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

The AIH Transcript for September 26, 2017

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

CAROL OFF: Hello I'm Carol off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

CO: The squeaky wheel gets the keys. Saudi Arabia says it's now OK for women to drive, and we ask one activist who fought the ban how she'll exercise her new right to go for a spin.

JD: Challenging the status quo? Liberal MPs walk out of the Committee on the Status of Women when the Conservatives try to install a chair who is said to be anti-abortion.

CO: They're calling it the “river of tears.” The body of another young and didn't this person is pulled from the water in Thunder Bay, leaving one regional chief to console yet another family.

JD: Breaking the ice. Former NHLer George Laraque says the Pittsburgh Penguins decision to walk into Donald Trump's White House is an embarrassment, when so many other pro athletes are taking a knee.

CO: Lox’em up and throw away the key. Neighbours of some of Montreal's most famous bagel bakeries say the smoke that makes the chili round so delicious is leaving a cloud over their whole lives.

JD: And the self-fish scream. UK scientists deploy a dismembered garden ornament to terrify guppies into giving them clues about their fishy little personalities. As It Happens, the Tuesday edition. Radio that promises you an amazing cast of characters.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Saudi Arabia driving, Thunder Bay death, Georges Laraque

Saudi Arabia driving

Guest: Wajeha Al Huwaider

JD: In Saudi Arabia today, women won a hard-fought battle to get behind the wheel. King Salman issued a royal decree that will soon allow women to drive. His Kingdom is the only country in the world where women are banned from driving. Wajeha Al Huwaider has fought for women's rights in Saudi Arabia for years. In 2008, she defied the law and posted videos of herself driving a car to YouTube. We reached Ms. Al Huwaider on vacation in Beirut.

CO: Ms. Al Huwaider, what is it like to hear the news that women will soon be able to drive in Saudi Arabia?

WAJEHA AL HUWAIDER: I am so happy! I got so excited. I was sitting in this restaurant and then telling everybody who don't know me at all. They know nothing about today, and I'm telling them you guys, you don’t know what happened. We are going to drive; women are allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia. They were looking at me like what are you saying? So I'm really, really happy with what happened and I was expecting things like that because you know since then new king, we've been hearing good news every now and then and we are I think the country is moving to the right direction.

CO: Now you’re saying the people you're telling — the people in the restaurant — you are in Beirut right now on holidays. I guess they must know that women can't drive in Saudi Arabia, women can Lebanon and other countries in the Arab world, so how are people reacting to your news?

WAH: They're kind of puzzled. Some of them didn’t know, even though we are in the same region. But you know we are the only women in the whole world who don’t get to drive. But now we are like everybody. We are normal women; we can.

CO: Why do you think that King Salman decided to make this order today?

WAH: You know we had our National Day in September 23rd and I thought I was expecting it on that day, but it didn't happen. But he had you know changed different laws. And the biggest thing he did he removed the religious police from Park Place, so women and men can have their own private places outside. So I think we are going to open up the country more and more with the vision of the new king.

CO: Do you think he's getting much pushback from the clerics?

WAH: Of course, you know that was expected. I mean it happens everywhere, but you cannot please everybody. But that's the right decision because it's not fair that what happened to women. They have to pay a lot of money to bring private drivers and some of them they have to stay home because they cannot afford to have a driver and you know they don't get really good income from jobs. So if you want to improve the situation in the country you have to give that right to everybody. You know to move freely, to find a job, to you know contribute.

CO: I know you've been fighting this issue for years and we've spoken with you before. In 2008, you got quite a lot of attention from around the world. You posted a video of yourself driving a car and breaking the law. How much risk were you taking to shoot those videos and promote women driving?

You know, remember, this is only one of my campaigns. I had many campaigns I've done many. And I got asked by the police to come and I signed some documentation to do any more activities. But it was not accepted, of course, they had to arrest me. They have to come bring them and they make them sign and they make the husband or the brother or the father to sign the same document not to allow her to drive, so that was the action they take.

CO: I know you represent a lot of different causes and rights you have had for women's rights, but in this particularly one with driving, why was the Saudi king — why was the Saudis’ — so against women getting behind the wheel?

WAH: I think you know from the beginning when you think about when the car came to this country, even when bicycles came to this country, they thought women cannot handle it, it's too much for women. But they contradict themselves. Women in the old time before cars they used to use whatever was available like horses, camels and bedouins you know they used to move freely. But when cars came, they thought this machine should be handled by men. The, religion made it forbidden, but actually it's not part of religion. It has nothing to do with it at all. And we had fatwa in 1990, when women 40 women drove cars in Riyadh. Actually they should be also given the credit because the first people who went on the street — the first woman who went on the street and demonstrated. The reaction was so strong the government had to stop it.

CO: You're going to go home soon from your holiday in Lebanon and I guess you're going to drive. So where are you going to go on your first outing in the car?

WAH: I have my son who’s driving me. I can drive myself; I have my own car, so maybe I'm going to go to work. Finally I can drive from my home to work on the road in the city because I drive everywhere except in the city. Women in Saudi Arabia can drive in the desert and in a closed compound. But finally we are going to drive on real streets and in the city. So maybe I'll just go to work.

CO: Ms. Al Huwaider, thank you.

WAH: Thank you. Bye bye.

Thank you. Bye bye.

We reached Wajeha Al Huwaider in Beirut, Lebanon, where she is vacationing. For more on this story, do go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih

[Music: Cultural]

Thunder Bay Death

Guest: Anna Betty Achneepineskum

JD: There was another horrifying and sadly familiar discovery in a thunder Bay waterway this weekend. The body of a 21-year-old Indigenous man was found in the Neebing McIntyre Floodway. He has now been identified as Dylan Moonias of Fort hope and Marten Falls First Nation. The cause of death is not yet known. His body has been flown to Toronto for a post-mortem. Mr. Moonias is now the ninth Indigenous person to be found dead in the city's waterways since the year 2000. Anna Betty Achneepineskum is the deputy Grand Chief of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation. We reached her in Thunder Bay.

CO: Chief Achneepineskum, first of all, I'm sorry to hear about the death of yet another young person in Thunder Bay.

ANNA BETTY ACHNEEPINESKUM: It's very sad, it's very disturbing and it's very alarming. And there's so many people affected by this.

CO: What did you think when you heard about yet another body? I mean there's nine now — nine people — pulled out of that river, seven of them teenagers. What did you think when you heard this news?

ABA: You know we go into a panic mode right away. We get full of fear and many of our people are responding the same way.

CO: There’s feelings of fear and being full of fear. Fearing what? Can you even identify what the threat is, given how little information there is now?

ABA: You know we don't know the circumstances, you know? And a lot of times, even after an investigation, it's still unclear. This is not only involving Dylan, we're talking about other cases the past as well. And for many of us, those aren't answered questions continue to haunt us.

CO: We know there’s seven indigenous teenagers pulled from the river since 2000. Dylan Moonias was 21-years-old, and then the other man was 41. So nine people found dead in that river since 2000, three of them in the last six months.

ABA: I need to make it clear that there have been deaths in the past before Jethro Anderson…

CO: Before 2000?

ABA: Yes. When I was standing on the shore after we had recovered one young man, a mother came by to console the mother of Josiah Begg, and she said that back in the 80s, her 14-year-old son had been pulled from the river. And he too was a student and that's a story that will we have you in my mind. It’s just very alarming that within over a 30 year span that there's two mothers that are sharing the same story.

CO: And for those who don't know, dJosiah Begg was just 14-years-old, and he was pulled from the river in May of this year. And now Dylan Moonias — the third young First Nations person to be found in this river — can you tell us a bit about Dylan?

ABA: Well Dylan is the eldest of the five children and he still lives with his parents. And I don't know him that well, but I do know that, being the eldest of his siblings, he helped take care of them. And he had many good friends. I met some of his friends who are really asking a lot of questions. And that is a really hard way to deal with grief when you have all these unanswered questions. So Dylan was very close with his mom and he she's taking it really hard, as we would expect.

CO: And questions with what answers? Are you getting answers from the police, the Office of the Independent Police Review Director is investigating whether there is racism within the Thunder Bay police service. There's questions about how these people died? How these young people died, but also how they were investigated or if they were investigated? What are the answers you're getting at this point?

ABA: You know a few years ago when that person was found deceased, within hours it was reported that it was either a suicide or an accidental death, which means to us and many that it was not an investigation that was conducted properly. As we continued to speak out about this and as many families come to us, it's very disturbing on how these investigations were handled. So that needs to be addressed. We're grateful that the review is taking place and that Senator Sinclair is now involved so that they're finally taking it seriously and with all the issues that we continue to read. We're not going to let this continue any more.

CO: And is this why when you say the community is full of fear that you just you don't know what's out there, what's causing these deaths?

ABA: Yeah, and not only that, but when there’s concern about their family members. As you know Thunder Bay is a hub for people to come here for medical services and resources. They come here for education and for employment. We have many of our citizens that are Nishnawbe Aski Nation members. So when we hear a death, we fear that it is a homicide.

CO: You say that you can't have any peace of mind with so many questions. Is there anything out there that is going to answer the questions? Because there are all these reviews, there are some investigations. Do you see a place where you might find out answers?

ABA: There’s some things that we're doing in terms of prevention. We are now doing more awareness, especially for our students. We promote safety as much as we can. And we're now continuing to work with Thunder Bay police services in order for us to build a more trusting relationship. And also, we have taken steps to do things at the community level in terms of crime prevention.

CO: I understand that includes some patrols of the river banks that I think you’ve been a part of?

ABA: I brought The Bear Clan patrol into the city here. We started our patrol in May; we go to certain parts of the city, including the river way, just to be extra eyes.

CO: Well, Chief Achneepineskum, I really hope you get answers to at least some of these questions. They’re very important and you get some peace of mind. And I appreciate you speaking with us.

ABA: All right. Thank you very much.

CO: Bye bye.

ABA: Bye.

JD: Anna Betty Achneepineskum is the deputy grand chief of Nishnawbe Aski Nation. We reached her in Thunder Bay.

[Music: Somber]

Georges Laraque

Guest: Georges Laraque

JD: Professional athletes continue to lock arms and take knees during and before the U.S. national anthem. It began as a protest against racism and police brutality, opposition from Donald Trump seems to have fanned its flames. It began in the NFL, but it has spread to almost all major sports… almost all. On Sunday, the Pittsburgh Penguins hockey team announced that they would accept Donald Trump's invitation to the White House, after winning the Stanley Cup earlier this year. That was the same day that nearly every pro football team released a statement or performed an on field gesture in defiance of the U.S. President. Georges Laraque is a former player for the Pittsburgh Penguins. We reached him in Montreal.

CO: Mr. Laraque, what do you make of the Penguins announcement that they've accepted the invitation to the White House?

GEORGES LARAQUE: Well, it's a bit embarrassing because I understand when people are saying that going to that institution is an honour. But, unfortunately, when you’re invited by Donald Trump and you accept his invitation, it's a kind of a form of endorsement. And we’re talking about a guy that has in history with disrespecting woman and a history with social issues. And the fact that he's called other athletes “sob” athletes that are your brothers. And when you see all this how could you endorse this? And I'm not even talking about kneeling down. I'm not even saying that they should be kneeling down and being a part of that process. All I'm saying is that if I won a Stanley Cup, the last thing and the last person I want to be taking a picture with will be Donald Trump.

CO: We from Sidney Crosby, captain of the Penguins, who said that the White House visit was and is, quote, “I support it. It's a great honor for us to be invited here. Everyone's got the right to go or not to go.” And so is your fellow Canadian, as black hockey player, what's it like to hear that?

GL: That has nothing to do with colours actually. To me, the fact that he said he wants to go there or not, like even bringing race into this, but when you make a decision to go there, you have to understand that it's not just an institution. You get invited by somebody and the view of him in the world is somebody that is not stable, somebody that is controversial, somebody that shouldn't be president, somebody that you're endorsing by going. He invited you somewhere. I'm sorry but if I don't like somebody, if somebody is disrespecting women and disrespecting athletes, I'm not going to accept his invitation and go to his home. So I have to respect the view of others if they endorse him and they want to go there anyway, take a picture with him and shake his hand. But for me, it’s something that I culd never do.

CO: But let's bring race into this because this has been the criticism for some days now that the NHL is not taking part in this protest against what Mr. Trump has been saying and against the issues that the players are taking up. And NHL hockey is overwhelmingly white, and the understanding is that it's very affluent and the players have perhaps the most affluent backgrounds and demographics and they avoid controversy and that they don't stand up for things and that it's a privilege group. What do you say to that?

GL: Hockey is a conservative sport and they don't stand for anything and that's the way it's always been. And that's why also that they're not popular in the States. Hockey is working so hard to be popular, to be known, that kids get to love hockey and watch and stuff. But it's last on the list what all the majors sports there is because of stuff like this. You know you're looking at this and hockey is at the perfect stage to be involved in this. To have people looking at this and say you know what? They're united, but it's going to be once again while the greatest athletes in the world: Lebron James, Michael Jordan, and people of the NFL, Brady, Aaron Rodgers you get all of them in one side and little hockey players with a conservative sports level on one side. Not saying anything, endorsing Trump and excited to go to the White House.

CO: And you don't think that's got to do with being white — anything to do with race?

GL: Again, I can't talk on behalf of the people that have decided not to go. You know we could assume that, but when you look at a team, there are many players on the team. So to say that the only reason is because of that like I can't talk on that. I know that hockey is conservative and issues like this are predominantly white. Obviously, that's why in issues like this they're not going to talk about it. You know you talk all the sports involved and 75 per cent of those sports are composed of black players. So, obviously, it would be different if hockey was composed differently. So maybe that's why? But to actually say with information that’s the reason, like I'm not an expert and I could only give my opinion to this and say that for myself, it's embarrassing that they're going to the White House. But maybe for some of the guys it's not. Maybe some of those guys love Trump, they endorse him and they think he's a great president. So for them they have their own reason that they want to go.

CO: There was just a few weeks ago, the NHL had its declaration of principles. It says that the league is open to everyone — every player — regardless of race, gender, sexuality, or any other characteristic. Do you think that this stand because it's not just that the penguins are going to the White House, it’s in general the NHL refusing to take a stand on this. Do you think that that puts a lie to that declaration of principles?

GL: No, no. Because the NHL is available for everyone. The NHL is open to all races and stuff. There's a lot of diversity in the NHL. On that point, it’s not going to change. And again, it's not to the NHL to say to Pittsburgh they cannot go there. I don't think they would tell the Penguins they’re not going to go. That has to be a personal decision. Like the Golden State Warriors was a personal decision not to go and rather than going, they decided to do diversity activities in Washington. So it has to be up to them. So I don't think it's to the league to do this because look at the NFL, the league responded and the teams responded. The league didn’t tell the teams to do this, so it had to be a personal choice. The NHL is diverse and we can’t say otherwise. Just to me it’s just the fact that the team should not go to the White House because it's like endorsing the president.

CO: Just finally would you take a knee if you were still playing?

GL: I don't know if I would. You know it's easy to say that I would because I like what Dallas did. What Dallas did was took a knee before the anthem and then they stood up. So that was another way to make a notion to that issue. But the one thing that I do know is that what the president is doing and is saying I'm not endorsing.

CO: We'll leave it there. Mr. Laraque, thank you very much for coming on the program.

JL: You're welcome. Thank you for having me.

JD: Georges Laraque is a former professional hockey player who played for several pro clubs, among them the Pittsburgh Penguins. We reached him in Montreal. Meanwhile, some coaches and team owners are joining their players and taking a knee and in speaking out about racial injustice and freedom of speech. Gregg Popovich, who is white, is the head coach of the San Antonio Spurs. He is also a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy, and served five years of required active duty in the U.S. Air Force. He says it is time for Americans to recognize that white privilege is real.

SOUNDCLIP

GREGG POPOVICH: You know, obviously, you know race is the elephant in the room and we all understand that. But unless it is talked about constantly it's not going to get better. People get bored. Oh is it that again? Are they pulling the race card again? Why do we have to talk about that? Well, because it's uncomfortable and there has to be an uncomfortable element in the discourse for anything to change. You know whether it's the LGBT movement or you know women's suffrage, race, it doesn't matter. People have to be made to feel uncomfortable and especially white people because we're comfortable, we still have no clue of what being born white means. And if you read some of the recent literature you'll realize it really is no such thing as whiteness. But we've kind of made it up. That's not my original thought, but it's true and it's hard to sit down and decide that yes, it’s like the 50 meter mark in a 100 meter dash and you got that kind of a lead yes because you were born white. You have advantages that are systemically, culturally, psychologically they're and they've been built up and cemented for hundreds of years. But many people can't look at it it's too difficult. It can't be something that is on their plate on a daily basis. People want to hold their position. People want the status quo. People don't want to give that up. And until it's given up it's not going to be fixed.

JD: For the record, that was Gregg Popovich, head coach of the NBA's San Antonio Spurs, speaking yesterday in San Antonio.

Part 2: Rachael Harder: Liberal, guppy study

Rachel Harder: Liberal

Guest: Pam Damoff

Typically, House of Commons committee meetings last an hour or maybe two. Today's Status of Women Committee meeting lasted a minute or two. The Liberal MPs on the committee walked out of the room. They were protesting the nomination of Conservative MP Rachel Harder as chair. And here's what that sounded like with Conservative MP Karen Vecchio on the mic first.

SOUNDCLIP

KAREN VECCHIO: I am proud to nominate Rachel Harder, the member from Lethbridge.

PAM DAMOFF: The Liberal members of the committee cannot support the opposition leader putting forward someone like Rachel harder, whose voting record is opposed to where women stand. And we cannot support Ms. Harder as chair; we have to leave the meeting.

SHEILA MALCOLMSON: Can we have continued comments on this? Can I call for quorum?

KV: Seeing as there is no quorum, this meeting cannot continue.

JD: In that clip, you heard Liberal MP and vice-chair of the Status of Women Committee, Pam Damoff, leading the walkout. We reached Ms. Damoff in Ottawa.

CO: Ms. Damoff, why did you and your liberal colleagues walk out of the committee meeting today?

PD: The leader of the opposition put forward the name of someone who does not support a woman's right to choose, and we firmly believe that the Status of Women Committee is an important committee and we need someone who will protect and advance women's rights as our chair.

CO: You mean your right to choose to have the option of abortion?

PD: That's correct.

CO: And how do you know that Rachel Harder doesn't support that?

PD: A few things: her voting record, but also she's spoken publicly about her feelings on that. And she's also awarded Canada summer jobs funding to groups who also support the same position.

CO: But her voting record, where is how she voted against it?

PD: She was a co-sponsor of Molly's Law, which was a private member's bill that was put forward, which would protect the rights of the unborn. Our party is pro-choice. The Supreme Court of Canada made a decision on it. So we don't want to go backwards in terms of women's rights in Canada.

CO: She was put forward by the Conservatives and we know that the leader of the Conservatives has said in the past he opposes abortion, but he says he's not going to revisit that issue. Why do you think that the party would be, and Rachel Harder in particular, would be a problem for that agenda?

PD: In particular, in the Status of Women Committee, one of her questions to the Minister for the Status of Women had to do with abortion. So I think she's been quite outspoken on the issue and is not representative of where the government thinks that the status of women and where women in Canada should be going.

CO: The Standing Committee on the Status of Women is dominated by Liberals at this point, is that right?

PD: Yes. It's the same as all committees quite frankly.

CO: And the opposition chooses the chair of the committee, is that right?

PD: They do. It's one of four committees in parliament where the rules dictate that it’s a member of the official opposition that is chair of it.

CO: after Question Period today, Andrew Scheer told reporters that it's unprecedented that the prime minister would interfere and block the nomination of a democratically elected member of parliament to serve as a chair of a committee. And he said that it shows a lack of respect for the parliamentary process. How do you respond to that?

PD: I would respond that the prime minister did not stop it; the Liberal members of the committee did. We have the ability to make those decisions on our own, which we did. I have no doubt the Prime Minister supports our decision, but this was not his decision. This was a decision by the Liberal members of the committee. I have to add supported by the NDP. Sheila Malclomson, the NDP member of the committee, has also been not in favour of having Rachel Harder as the chair of the committee.

CO: But Sheila Malcolmson… well, what happened in that meeting was very abrupt. Once this nomination was made, the Liberal members left the committee room but Sheila Malcolmson wanted to continue that. To have them nominate somebody else to pursue this further to see if they couldn't come up with some kind of compromise. But she didn't have quorum once you'd left the room. Do you really think that was the best strategy?

PD: There's no guarantee that if Sheila had put forward another name that that person would have accepted it and there would have been a vote. If we had stayed in the room and no one else was willing to accept the nomination as chair, then Rachel would have been acclaimed into the position.

CO: Rachel Harder does have a history of being involved in women's issues. She has spoken about them across the country. So is there other areas besides the issue of access to abortion where you oppose or differ with her so strenuously on the issues of the rights of women?

PD: On the rights of transgender she did not support Bill C-16, which was our bill to give transgender Canadians rights in Canada.

CO: She didn't cast a vote on the transgender rights in the House of Commons bill?

PD: She didn't cast a vote.

CO: So how do you know she opposes it?

PD: She doesn't support it or she would have cast a vote in favour of it. So you're, right you're right, she did not vote against it, but she also did not vote in favour of it.

CO: You have a majority in this committee and in the government; you're pursuing your policies. We saw at the United Nations this summer your proposal that you tabled for women everywhere to have access to safe abortions. So why isn't it possible to have someone who disagrees with your views, who is in other ways respectful of the same principles if not the same approaches? Is there nothing valuable in working with Rachel Harder in this regard?

PD: Well, I think you're misconstruing there a bit because Rachel's been a member of the committee for two years and we have worked with her. But a chair is very different and it sends a message about the direction that the committee wants to go in. So Rachel's been a member for two years. We've worked with all members of all parties on that committee quite well. But when you talk about our track record on a woman's right to choose, I think that speaks very well to the fact that it is important to this government and we'll take a stand when there's a message being sent by the leader of the opposition. Let's be clear, this is the leader of the opposition's choice. He has chosen someone who's anti-abortion to be his spokesperson on the status of women in Canada.

CO: But now this is a standing committee that's very important on the status of women. It has a lot of work on its agenda. So what now? I mean you don't have a chair, Mr. Scheer says he's not going to nominate somebody else. So this is just a stalemate. I mean how are you going to do your work?

PD: We'll get together as a committee and my hope is that Mr. Scheer will reconsider. And we don't want women in Canada to be going backwards. This is this is something that was decided years ago by the Supreme Court of Canada. And I think that says it all. We hope he’ll reconsider and choose someone from his party who will move us in the direction that we want to move in. We've worked well for two years. This isn’t a committee that hasn't worked well together, we have. We passed unanimously Rona Ambrose’s private member's bill on judicial education. So we're not a committee who has not worked well together — with Rachel as a member of the committee I might add.

CO: But can you just I mean just so I understand it, why do you believe that Rachel Harder as chair of this committee represents going backward for women?

PD: I believe the leader of the opposition has chosen someone with views that are taking women backwards in this country.

CO: If she's not putting those views forward, if she's not acting on them, if the party itself has said they're not going to act on those views what does it matter?

PD: Well, I think the party has acted on those views by choosing someone with that viewpoint as their spokesperson for women in Canada.

CO: All right. We'll leave it there. Ms. Damoff, thank you very much.

PD: Thank you.

JD: Pam Dsmoff is a Liberal MP, and the vice-chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee for the Status of Women. We reached Ms. Damoff in Ottawa. We did request an interview with Conservative MP Rachel Harder; we were told she was unavailable.

[Music: Folk]

From Our Archives: David Maines obit

JD: It began as a weekly 15 minute broadcast to the small Ontario city of Pembroke. David Maines would deliver his gospel message after the news. His wife, Norma-Jean, provided the musical talent. They called it “Crossroads”. 55 years later, “Crossroads” has morphed into the national daily show “100 Huntley Street”. Yesterday, Mr. Maines, the show's host and founder, died. He was 81-years-old. He began as a Protestant pastor in Canada. He fought for religious groups to be allowed to own and operate broadcast stations and founded Crossroads Christian Communication in 1962. Along the way, he became Canada's biggest name in televangelism. In 1985, Mr. Maines spoke with “Morningside” host Peter Gzowski about his first experience speaking in tongues. From our archives, here is part of that conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

DAVID MAINES: When this happened to me my mother had died when I was 12, and my dad was in Egypt, where he had spent some time, and he was back there as a missionary. He’d spent over 20 years there. My mother has been in all about 12 years there. And he just was away from me and I was away from him and I was going anywhere but the right direction at that point. And so in grade 12 high school, there were three Pentecostal fellows in my class who were really you know inspired on fire so to speak for God and they brought me to their church. And, as a result of their influence, plus a businessman that I worked for, who took me to a “Youth for Christ” rally, which was an interdenominational setting. I made my lifetime commitment to Christ. And not long after that, I saw the lives of these young men that they had they had a power they had an overcoming joie de vivre and I said you know what is this? And they began to open their Bibles and show me the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as it happened over and over again in the book of Acts. So I began to pray that I would be filled with the spirit and when I was filled with the Holy Spirit, I did speak in tongues and it was very unusual. In fact, I prayed for a long time I said Lord, please give me this, but don't let me speak in tongues I'll be in trouble with my dad. But lo and behold, this happened to me anyway.

PETER Gzowski: You had a prayer language.

DM: Yes, that's right.

PG: Does that still happen to you?

DM: Yes it does. And what this is, of course, is that we're speaking English right now. Essentially with our gray matter, which is but dust. that's dust and that'll go with the body OK to dust. When you're speaking in tongues, I believe you pray in tongues like the apostle Paul did. He said I thank my God I speak in tongues more than you all and he was I believe in his prayer life was allowing his eternal never dying being — his spirit if you will — was praying through him. In fact, in first Corinthians 14 that's what he says, my spirit prays when I speak in tongues. But my understanding is unfruitful. So the eternal being, which lives forever, is actually praying through you without having to go through this bottleneck, which is our gray matter.

JD: That was David Maines, speaking on CBC Radio's “Morning Side” in 1985. David Maines, the biggest name in Canadian televangelism, died yesterday. He was 81-years-old.

[Music: Spanish guitar]

Guppy study

Guest: Tom Houslay

JD: Scientists in England spent a month scaring the holy heck out of fish, in an effort to show that they have personalities. Interesting and scary sounding, especially when you consider that the researchers use predator stand-ins named “Grim” and “Big Al” to test their theory on dozens of Trinidadian guppies. The study was published in the journal Functional Ecology this week. Tom Houslay led this study. He is an associate research fellow at the University of Exeter. We reached Mr. Houslay at his home in Cambridge.

CO: Mr. Houslay, first off, what were you trying to figure out by putting these fish in stressful situations?

TOM HOUSLAY: Well, what we really want to know is we want to understand why animals behave the way that they do? What we're really interested in is differences between individuals in the way that they behave. The term animal personality means the individuals of the same species from the same populations behave differently and that these differences are consistent over time. So what we do is we put them into new and unfamiliar situations and see how their behavior changes. And then we do this repeatedly on known individuals, so that we can tell whether these differences in behavior are consistent. And so that’s what we mean by animal personality.

CO: And how did you do this particular study? What did you do to these guppies to find this out?

TH: So, first off, we take a group of guppies and each individual get tagged with a small piece of colour so that we can tell individuals apart. So over the course of four weeks, we repeatedly take a single individual out and place them into a new tank and we then film their behavior for a several minutes. Where the fish moves and how they behave in this new environment.

CO: And then what do you do to them?

TH: What we really wanted to know as well is whether these differences between individuals persist when we change the environment? In this case, making it more risky or seem more dangerous by introducing the threat of predators. In the wild, the predators of the guppies can be other larger fish or they can be birds like herons and kingfishers. Luckily, we had a large predatory fish in the lab, so what we could do is put that in another tank and then show this to the guppy and see how they respond. I should say that there was glass in between the two, so no guppies were eaten in the process.

CO: And the other fish is named “Big Al”?

TH: Yes, it is after the professor who runs this research group.

CO: And then you had another predator or appearance of a predator. Can you tell us about “Grim”?

TH: Yes. The other predator of these fish in the wild are herons and kingfishers. Unfortunately, we don't have any herons or kingfishers lying around in the lab, so we had to improvise a little. What we did was take a garden ornament of a Herron, we chopped the head off that and strapped it to a pulley system, which meant that when we pull the string then this heron head would fly into the water and scare the guppy into thinking that there is a predator attack from above.

CO: Now, I'm guessing the fish reacted to all this pretty quickly. I mean it must have been terrifying. So what did they do?

TH: So all of the fish that we tested this on became more cautious. The interesting thing is when we tested them in the open arena without any threat of predators we found all these differences between them. They're also much more complex than we anticipated. Some of them would hide in the shelter. Some of them would try to escape. Others were bolder and move into the center of the tank and start exploring. After we introduce the predator threat, then all of our fish would become more cautious. But we still find these consistent differences between these individual fish, no matter what the situation we put them in.

CO: And so does that mean that they have personalities?

TH: Yes. So personality is defined as individuals of the same species from the same populations that consistently differ in how they behave. So what we found was that there are these personality differences that are complex and also that these personality differences remain stable over situations as well as over time.

CO: So I mean once you got to know your guppies and you determined that they have personalities, did it make you feel bad for subjecting them to all this trauma?

TH: Well, I mean you have to also think of what their lives are like in the wild. You know guppies live in really high densities and they're tiny little fish. They make a really good snack for a huge variety of predators. So you know we subjected them to a small stressor every three days for four week. But in the wild, their lives would be just a constant nightmare of harassment from predators.

CO: So what else do you to know about these guppies and their bravery and cowardice?

TH: Well, what we really want to know is do these personality differences mean that there are meaningful differences between these individuals and how they behave. So I want to know why these differences exist and what they're linked to. And what we're working on just now is looking at the genetic differences between individuals and how they behave. Also, seeing whether it's linked to things like hormones or physiological differences.

CO: Are you going to leave them alone now and let them have a serene environment?

TH: “Big Al” and “Grim” have both been retired for now, so the guppies are safe for the time being.

CO: All right. We'll leave it there. Mr. Houslay, thank you very much.

TH: Thank you very much.

JD: Tom Houslay is an evolutionary biologist at the University of Exeter. We reached him in Cambridge, England.

[Music: Show tune]

Montreal bagels

JD: St Viateur versus Fairmont. When Montreal bagels make headlines, it’s often because of some new wrinkle in the rivalry between those two legendary bakeries. Both St Viateur and Fairmont are in the news this week. For once however, they are on the same side. Some residents in the Mile End neighborhood of Montreal are fed up with the smoke created from the wood ovens the bakeries use. And now they are calling out the city for not enforcing a bylaw that says it all wood-burning devices must meet strict emissions standards. Sarah Gilbert has lived near St Viateur since 1995. On Monday, she spoke with CBC Montreal about her concerns.

SOUNDCLIP

SARAH GILBERT: All the neighbors have had issues with like putting their laundry out or their patio furniture or leaving their window open when the bagels clean their chimneys and soot gets everywhere. My neighbor says his new balcony is black. You know it just gets black in few weeks from soot. So it's just something we live with. The smoky ear comes in our windows when we open our windows. It's a regular part of life on our corner and we always thought well, that's just living here — it's living in the bagel neighbourhood. But now, awareness about wood smoke has changed and Bagel bakeries are both three and four times above the legal limit in terms of particulate emissions and that's not acceptable. It's been years. We want real change. We should have clean air until they figure out how to bake bagels using wood in a way that works and doesn't release toxic emissions. Or maybe they should just cook the bagels in another way. It's the 20th century, so maybe it's time to stop burning wood in a super densely populated neighborhood if you can’t do it according to the specifications of the law. I like beagles too. I'm not against the bagels, but I think they should be clean bagels and I don't think they should get a free pass just because they've been around for a long time. We've seen a lot of things you know society has to evolve. You know we're not allowed to smoke in restaurants or bars anymore. We're not allowed to smoke even outside. So why can we keep burning wood? It just doesn't make sense.

JD: That was Sarah Gilbert speaking to CBC Montreal's Kate McKenna. Ms. Gilbert is a resident of the Mile End neighborhood. She wants the city to enforce a bylaw that would impose emissions limits on the wood oven bagel bakeries near her house.

Part 3: Surgeon stabbed, Guggenheim exhibit

Opioid meeting

JD: This has to stop. That was the message from drug users and harm reduction workers at a meeting in Toronto yesterday. They met with officials at a Board of Health meeting to discuss opioid deaths and overdoses in the city. One of the decisions made by the board was to call on the government to declare the crisis a provincial emergency. Ontario's health minister has said that that will not happen. Olympia Trypis is a peer support worker at a community health center. And here is part of what the 22-year-old had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

OLYMPIA TRYPIS: I just hope somebody will become a political hero and just help us. Like it’s just not fair at all that you guys are re-traumatizing us every single day. Every day nothing's happened. I don't know where this money is at all? Is it even there? Or is it just a smoke line? Are you just trying to get us inside so people can't see us outside anymore? Maybe if you guys just took initiative and be leaders like you're supposed to be leaders and just declare a state of emergency. It's not going to solve the problem — we all know it's not going to solve the problem — but maybe it might help the public get on board. Like we need the public to push you guys to be leaders so you guys can decriminalize drugs that are killing people. Like I overdosed just recently and I hadn’t even been using that drug, but I can't find anything to help me. And there's no services open at night time for people. There's nothing! There's absolutely nothing in the city for people who use drugs unless you have money. And no one has money anymore.

JD: Olympia Trypis is a peer support worker. She was speaking yesterday at a meeting of Toronto's Board of Health.

[Music: Folk]

Surgeon stabbed

Guest: Nasser Kurdy

JD: He was heading into his mosque in England to pray. And that is when Nasser Kurdy was stabbed in the neck. Dr. Kurdy has been touched by violence before. Earlier this year, the surgeon treated victims following the terrorist attack that killed 23 people in Manchester. We reached Dr. Nasser Kurdy at his home in Hale, England.

CO: Dr. Kurdy, how is your recovery going?

NASSER KURDY: Thankfully, I'm recovering extremely well.

CO: What do you remember about the attack?

NK: I remember seeing somebody across the road crossing the road and walking towards me to pass me so to speak. And then I entered the mosque or the centre and as I walked a couple of steps on the path into the centre, I felt something in my neck. So I didn't see anybody actually you know hitting me or stabbing me. The first thing I knew is after the event. But when I looked back and turned around, I saw this man in front of me and he was aggressive. He was you know looking at me. And then he said a couple of words which were offensive, so I can’t really repeat them on air. And then he said this is what you've done. I remember that. And then he started moving towards me. And I'm afraid even though you know some people might feel that I'm reasonably sort of you know courageous person the first thing that came to my mind is you've got to run. So within literally seeing him walking towards me I just turned around and ran as fast as I could to enter the centre. So as soon as I entered the centre, I thought this guy is coming after me and I had that feeling. I just wanted to get away and hide. But as I entered the centre, I found two ladies sitting there. And immediately I don't know what happened, but when I saw the two ladies my instinct changed. So fortunately there were a few chairs in the centre, so I grabbed the chair and just turned back around and went out to confront him. And fortunately, by the time I was out, I couldn’t see him. He was gone. When I went to the police about the incident, I told them I think the whole thing took 10 seconds.

CO: He said to you this is for what you've done. Can you tell us generally what the other words were that he said to you?

NK: The other word starts with the letter “F” and it's not for radio.

CO: There was a man in court today charged with grievous bodily harm and possession of a lethal weapon. Is that the man that you saw?

NK: I have not been shown his picture and therefore I can't make you know an accurate comment on that particular question. And because I went to work, I didn't go to the court to be you know to be witnesses to the charging. But the police told me that from that sort of investigations they’ve done that this was the man.

CO: They didn't ask you to identify him?

NK: Not specifically. I’ve given them descriptions of what I've seen in that fleeting moment. But we also have a CCTV camera outside the centre, which has been installed a while ago because we've had a few sort of minor incidents with broken windows and graffiti. So I think there must be more evidence taken from that as well. So it wasn't just my account that was relevant.

CO: How significant do you believe it is that the attack happened to you outside your mosque?

NK: That's really a good question. And I mean people know me to be honest and pragmatic about things and I like things to be dealt with for what they are, not for what I think or I feel they are or they should be. My initial impression was that this was motivated through hate. By the way he was standing in front of me. And by the way he addressed me and how he came off to me. And that's the impression that I had given yesterday when I was sort of you know giving my interviews. Even though I've been told that this is possibly a random attack and it was just an unlucky person at the wrong time in the wrong place. I need to rethink how I felt about it at the time and whether that really is the case or not. So I myself am still sort of struggling in my mind about was it really a random attack and I’m the wrong person at the wrong time? Or was there something more to it than meets the eye? I'm really somebody that you know unless I'm absolutely sure about what has happened I would only be guessing.

CO: But it seems that the police initially were treating it as a hate crime. But then they decided that they they've now said that they don't regard it as racially-motivated. What do you make of that? Do you think perhaps the definition of a hate crime or race-based crime is narrow?

NK: I mean there's two things to this. First is the circumstances in which the crimes took place. So you couldn’t escape from the side that it was a Muslim person entering a Muslim area of worship where that person was attacked. So instinctively you think there must be some hate elements you. But just by the sheer fact of the circumstances. And I think that's what everybody felt and that's what people were thinking. It cannot be anything but that. Now that they’ve downgraded that then the police must have done that investigation and felt that probably from what they had in front of them it's probably that that would have happened 10 meters out of the mosque or 10 meters in the mosque, but it was irrelevant. It was just a thug or somebody of that nature that wanted to harm somebody.

CO: Just to finally ask you about another experience you had with violence and that was you were helping victims of the Manchester Arena attack just last May. You were at the hospital dealing with that. So what's it like that you are subjected and you're experiencing this kind of violence in Manchester?

NK: It's very unusual. I've lived in Manchester for many years. My last memory of violence was the IRA bomb many years ago. Before the attack in Manchester, we heard about the attacks in London and we heard about other sort of you know senseless terrorist attacks up and down the country. So when it happened at our doorstep, it was it was absolutely shocking. And I was there with my colleagues in the morning because the victims were distributed around the major trauma centre in the in the Manchester area. We were we were utterly, utterly disgusted by the manner in which these injuries took place. It was the most horrendous thing that I've really come across personally in my professional life.

CO: Dr. Kurdy, I'm glad that you're healing. I'm glad the wound wasn't so severe. But I do appreciate you speaking with us tonight. Thank you.

NK: Thank you very much.

JD: Dr. Nasser Kurdy, an orthopedic surgeon in England who was stabbed in the neck over the weekend. We reached him at his home in Hale, England.

[Music: Orchestral]

From Our Archives: Clayton Johnson obit

JD: He was a soft spoken Nova Scotia teacher and a carpenter. But when it came to protesting his innocence, he never wavered. Clayton Johnson was convicted of killing his wife after she died falling down the stairs in the family home. Mr. Johnson, who spent five years in prison for murder before being exonerated, died last week. He was 71-years-old. In 2002, his conviction was overturned when pathologists concluded that his wife's death was actually accidental. After his release, As It Happens host Bill Cameron spoke to Clayton Johnson. Here's part of that conversation, from our archives.

SOUNDCLIP

CLAYTON JOHNSON: It feels great. it's just like a thousand pounds off my shoulders.

BILL CAMERON: Must have been times you never thought you'd feel this way?

CJ: I've always felt that you know that day would come; it's just a matter of time.

BC: But you heard the case against you in court stacked up a lot of medical evidence, a lot of talk simply saying that you were a killer?

CJ: All right.

BC: What was it like to sit through all that?

CJ: At times it almost felt like I was hearing it, but still I wasn't there. It was almost like I was going wake up — like I was dreaming. They just didn't believe me I guess. I kept telling them I was innocent and nobody would believe me.

BC: You looked them square in the eye and said I'm innocent and they said what?

CJ: They said I was guilty.

BC: What was it like to go to prison for that?

CJ: It's more like a nightmare than it would be anything else I guess. I wouldn't want to put anyone else through it I'll tell you that. I guess because you see so much on TV and you hear so many stories and stuff like that I was kind of nervous asking yourself that you know I didn't know what how people are going to react. And eventually I and I knew I had to go out in population, which means you’re going to be out among most of the inmates. The guys on the range were very you know they accepted me for what I was. I told them my story and you know they supported me 100 per cent.

JD: From our archives, that was the late Bill Cameron speaking to Clayton Johnson on this program in 2002. Mr. Johnson's conviction for the murder of his wife was overturned, but only after he had spent five years in prison. Clayton Johnson died last week. He was 71-years-old.

[Music: Bluegrass]

Dateline: Crocker candidates

JD: Dateline: Trout River, Newfoundland.

[Music: Dateline theme]

JD: it is election night in this town near Gros Morne National Park. And voters are still heading out to the polls. But in Trout River, their task is going to be a little more complicated than usual. Seven council seats are up for grabs. Of the 24 people in the running, 10 have the last named Crocker. So if you were a big Crocker supporter, you'd better check to see which Crocker you support. Is it Tanya Crocker? Or Nola Crocker? Ellwood Crocker? Or Judy Crocker? Morley Crocker, perhaps. What about Horace Crocker? And I'm pretty sure Marsha, Jason, Pamela and Rosie… yes; all Crocker's also ran splendid campaigns. Now on the surface this might seem odd, especially in a town of 500 people. Not so says politics Prof Steven Tomlin at Memorial University. He said it is not uncommon for one family to dominate some of Newfoundland and Labrador’s smaller communities. It seems Trout River’s Crockers can trace their political gene pool back to a single Genghis Crocker… that would be George, who settled the place in 1812. Now it isn't always easy to keep power in one family. As Horace Crocker puts it, quote, “We only have three councillors on council with no relatives. It's hard sometimes to put a motion forward and get it through. Sometimes you put a proposal on the table and if it's refused by one family member, it's a possibility that the other family members may go along with the first.” Well, that might give hope to some of the other families in the race. That's right. There were five Breaks, three Whites, two Barneses and don't forget Doris and Tom Sheppard, married but both candidates.

[Music: Bluegrass]

Guggenheim exhibit

Guest: Daina Augaitis

JD: The Guggenheim Museum is pulling three pieces from an upcoming exhibition of Chinese art in New York City. One video in the show features two pit bulls — that are restrained by harnesses — facing each other on treadmills. And other features a boar and a sow mating. The show's signature piece, “Theatre of the World”, places live reptiles and insects together in an enclosed space. In a statement the Guggenheim says some critics have threatened violence over animal rights concerns. Daina Augaitis was chief curator when Theatre of the World made an appearance at the Vancouver Art Gallery 10 years ago. We reached her in Vancouver.

CO: Ms. Augaitis, what's your reaction to the fact that a decade later, the Guggenheim is embroiled in a similar controversy to the one you faced?

DAINA AUGAITIS: Well, I think that controversies are always unique. So it's the same artwork that is being contested, but perhaps the situation is a little bit different.

CO: Can you describe the exhibit? The one that you had and is also at the Guggenheim?

DA: Well, the piece that we had was by a very famous Chinese artist who lives in Paris, Huang Yong Ping. And that particular work is comprised of a sculpture — a hexagonal-shaped sculpture — and within that he had various insects and reptiles living in it. And as a viewer, you could come around it and look in. It was probably about eight feet long and about six feet wide. And inside you would be able to see lizards and millipedes. The tarantulas would probably be hiding. You might see a snake, cuddled close to the light source and the heat source.

CO: And they were all alive?

DA: They were all alive yes.

CO: So they didn't they didn't attack each other?

DA: They did not attack each other?

CO: It was called Theatre of the World.

DA: Theatre of the World indeed. And, in fact, the exhibition in New York has used that for the title of the larger exhibition. So what the artist was interested in was putting together a lot of different species that might instinctively be predators and prey to see what would happen. But, like many artworks, there's also an illusion at work. When you look at a high realist painting and see an apple. It's just a painting it's not an apple. And even in this work as you approach it you might think that one of these species might want to kill another one of the species. But we went to great pains to ensure that we included various species here that would be most compatible.

CO: And what were the concerns? Why did the SPCA get involved?

DA: The SPCA received a phone call from somebody who was concerned about this piece going up. So they came to investigate. They had some recommendations to add some more watering stations and maybe another heat lamp. The Artist and myself we learned about what the needs and desires of the SPCA were in wanting to ensure that animals and insects are well-maintained. So it was an amicable conversation. But as time went on, the SPCA felt uncomfortable with it — even though there were no incidents of any any insect or reptile devouring another one — they wanted to ensure that there was no stress added to the insects or reptiles. So they suggested taking them out once a week and weighing them. So the artist thought that this was this was something that he could not do for the integrity of the artwork. So he decided to remove the insects and reptiles from the sculpture and instead he was quite keen that the ideas behind this piece be somehow maintained and somehow still active within the exhibit. So all of the media and all the information about the artwork was displayed on the walls around the piece. And we had people who would engage people in conversation.

CO: What do you make of the decision on the part of the Guggenheim Museum to withdraw this work from its exhibition after it said they had repeated threats of violence?

DA: Well, I think that they have to take those things very, very seriously. I'm really sorry to hear that there are such threats. Of course, as museums, we always weigh towards freedom of expression. And museums are those safe places for people or we want to make them safe places for people to have difficult conversations. When they become unsafe I think that that's really where you have to take a second look at things.

CO: There was a video also in this exhibition a feature it's called, “Dogs That Cannot Touch Each Other”, has two pit bulls facing each other and separate treadmills and restrained by harnesses not able to reach each other. Another video features a boar and a sow mating. Do you think that there's anything questionable but those exhibits?

DA: Well, I haven't seen them so I don't want to pass judgment without seeing them. But I think in all cases you have to weigh the professionalism of the artist. You have to really think about the artwork that's being presented and you have to think about the values of your community. As museums, we certainly have to think about the law. No artist or curator is above the law, so all of those things are very serious considerations. But I think in each case the context is different. And the line is not very easily drawn in the sand.

CO: Do you think there should be more consideration concerning the discomfort of animals of any species when they're part of the spectacle for humans? Do you think that we have to have deeper considerations?

DA: Well, I think that the notions are changing in our society. Even when this piece was shown in Vancouver Art Gallery how we perceive animals and animal rights have changed over that period. Society is moving in a direction where there are more rights given to animals. So it is a shifting territory and I think that's how the work might be perceived in China or how it's perceived in North America is all part of the decision making around an artwork.

CO: We will leave it there. It's good to talk to you, Ms. Augaitis. Thank you.

DA: Thank you very much.

JD: Daina Augaitis is Associate Director at the Vancouver Art Gallery. We reached her in Vancouver.

[Music: Piano]

NCAA corruption

JD: They're calling it the “dark underbelly” of college basketball. Today, the acting United States attorney for the Southern District of New York laid out a sweeping investigation into corruption in NCAA basketball. Four coaches were arrested this morning on federal corruption charges. The coaches are accused of accepting bribes to steer star players toward agents, advisors and sports apparel companies. The FBI also arrested the director of global sports marketing for Adidas, and five others. The three-year investigation employed undercover agents and a financial-adviser-turned-cooperating-witness who wore a wire and uncovered schemes that prosecutors say include the biggest names in U.S. college sports. Acting U.S. attorney Joon Kim explained the many charges at a press conference this morning.

SOUNDCLIP

JOON KIM: The picture painted by the charges brought today is not a pretty one. Coaches at some of the nation's top program soliciting and accepting cash bribes, managers and financial advisers circling blue chip prospects like coyotes and employees of one of the world's largest sportswear companies secretly funneling cash to the families of high school recruits. In all, we have charged ten people in three separate complaints. Four college basketball coaches, three people associated with professional managers and advisors and three with ties to the major sportswear company, including its global marketing director for basketball. These men allegedly participated in two different but related schemes. In the first, college coaches took cash bribes from managers and advisors in exchange for directing players and their families to those bribers. In the second scheme, managers, advisors and those affiliated with the sportswear company worked together to funnel money to families of some of the country's top high school recruits — upwards of $100,000 — for the players commitment to play for the schools sponsored by that company.

JD: That was acting U.S. attorney Joon Kim at a press conference in New York today, outlining fraud and corruption charges against 10 people involved in college basketball in the United States. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, or NCAA, called the charges, quote, “deeply disturbing”.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

September 26, 2017 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode