildlife or this could be the result.

CO: So that's the message here. "Don't feed the birds.".

EM: Right. [Chuckles]

CO: Emma thanks for speaking with us.

EM: Yeah. Thank you Carol.

CH: Emma McCarthy is an intern at the Florida Keys Wild Bird Rehabilitation Centre. We reached her in Tavernier, Florida. And you can find more on this story and see a video of the cell phone rescue on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Fishing Criminal

CH: He didn't hack into the security system. He didn't do acrobatics to avoid lasers that would trip the alarm. He just put on some sweat pants and pulled off a heist that has his country reeling -- although he reeled first. You can see yourself if you look at a March 3rd tweet from the Victoria Police, that's Victoria, Australia. There he is, caught on CCTV: middle-aged guy in the kind of outfit you'd wear while eating takeout and binge watching reruns of CSI Miami. It's the middle of the night and he's outside a fashion boutique called "Lestyle." And he's holding a long fishing pole. He used it to commit a crime that even the boutique owner calls "outrageous and courageous." But he wasn't fishing for compliments. He was fishing for the Versace necklace around the neck of a mannequin. He chipped a hole in the front window, stuck the pole through it, and after three long hours of trying, hooked that costume jewelry. Brilliant in its simplicity. But along with that amazing snag, there were a couple of others. First, the necklace looks expensive, but it's only worth about 700 bucks Canadian. And second, all three hours of his deft pull maneuvering were caught on camera, including several full face shots of his looking awkwardly around to make sure no one was watching. So he'll probably get caught. But given his ingenuity with the fishing rod, that CCTV footage makes for a brilliant heist movie with some stellar casting.

[Music]

Part 2: Coronavirus: Jim Bakker

Coronavirus: Jim Bakker

Guest: Peter Lurie

CH: Jim Bakker claims to have a cure. Mr. Bakker is the televangelist who was sent to prison for defrauding the followers of his Heritage USA Network out of millions of dollars in the 1980s. Now Mr. Bakker is back in the broadcast business. And last month he put this out.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: This influenza that is now circling the globe. You're saying that Silver Solution would be effective?

VOICE 2: Well, let's say it hasn't been tested on this strain of the coronavirus, but it's been tested on other strain of the coronavirus and has been able to eliminate it within 12 hours.

VOICE 1: Yeah.

VOICE 2: Totally eliminated. Kills it. Deactivates it. And then it boosts your immune system so then you can support the recovery because when you kill the virus then the immune system comes into action to clear it out. So you want a vibrant immune system as well as an ability to deactivate these viruses.

VOICE 3: That's so good.

CH: So that was from a broadcast with televangelist Jim Bakker about a treatment for viruses, including coronavirus. The segment caught the eye of New York's Attorney General. On Tuesday, her office sent a cease and desist order to Mr. Bakker. Peter Lurie appealed for enforcement. Dr. Lurie is the president of a U.S. watchdog agency called the Centre for Science in the Public Interest. And we reached Dr. Lurie in Washington, D.C..

CO: Dr. Lurie what do you think when you hear Jim Bakker making those claims?

PETER LURIE: Well, it's just absolutely infuriating to hear this. I mean, the level of scientific ignorance in that clip is just monumental. For starters, it's not influenza. That's not what this illness is. For second, there's just no scientific evidence that this product does anything that's clinically useful for any disease whatsoever. The U.S. National Institutes of Health have looked at this and they've declared that there is no proven clinical utility for the product. So to see a group of individuals peddling a product with no effectiveness at up to $300 for 12 bottles, bilking consumers of hard earned cash...it's a health fraud. And I'd like to see people take strong action against it.

CO: Is it true that the Silver Solution actually has some adverse health effects?

PL: Yeah, it does. The one is, you know, if the product is poorly made, you can have a contaminant of some kind. I'm not alleging this specifically here, but we've suddenly seen that with a number of other dietary supplements. There is a rare, fortunately but well-recognized condition called Argyria, which can turn the skin, believe it or not, blue -- and can do so on a permanent basis.

CO: So what has the New York state office of the Attorney General put out to Jim Bakker for having this this advertisement for trying to sell this Silver Solution on his show?

PL: So the New York attorney general has asked him to stop promoting the product in this way. And moreover, they've asked him to add a disclaimer to the product that makes it clear that these claims are not approved by any regulatory authority in the United States. That seems like a good idea. It's along the lines of the requests that we made to the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration, which are federal agencies in the United States, to take generally similar actions. We'd also like to see Jim Bakker be disgorged of whatever profits he might have made from selling this ineffective material.

CO: Okay. But is as far as this colloidal silver -- this is stuff that you can buy online, right? So why so heavy handed with Jim Bakker when this is widely sold by those who make claims that this is an immune system boost?

PL: Well, the issue from a drug regulatory point of view is whether or not you make a claim. I mean, if you sell colloidal silver without claiming that it does anything, that may not be a great thing, but it's at least not an inherently illegal. But at the moment that you start saying that it can either prevent, treat, or diagnose a disease, which is what we believe they're claiming here, then you're in effect selling a drug. And if you're selling a drug in the United States and in Canada, you have to go through the drug regulatory authority before you do so. And they haven't done that. So their marketing an unapproved drug, making health claims, potentially diverting people from at least symptomatic treatment that might help them. It's unconscionable.

CO: All right. The woman in the ad -- the one we just listened to -- she calls herself Dr. Sherrill Sellman, though she is not a physician. She is a doctor of naturopathy from something called Trinity College. But she is saying that it hasn't been tested on this strain of coronavirus, but it has another flus. So is that a way out? Is she covering for not saying that it is actually a cure for coronavirus?

PL: Well, I don't doubt that they'll try to avail themselves of that as an excuse. That's for sure. But to me, in context, it's quite clear what is being done here. We're in the midst of an epidemic. We're in the midst of, in some quarters at least, widespread panic. And when you start talking the way that she does, it's perfectly clear that the product is intended for coronavirus of whatever strain. And it's perfectly clear that they're trying to get you to believe that it will be effective. You know exactly what studies she's referring to -- it's impossible to know. But I do know that in terms of actual clinical effectiveness, they're not going to be able to point to anything.

CO: So at the Centre for Science in the Public Interest, are you seeing other efforts to sell treatments or cures or preventions for the coronavirus since it flared up?

PL: Well, you know, as soon as I heard about this epidemic, I asked folks over here to keep an eye open for this because you can set your watch -- as soon as a health scare arrives, you can be sure that there will be dietary supplement manufacturers showing up with a purported cure. We have found some others. We haven't worked them up quite as much as Jim Bakker. We've turned them over to the FDA. One of the things that appears to be happening is that folks on Amazon are bearing the term coronavirus in the keywords of completely unrelated products, unrelated to coronavirus at all, as an attempt to bring their product up in the search engine. So sad to say. And I saw this when I was an official at FDA for a number of years. These folks always show up like clockwork whenever there's a health scare.

CO: We've been covering this story of the public health response to the coronavirus in the U.S. and the problems people have with accessing care or accessing tests, their insurance perhaps not covering, the costs. Is it possible that that people are more vulnerable to look for these kind of snake oil solutions when they don't have as much support as they might have from their own public health system?

PL: Well, I mean, you know, I don't want to embark on a whole critique of the public health system, that would frankly take too long. But suffice it to say that, you know, in the context of an epidemic, people of vulnerable, people are desperate, people are fearful. And it's that very set of emotions upon which people like Jim Bakker apparently are willing to pray.

CO: All right. We're well warned. Dr. Lurie thank you.

PL: Thanks for having me.

CH: Dr. Peter Lurie is the president of the Centre for Science in the Public Interest. We reached him in Washington, D.C..

[Music]

Mats Jarlstrom

CH: When Mats Jarlstrom decided to challenge his wife's traffic ticket in Oregon, things took a left turn. But it looks like they may have finally taken a right one. Mr. Jarlstrom holds a bachelor’s degree in electronics engineering. And he sensed something was amiss with the automated traffic camera system that dispensed the ticket. So he did a little math, but when he presented his findings about the timing of the red light cameras to the state's Board of Engineers, he was fined 500 dollars himself for practicing engineering without a license. He sued the board in 2017 and the fine was thrown out. Now, though, the Institute of Traffic Engineers has released the results of a study, results that show Mr. Jarlstrom was correct. And will likely mean changes to red light cameras across the U.S.. Here's some of what Mats Jarlstrom told Carol in 2017.

SOUNDCLIP

CO: Mr. Jarlstrom, were you aware that you could be fined for doing math?

MATS JARLSTROM: Not at all.

CO: So what was your reaction when you were?

MJ: Well, I was shocked and felt violated. Not only for being fined for that, but also for stating who I am. According to the board of engineers here in Oregon, if anyone is actually using mathematics and physics, or they call it algorithms, to study traffic related issues. Like in my case traffic signals, you are then deemed to be a transportation engineer.

CO: What did you write to complain about or to draw to their attention?

MJ: Well, I started to look into the science behind traffic signals and how it was done and I've done looking for source information and I located the original paper that was written in 1959 by three scientists.

CO: And what was that about?

MJ: Well it’s the paper that is the basis for the current state of the art for our traffic signals in many states here in United States of America. And by understanding the paper it's actually written very well. I have not found any flaws. Nothing is wrong with it. However, the solution that percent is only for going straight through an intersection. However, it's today applied to for instance turning lanes. And you’re not today given the time to do so based on the solution that was developed back in 1959.

CO: But the thing is though is that you weren't trying to make money. You weren't selling yourself. You were putting a shingle out and starting a business. You just simply wrote this email to point out what was wrong with yellow lights. What did you what did you hope or think you're going to get in the way of reaction from the board?

MJ: Unfortunately, the red light camera industry is exploiting this dilemma and the statistics from their citation data clearly shows that. And however, that's something they don't want to share obviously because it's making them money. And I feel like I'm doing a civil service here to try to avoid innocent people having to pay in Beaverton $260 for making a safe right hand turn and getting caught in this dilemma.

CO: And this is what your wife had done. She was making this is what started you isn't it that your wife had got a ticket for being caught in an intersection less than a fraction of a second too long?

MJ: Correct. So she shouldn't have gotten a ticket if it was done right. And I started to talk to the city council members in Beaverton, but they literally ignored me and literally laughed at me at some of those meetings that I went into. And I'm stubborn. I want to make sure that people understand this and bring it out to the public because I don't think it's fair.

CH: From our archives, Mats Jarlstrom speaking with Carol in 2017.

[Music]

Iran family in Edmonton

Guest: Reza Akbari

CH: Amir Hossein Saeedinia's family should have been grieving his lost life. Instead, they say they had to flee Iran because they feared for their own. Mr. Saeedinia was an Iranian graduate student who was on his way to study at the University of Alberta. He was killed when Iran shot down Flight 752 over Tehran. Now his parents, younger brother, and aunt are seeking refugee status in Edmonton because they say the Iranian regime threatened their lives. Reza Akbari is the president of the Iranian Heritage Society of Edmonton, which helped the family get to Canada. We reached him in Edmonton.

CO: Reza, first of all, can you tell us how Amir's family is doing now that they have arrived in Edmonton?

REZA AKBARI: They are obviously emotionally devastated. We as a community, Iranian community in Edmonton, we doing our best to making sure that they're not alone. We spend time with them on different timing throughout the day and night. But pretty much in many occasions the family, particularly his mother -- Amir Hoosein's mother -- mentioned that when you look at the different buildings, the streets, that this is a place that my son was supposed to walk, and he's supposed to be here, not me.

CO: So this young man, Amir Hossein, was on his way to Canada. He was on that flight from Iran to study at the University of Alberta. And he never made it. That must have been just a devastating for the family to put so many hopes in this young man.

RA: Yeah, absolutely. His father mentioned, when he became an adult -- going by himself alone in the streets -- he always was worried for him. He said the only night that I was not worried and I was happy was when Amir was leaving the home -- that was the night that we were wrapping his luggage, getting him to the airport. And he never made it.

CO: So now, of course, not only did they get this horrible news of him not making it, he was on that flight -- but then the family then had trouble with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. Why were they threatened by the Revolutionary Guard after their son was killed?

RA: It's a very good, valid question. And I have to tell you, this is not the only case of Amir Hossein. Many families and many students, I'm sure many of them have already spoke. And this is a way because, simply, the government wants to create a different picture of the event and wants to create their own propaganda. And in order to do it, they need the family to accept, behave, say, and do things that the government wants them to do. And once they don't do that, they start creating pressure. And as much as they continue to increase the level of pressure and brutality on the family.

CO: And particularly as I understand it, Amir Hossein's mother, Leila Latifi -- she wouldn't be quiet about it. She wanted to make it clear that the government of Iran had killed their son by shooting down the plane.

RA: Absolutely. That's one of the first things she told the group of volunteers when we went to pick them up at the airport. The first thing she said, "I can't speak English. But please put me in front of Mr. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau or the foreign minister. I want to tell them what they have done to us. I want them to follow the justice."

CO: So the mother, the father, younger brother, and the aunt of Amir Hossein -- this family has now arrived in Canada. How how difficult was it for them to get out? How did they manage to escape from Iran?

RA: I don't know the details of it. All I can tell you is the moment we started this pressure, we heard that the pressure escalated -- and Lelia's sister, she lives in Germany. And she helped them through the visa process, contacted the embassy of Canada. And the moment they know their story. We also, as a community, conveyed this story to our foreign minister of Canada. And immediately they helped them with the visa process. And the moment the their visa was approved, they just left everything behind -- just right away to the airport and left Iran.

CO: Now, since the family has arrived in Edmonton, you say they don't speak any English. They're here on a on a temporary visa. What are they going to do? How are they going to manage now?

RA: Well, it's their choice. I mean, obviously, we as a community member, as any individual -- we did not like recommend any particular way or anything. Our intention was bringing them to the safe environment. And at the same time, to see how we can help as an individual to another human being. And to add to that -- a story we hear from the family, they're not going to be safe for returning to Iran.

CO: And so will they apply for refugee status in Canada then?

RA: I think that's the only option on the table. And it's the only option that makes sense in every regard. Particularly the individual committee members -- we created a team to help the family to cope with this kind of situation and at the same time helping them to merge into their new community.

CO: It's such a double tragedy, isn't it? They lost their son. They lost this lovely young man who was coming to Canada. And then they had to flee themselves to safety in Canada.

RA: It is unbelievable. Like I can tell you that it's true --they left everything behind. They are saying that money and dollars, nothing can bring back our son. And this son was very special. He was not just a son, he was the whole fundamental and foundation of this family. He helped the family to where they are. He was handle in the family himself as a 25 years old young man. He had quite a bit of responsibility on his shoulders. And the future dream of his family was everything related with his dream. And now it's all parish and it's gone. His mom is saying, "Every day I get up with the hope to get closer and pursue the path of justice. That's all I care about."

CO: Reza I'm glad that you and the others of the Iranian community are there to help them in Edmonton. And it's a very sad story. I appreciate you telling us about it. Thank you.

RA: Thank you.

CH: Reza Akbari is the president of the Iranian Heritage Society of Edmonton. We reached him in Edmonton.

[Music]

Javier Perez de Cuellar

CH: Javier Perez de Cuellar was a man who once stood as a pillar of peace. Mr. de Cuellar was the United Nations Secretary General from 1982 to 1991. Over two terms, the chief mediator brokered peace in regions of conflict from Afghanistan to El Salvador. And in 1988, he struck a cease fire deal between Iran and Iraq, which was no small feat since it required the United States and the Soviet Union to work together during the Cold War. But his efforts weren't always successful. In 1991, he was not able to avert what would become the Gulf War, despite flying to Baghdad to speak to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein himself. Javier Perez de Cuellar died yesterday in Lima, Peru. He was 100 years old. In 1998, when then U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan was on his way to negotiate with Saddam Hussein and prevent an air attack on Iraq, our former host Mary Lou Finlay gave Mr. de Cuellar a call. From our archives, here's part of their conversation from February 1998.

SOUNDCLIP

MARY LOU FINLAY: If this mission fails then, would you then support military force?

JAVIER PEREZ DE CUELLAR: If Mr. Saddam Hussein comes back empty handed, and then the Security Council has to decide whether they authorize or not. They know the country's is not prepared for the military attack to do that. If they don't have the authorization of the Security Council -- well, obviously, it would be illegal a decision from the countries (such as) United States, Great Britain, and others. It would be illegal because of the charter of the United Nations says that now no country can use force without the authorization of the Security Council, with exception, of course, of self-defence.

MARY LOU FINLAY: Mr. de Cuellar if you were arguing before the Security Council members, though, and Mr. Annan came back with no agreement, would you recommend that they approve the use of force then or not?

JAVIER PEREZ DE CUELLAR: Well, it's very difficult for me to say, you know, because I am a man of peace. And I think that we should perhaps consider some other way of solving this problem without using force. Because, you know, we don't know about the consequences, not only for Iraq, but for the rest of the world -- as a whole. We never know what could be the reaction in this loving world which sometimes has bad reactions. I am afraid of the consequences, not only the consequences of human lives, which is already terrible -- as well as the political consequences.

CH: There was former U.N. Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar speaking with our former host Mary Lou Finlay in February 1998. Mr. de Cuellar died yesterday in Lima, Peru. He was 100 years old.

[Music]

Part 3: Russia/China missiles

Russia/China missiles

Guest: Rob Huebert

CH: Yesterday in Ottawa, Jonathan Vance, Canada's Chief of Defence Staff, gave a speech that was not intended to be reassuring.

SOUNDCLIP

JONATHAN VANCE: North America is no longer dealing with the threat of ballistic missiles alone. We're facing new, more advanced conventional missiles that can be launched from further away, travel faster, and are more maneuverable. Even a modest attack could hamper or cripple Canadian response to crisis or harm Canadians or critical infrastructure. I think it's up to all of us here in this room to communicate clearly about why this matters. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not talking about fear mongering. I'm not talking about sensationalism. I'm talking about honest and informed discussions about the world that we're in.

CH: General Vance was speaking to the Ottawa Conference on Security and Defence. He went on to say that Russia and China threatened the rules based international order on a daily basis. Rob Huebert is a defense analyst at the University of Calgary. We reached him in Calgary.

CO: Mr. Huebert we just heard General Jonathan Vance, the comments he was making. He says that he's using strong words, but he is not fear mongering, not using sensationalism. How do you respond to what he had to say yesterday?

ROB HUEBERT: To a certain degree, it's about time. Better late than never. But this recognition of the growing Russian threat -- it is something that has been developing for a very long time. But it is good to see that our senior leadership is starting to recognize it both in terms of the new types of weapons that are coming online, but also the intent behind the countries that are ultimately utilizing them.

CO: What is the new threat?

RH: Well, the main new threat is, of course, on the technological side are the hypersonics. These are new missiles that can be launched within the atmosphere, traveling anywhere between 5 to 20 times the speed of sound, and are maneuverable. Which in effect mean they cannot be defended against, and in many instances cannot even be detected until they are actually hitting the target.

CO: And what defences in North America do we have against these kinds of missiles?

RH: We have a series of 1985 vintage detection systems. And that is, of course, the North Warning System that most people say simply will not be able to really provide any meaningful detection of these weapons. We are the only NATO country, of course, along with South Korea and Japan that have very specifically said we are not part of the American ABM system. So the reality is we have nothing really to protect against these weapons systems at all.

CO: It was striking also in the remarks that General Vance made that he spoke a great deal about the Arctic, as he says, an avenue of approach and that people are talking about the Arctic as opening up to tourism or to shipping. But he warns that this is a threat to North America. This is the kind of talk that we haven't heard since the Cold War.

RH: No. In fact, to a certain degree, I think what it illustrates is you, at least in my opinion, that the Cold War never really ended. What we're finally starting to wake up to is the fact that the Russian intent, which they told us they're going to do in 2007, was the re-militarization of the Arctic region to protect their nuclear deterrent. And in times in which they are directly opposed to North American and Canadian interests, they will be increasingly utilizing the north in this context. I mean, our reaction and I just want to point out that it's good to see Vance doing it because, of course, his predecessor, Natynczyk, when he was Chief of Defence Staff whenever he was talking about the Russians he was always making a joke out of it, saying, "Well, we'd have to go rescue the Russians." I'm glad to see that's not the case now.

CO: He said we need people who challenge the status quo, who force us to recognize our own biases and limitations in thinking. And this is the statement he's making. He says, because it's all changing: defense, the global security, environment, society and more. What is he trying tell us?

RH: Well, I think that we've been much too complacent. I mean, in the Arctic specifically, we drank the Kool-Aid and believed our own propaganda, that the Arctic is an exceptional zone. That somehow all the other actions in Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, that we see the Russians involved with, somehow did not affect the Arctic. When in fact, the Arctic represented the most strategic important zone for the Russians. And in fact, that we have to start looking beyond it. I think what he's calling for, when he says we have to start having those that break the status quo -- we need to stop sleepwalking to the fact that we just simply believe that there is no problem and no threat facing us, particularly in the Arctic region.

CO: General Vance also speaks of China. Russia and China are the two threats that he sees to the world order, as we now have it. And says that China is developing same weapons. But also points to the cyber security issues with China. What is he telling us about China?

RH: Well, I think in China, first and foremost, they're the ones that are actually leading on the hypersonics. The Russians under Putin are trying to say that they are sort of the leaders of it. But most of the open literature seems to be pushing to the Chinese. Regardless of which one of them is developing, both of them are getting this capability. We already know that when it comes to the Arctic, the Chinese have declared themselves a near Arctic state. We are going to be seeing from a strategic perspective, the Chinese increasingly bringing military assets into the region as they started doing back in 2015. And so I think about what Vance is saying is that we need to recognize that there are now not only just the Russians that we face in the Arctic, but we'll be facing others. And that is, of course, the Chinese. The other factor and the fact that he is actually openly talked about the cyber threat. I think the thing that is so hard for Canadians to accept is, in fact, that we see direct evidence that the Chinese and the Russians are trying to undermine both democracy and solidarity amongst the NATO members through their attacks on cyber capabilities. I mean, once again, if we look at what happened with Cambridge Analytica, we know pretty convincingly that the Russians were involved in promoting the British move away from the EU. We know from the Mueller report that the Russians were involved in the context of the American elections. And so we look right across the board. And when we see, the technology, the hypersonic weapons being developed, we need to put out in conjunction that the Chinese and the Russians are very interested in doing whatever they can to basically divide the allies and actually attack our very democratic principles. And I think that this is something that's very hard for Canadians to really come to grips with.

CO: But you know that Canadians are not inclined toward military responses, that they are always wanting our government to seek other ways of responding to these threats, to be peacemaker, to be the force out there that's looking for the middle ground. And so do you really think that when General Vance makes these kinds of remarks, do you think that they resonate with Canadians?

RH: No, I don't think the evidence suggests that Canadians want to hear that type of a message. I mean, Canadians want to hear the message that if we only talk to the Chinese and the Russians in reasonable terms, that they'll see the correctness of the Canadian position. After all, we are Canadians. And unfortunately, the reality is that may work when conflicts or issues are caused by mistake or misunderstandings. Talking nicely to an adversary that is clearly intent on using military force only to achieve their objectives simply plays to the adversary's advantage. So, you know, I'm pessimistic that it's going to reach Canadians, but at least he's being honest to Canadians, something that I don't necessarily think that all of our leaders have been when it comes to talking about Arctic security.

CO: We will leave it there. Mr. Huebert, thank you.

RH: It's always my pleasure, Carol.

CH: Rob Huebert is an assistant professor at the University of Calgary. We reached him in Calgary.

[Music]

Carole James

CH: Carole James has held a lot of news conferences as a politician in British Columbia. About political issues. But she says she didn't imagine she'd be talking to journalists about the news she shared today. The B.C. Finance Minister and deputy premier announced that she was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in January. Here's some of what Carole James had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

CAROLE JAMES: This past summer, I began to notice that I had a few unique symptoms going on physically. I developed a hand tremor and found my balance was off a few times. It was the end of session and I explained it away as tiredness, and I just needed a break. I went to my family doctor at the end of August and I mentioned at the very end of my physical that I've had a few odd symptoms. She did a check and suggested that we get checked out just to make sure there wasn't anything to worry about and referred me to a neurologist. I had the neurologist appointment at the very end of January and I've been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. One of the first pieces of advice that the neurologist gave me was to take some time. Take some time to get over the shock, the shock that everyone would feel with a life changing diagnosis. I also told the premier during that time, and I want to express my appreciation to him for his incredible support and his friendship. And then, of course, I also add a budget that I had to deliver [chuckles] over those few weeks as well. Which brings us to today. Parkinson's, as many of you will know, it's a progressive neurological disease. It's not a disease that anyone wants, but it's also not a terminal diagnosis. You don't die from Parkinson's. You die with Parkinson's. Symptoms generally develop slowly and the progress of the disease varies from person to person. There isn't a cure and there's also no way to stop the progression. But there are medications and treatments to be able to help with the symptoms as they arrive. So for me currently, I have a hand tremor, that right now is manageable. I have to be a little more careful with my balance, but I haven't noticed any other major symptoms. And so there isn't a need for me right now to start on medication. So why am I sharing this news right now? Well, I do think it's important for me to be open with what I'm facing. And it's also because I'm not unique. There are between 10,000 and 13,000 people in our province who are living with Parkinson's.

CH: That was B.C. Finance Minister Carole James at a news conference today where she announced she'd been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. She says she will not run for re-election next year.

[Music]

Stan Douglas

Guest: Stan Douglas

CH: In a recent interview, Vancouver artist Stan Douglas was asked what it meant to him that he'll be representing Canada at the 2021 Venice Biennale. He said he was planning a work that would have special resonance in Europe -- something with a more global or internationalist reach. He also said, I have some ideas which I won't tell you. Well, the 59th Venice Biennale starts in May. And there will be a lot of eyes on Mr. Douglas's work. Last year's event attracted nearly 600,000 visitors. And some of his cinematic, highly detailed film, and video work was there. Among Stan Douglas's most celebrated pieces is a 15-metre photo mural depicting the Gastown Riot in Vancouver in 1971. So he works on a big canvas with big ideas. We're hoping he'll tell us one or two of the new big ideas that he refused to share with that interviewer for the new work he'll make for the Canadian Pavilion in Venice. We reached him at his art studio in Vancouver.

CO: Stan, first of all, big congratulations.

STAN DOUGLAS: Thank you very much.

CO: What does it mean for you to be chosen to represent Canada at the Venice Biennale?

SD: Of course, it's an amazing honour. I mean, the people who have shown there in the past have been quite extraordinary. So to be among that group is quite an honor.

CO: But now you have been at the Venice Biennale before, right, with your doppelganger debut?

SD: Yes. And four times in the group exhibitions.

CO: How different is this? This is on a much more massive scale when you're representing Canada. What's the canvas, so to speak, that you are going to be working with?

SD: Well, the building -- I'm not sure if you know it -- but the building for Canada is quite a quirky pavilion. But I saw it last year and realized that it has really amazing daylight. So we still have to rework the building a little bit to, you know, use that -- use that possibility. Often people try to deny what the building really is, but really it was made for showing reflective art. So I'll show four large format photographs there. And we're finding an offsite space to show a video installation.

CO: Okay. So have you already figured out what you're going to show of your work?

SD: I have, but I won't tell you. [Laughter] Because it's bad luck to do that.

CO: I knew you were not going to tell me. I thought I could catch you off guard.

SD: In general, I'm looking at the whole phenomena of 2011. It is the 10th anniversary of 2011 which is a time when you had world events kind of in opposition to being under represented by governments -- first the Arab Spring, the U.K. riots, Occupy Wall Street, and even the Vancouver riots as well. So these phenomena, I believe, are kind of like our version of 1848, which is when the 19th century -- the bourgeoisie felt they weren't represented and had revolutions in virtually every country in Europe. This happened worldwide in 2011.

CO: Okay. That's the inspiration. But that's a very large story. I know you deal with narratives in your work. But do you have an idea how you can use the space and incorporate all the different ways that you actually do tell your stories?

SD: I do. [Both laugh]

CO: See I tried again and it didn't work. I did it.

SD: You're not going to get me.

CO: Let's tell people a bit about what you have done in the past -- about some of the other work you've had. Maybe describe what are you most famous pieces: Abberton & Cordova. And tell us what that was about.

SD: Sure. That was a public artwork -- actually a wall of an atrium at the Woodward's Complex here in Vancouver, which is in the downtown east side, which is an area that had always been kind of a sort of a nexus for working class people. But the character changed quite radically in the 1980s -- or 70s and 80s -- where it became an area where a lot of [inaudible] and poverty was kind of like, in a way, quarantined in the city. So they kind of kept it all here. And in a way, I feel at this event, the Gastown Riot of 1971 was in many ways a catalyst for that. The corner of the block is what's depicted in these shots where you see this activity of various confrontation with hippies and police. The hippies basically felt they're being harassed by police as they're a sort of moving into industrial spaces and in Gastown and being treated like drug dealers and that kind of thing. So they felt entitled as they are middle class kids. And had this festival, which was shut down by the police. And then became very confused once the conflicting missions of clearing the streets -- and the narks was identified what they call trouble makers were being detained. So this conflict with horses became just kind of out of control. So I painted a picture of that -- sort of this periphery of that without explanation, without any sort of moralisation. But I think it's kind of a relic for what happened in the neighbourhood.

CO: And that wasn't just a small thing, a small gesture or work. You re-imagined an enormous canvas, so to speak, and you spent about half a million dollars choreographing the characters and showed what happened in that 1971 Gastown riot in Vancouver. So what was it you wanted to tell? What is it in that and the other works were you have had a political angle to it -- what do you want to say about these social events?

SD: It changes from work to work. It is different in every case. But it's often taking some transitional moment or a moment in a cultural history where things were transformed. These are things that I look for wherever I work in -- be at Cuba, Detroit, Paris, Berlin. All these places have these events which I try to seek out minor histories basically.

CO: It's been reported that you will be the first -- the very first black Canadian to actually represent Canada at the Venice Biennale. Does that matter to you?

SD: I don't think about it that way. You know it is important for that kind of representation to come out. I mean, more important for me in many ways is that Indigenous Canadians get represented in that venue. But of course, the black community is a very important part of the culture and that's also important too.

CO: And so do you think that the art scene in Canada is still largely an elitist, very white kind of a world in Canada -- do you think that that much has changed since you began to do art?

SD: That's a good question. I don't think much has changed at all. But, you know, the culture changes from region to region. There is this kind of probably old money in Montreal and Toronto. There's a sort of indifference towards art in Vancouver, and that kind of makes it a good place to make art because there's no career pressure to do certain kinds of work or to have a certain success because most people don't care. [Chuckles]

CO: And for your work, it's very difficult to actually put you into any category, isn't it? So as you create this work -- more than the work, but this this exhibition for 2021, I'll try one more time to see if I can get some secrets out of you. I know jazz and blues has been a big part of your work in the past, will you bring music into it?

SD: There will be a music piece. Yes.

CO: [Both laugh] Okay. Come on. Give me credit for trying.

SD: [Laughs] It's still kind of in in its early stages. And I'm not entirely sure where to go. I have a rough idea. I'm not sure where it's going to go. And last time I described a thing which I hadn't really started, it turned out badly.

CO: [Laughs] Okay. I won't push you. Just for that alone, I won't push you. Stan, I wish you best of luck with it. Thank you very much.

SD: Thank you. Okay. Thanks.

CH: Stan Douglas is an artist who was recently chosen to represent Canada at the 2021 Venice Biennale. We reached him in Vancouver.

[Music]

Bringing the heat

CH: He can take the heat. And it has got him into the Guinness again. The Guinness World Records, that is. Mike Jack of London, Ontario, holds the new record for most ghost peppers eaten in two minutes: 246 grams worth. Torching the previous record set by an Italian who eat 146 grams. This is Mr. Jack's third Guinness Record win for eating ghost peppers. He also holds the fastest time for eating three, which he did in just under 10 seconds. And last year, he also took the record for most ghost peppers eaten in a minute. Just so we're clear, the ghost pepper is one of the hottest in the world, but not the hottest. And Mike Jack once held the record for eating the most of an even hotter one: The Carolina Reaper. It's the third hottest, according to the Scoville Heat Unit Scale. Yes, there's a scale for measuring the stuff. Back in 2016, Carol spoke with Troy Primo, who is developing the Louisiana Creeper, which he claimed was the hottest pepper in the world.

SOUNDCLIP

TROY PRIMO: Well, you know, I ask people, what's hot to you? And there's different levels of it. So for most people hot might be nacho rings -- you know, jalapeno nacho rings. For some people it might be Tabasco sauce. But this is a whole another level of hot. These ultra-hot, you know, 1.5 million Scoville -- the Ghost pepper is like one million. And it is just a facial violation rush. You know, your body's in fight or flight panic mode and you want to get away from it. Your body thinks it's poisoned. Lot to do with some people throwing up. You know, it's trying to get out the poison. When your nose is runny and you're sneezing and coughing. Your body is trying to react and get rid of that. And it's just kind of like a bear is chasing you or a deer in headlights. Your heart's pumping. You've just been in a car wreck. And that can last for 30 minutes. I've heard of, you know, the chili heads -- they kind of triggered their affection towards peppers, these chili heads as a legal high or a feel good effect. And that's the endorphin and rush it gives you. Not unlike a marathon runner, and why they want to keep pushing and pushing further and further.

CO: Now, yours is the Louisiana Creeper.

TROY PRIMO: Correct. Correct. Well, that's the new one we're working on. My current pepper is 1.47-million Scoville. And the world record is 1.5. So we're really close there. But the Louisiana Creeper is going to outperform the world's hottest pepper. The preliminary data is off the charts. So we hope to have that out next year.

CO: Why does it matter to you?

TROY PRIMO: I'm obsessed. [Laughs] Just like all these chili heads. I'm obsessed. I'm also a nursing student, turned horticulturists. So it's science. It's like going to the moon. Why did we go to the moon? The scientist in me wants to keep pushing that envelope. There's a lot of pros, but unfortunately there's a lot of cons. And mostly that's not with the pepper going in, but it's going out. [Laughter]

CO: You mean the other end?

TROY PRIMO: Yeah. You can edit that, but put the tp in the fridge, you know. [Laughs]

CO: So it gets you coming and going.

TROY PRIMO: Exactly.

CH: From our archives, Louisiana Creeper Pepper producer Troy Primo speaking with Carol in 2016.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

March 5, 2020 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode