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 April 19, 2017

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

CO: Oh really? No, O’Reilly, but yes. After a series of accusations of sexual harassment and a mass exodus of advertisers, Fox News has really cut the popular host of “The O'Reilly Factor” loose.

JD: A rude awakening. Juan Manuel Montez is a so-called ‘dreamer’, an undocumented immigrant who moved to the U.S. as a child. Now, he has been sent back to Mexico and appears to be the first ‘dreamer’ deported under President Trump.

CO: Buck may not stop here after all. Twenty years after Dwayne Buck was put on death row partly due to racist testimony from a so-called “expert witness”. A Texas court vacates his death sentence.

JD: Thinking on his fleet. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer clarifies that when the president said he was sending an armada to the Korean Peninsula he obviously meant at some point in the future — probably.

CO: “I've found a secret tomb,” he said gravely. When renovations began at a London Museum, it’s director never dreamed workers would uncover a mysterious crypt containing the remains of five Archbishops of Canterbury.

JD: And… without her, he could have been a one hit wonder. Remembering the woman who saved Stevie Wonder's career when Motown wanted to drop him the late songwriter and producer Sylvia Moy. As It Happens, the Wednesday edition. Radio that knows he's grateful that cloud had a Silvia-lining.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Bill O’Reilly, secret tomb and more

Bill O’Reilly

Guest: Terry O’Neill

JD: Bill O'Reilly is out of a job. Today, the host of “The O'Reilly Factor” on Fox News was given the boot, amid a growing number of sexual harassment allegations against him. The full extent of those allegations was not made public until earlier this month. A New York Times investigation found that Mr. O'Reilly and Fox had paid out 13 million dollars in five settlement payments to accusers over the years. One of his more recent accusers is Wendy Walsh. And earlier this month, she spoke to reporters about an incident she says happened at a hotel in 2013.

SOUNDCLIP

WENDY WALSH: When dinner was finished, he simply said let's get out of here. I assumed he meant that we should move to the bar to continue our conversation about my career at Fox News. And a funny thing happened: the two of us walked past the hostess stand and he walked the right and I walked to the left. And so he caught up with me and said no, no, come back to my suite. And I simply said I'm sorry, I can’t do that. And he immediately got defensive and said what do you mean? You think I'm going to attack you or something? He told me flat out to forget any career advice I gave you. He told me my bag was ugly. He goes this is the ugliest bag I've ever seen. And I know being a psychologist that I overanalyzed him like was he calling me an ugly bag?

JD: That was Wendy Walsh, once a frequent contributor on “The O'Reilly Factor”, who says that she lost her slot on the show after Bill O'Reilly sexually harassed her. Mr. O'Reilly is the second high profile figure at Fox to be forced out over such allegations in the past year. Last July, former chairman Roger Ailes left the network under similar circumstances. Both men have denied the allegations against them. Terry O'Neill is the president of the National Organization for Women. We reached Ms. O'Neill in Washington, D.C.

CO: Ms. O'Neil, we've been hearing about these incidents with Mr. O'Reilly for some time. We've learned that they’ve been going on for years. What do you think finally forced Bill O'Reilly out of Fox?

TERRY O’NEIL: Well, it was certainly the reports of the 13 million dollars in settlements that I think is embarrassing to Fox as well as to Bill O'Reilly. As I understand it, there are suggestions that Fox has not been forthright with its own shareholders about that 13 million dollar payout. So I think that that bad publicity coupled with an extraordinary outpouring of ordinary people demanding that advertisers stop supporting the Bill O'Reilly show that prompted Fox to take action.

CO: We've known since last summer, since the former chairman of Fox, Roger Ailes, was forced out. At that time, the Murdoch's, the family that owns the network, said that this kind of behavior is not acceptable. This is not the culture that that they would like to see at Fox and that this was going to be unacceptable. Does it appear that it was still quite acceptable?

TO: Absolutely. It appears it was quite acceptable. It certainly demonstrates that an in-house review by Fox's own lawyers is utterly incapable of actually revealing the extent of the sexual and racial harassment culture at Fox and utterly incapable of making serious change.

CO: Now for those who haven't read the backstory that New York Times did the best review of the allegations concerning the five women you mentioned the $13 billion in payouts. Can you just give us some of the moments that you know are some of the more egregious allegations against Mr. O’Reilly?

TO: Well gosh, I haven't looked at the New York Times article in a while, but one of the things that really leapt out to me was the retaliation factor. When Bill O'Reilly tell someone: Oh sure, you know don't even bother trying to turn me in. I'll destroy your career. I'm paraphrasing here, but the really serious threats to destroy the careers of younger women, who were just trying to make it and who were very talented. But whose careers could not have withstood an attack by Bill O'Reilly and he knew it. And the reason that O'Reilly knew that he could destroy the careers of the young women that he harassed is apparently because Bill Schein and other leaders in the organization supported Bill O'Reilly when their job was to support the victims of his harassment.

CO: What we've heard back from the those representing Mr. O’Reilly is that he regards himself to have been a victim in this and that because he was a high profile person because Fox was apparently willing to do payouts to those who accused him of things. That he has simply been the victim of people who are pursuing him or who are I guess ransoming the money out of him and that this was what's behind this. And it's not that he's guilty of anything, but Fox ended up paying these amounts of money just to protect the image of the organization. What do you say to Mr. O’Reilly?

TO: That kind of self-defense is sadly all too common, particularly by abusers. Frankly, I have worked in the area of domestic violence and intimate partner violence for quite some time. And you consistently see, especially those abusers who are predatory abusers, they are always saying things like that. Oh, I'm the victim here. Oh, she's the one who has been mean to me. Oh, her accusations are just destroying me. Oh, she has all this power and I have none. That is a very typical response by the kind of abuser who is actually a predator.

CO: If these things were actually going on for all this time why do you think Fox paid the money? Why didn't they get rid of him before?

TO: Oh, I think that that is exactly the question that needs to be answered. My organization is calling for a thorough independent investigation by New York City authorities and New York state authorities to get at that question exactly. My sense is that, in fact, numerous people in leadership positions at Fox News are perpetrators of this sexual and racial harassment culture at Fox News. And the reason they didn't get rid of Bill O'Reilly is that he behaved in exactly the way that is consistent with a sexual harassment culture. And these people at the top, I believe, are maintaining and facilitating that culture. That's why the investigation needs not only to disclose to the public exactly who's been doing what at FOX News. But it also needs to recommend and then create actual accountability measures. The folks at the top, who have been allowing this kind of culture to remain in place in Fox News need to be fired. They need to be replaced by people who will actually do their job and their job is to protect victims of sexual harassment and hold harassers accountable not the other way around.

CO: Donald Trump defends Bill O'Reilly. Does it make any difference that the President of the United States is on his side?

TO: It does. I think it makes a great deal of difference. I think it hurts Bill O'Reilly immeasurably. This is a man who brags about grabbing women by their private parts, which is itself sexual assault. So when the “Grabber in Chief” defends Bill O'Reilly, I think that encouraged a lot of advertisers to run like crazy away from him.

CO: We will leave it there. Ms. O'Neill, thank you.

TO: Thank you so much.

JD: Terry O'Neill is the president of the National Organization for Women. We reached her in Washington, D.C. And we do have more on that story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Country]

Racial testimony case

Guest: Christina Swarns

JD: 20 years ago, Duane Buck was sentenced to death in Texas for double murder. At the time, an expert witness told the jury that he was more likely to be dangerous in the future because he was black. That expert was called by Mr. Buck's own lawyer. Well earlier this year, Duane Buck won a fight at the U.S. Supreme Court. And last week, as a result, his death sentence was vacated. Christina Swarns is the lead counsel for Duane Buck. We reached her in Memphis.

CO: Ms. Swarns, before we get into the larger case here. How is it that Duane Buck ended up on death row?

CHRISTINA SWARNS: Sure. So in 1997, he was convicted of killing his ex-girlfriend and another gentleman, who was in her apartment. He believed that she was involved in a relationship with this other gentleman. Under the law in the United States and in Texas at that time, if you are convicted of capital murder, which he was, there were two possible sentences. One was the death penalty and the other was a life sentence. A jury was required to decide which sentence was appropriate. And so there was an entirely separate proceeding just for that purpose. Under Texas law, in order to be sentenced to death, the jury had to find that Mr. Buck was likely to commit criminal acts of violence in the future. And in Mr. Buck’s case, unfortunately for him, he was represented by attorneys who presented an expert who testified that Mr. Buck was more likely to be dangerous in the future because he is black. Obviously, that testimony is flawed tragically in many, many ways. First, because it's completely false, there is no greater likelihood of future violence based on race. Second of all, because it's unconstitutional, one cannot hinge a death sentence on race. Third, because it is so profoundly likely to have inflamed the jury against Mr. Buck and increase the likelihood that he would have been sentenced to death there was just no strategic basis for them to introduce that. So it was devastating and profoundly you know bad testimony. And the introduction of that evidence is at the heart of the case and sort of spawned all the years of litigation subsequently.

CO: And that's what the courts have agreed that Mr. Buck ended up on death row not because of what he did, which was heinous and awful. But not because of what he did, but because who he is.

CS: Yeah, I mean ultimately what they said was no reasonable defense attorney would present evidence linking their own client's race to their likelihood of dangerousness. That is what the Supreme Court ultimately decided.

CO: But it wasn't just that somebody testified that he was likely to be a dangerous person because he was black. But that it was his own lawyer who called the witness who said that. His lawyer is named Jerry Guerinot and as the worst lawyer in the United States at one point? how did he end up being Mr. Buck's lawyer and calling a witness of this nature?

CS: So Mr. Guerinot was appointed by the court to represent Mr. Buck. I mean Mr. Buck really just did not have any lucky breaks there. And, as you pointed out, you know Mr. Guerinot was not a very good lawyer at all. An article written in The New York Times a couple of years ago made the observation that Mr. Guerinot had more people on death row than numerous states had on death row. And so then you have this lawyer who you know has a record of failure in representing people you know putting on this evidence that is just incomprehensible. I can't explain his decision to put that evidence on. There is no legitimate constitutional rationale or justification for the presentation of that evidence. And, ultimately, that's what the Supreme Court held. There is no constitutional justification for introducing such grotesquely offensive and false and inflammatory evidence against your own client.

CO: We should make note of the fact that this sentence was in 1997. So we're not talking about the Jim Crow era here. So how is it possible that there is a psychologist that could present this expert evidence?

CS: You know I mean there's a lot. I mean it is really remarkable right that this is 1997. This is not implicit bias, right? The things that we sort of are talking a lot about now sort of the subtle unconscious biases that pervade you know a lot of society. This is explicit, right in your face racial discrimination and racial bias. So it's pretty astonishing not only that the counsel put it on. But the fact of the matter is that a lot of things could have happened once counsel put it on including that the judge might have noticed and said something and you know sought to protect the integrity of the judicial process. But the judge did not. And then you could think maybe the prosecutor would realize that this is something that would jeopardize the death sentence, right? That this is something that is going to cause problems for the integrity of the conviction and the death sentence going forward, but the prosecutor instead tried to capitalize on this evidence. It was a complete failure of the criminal justice system in that case.

CO: Though this has been vacated, there is still the possibility of a death sentence and I don't want to diminish that in any way. But what are the larger ramifications for winning this case?

CS: Sure, I think first the Supreme Court decision was very powerful and unequivocal. The chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, wrote the opinion here. He said his words are, “some toxins are deadly in small doses.” And you know he's talking about just how powerful and how influential racial discrimination is particularly in the criminal justice system. And I think particularly in the in the death penalty context. And so I think it's a reminder given the history of race in the United States how that continues to play a powerful role and how it continues to influence decisions. And so that court's going forward have to be vigilant about making sure that kind of evidence is not admitted that it is not going to be tolerated by the United States Supreme Court.

CO: We will be following developments in this story. Ms. Swarns, I appreciate you speaking with us. Thank you.

CS: Thank you so much.

JD: We reached Duane Buck's lead counsel, Christina Swarns in Memphis. Ms. Swarns is also the NAACP Legal Defense Fund litigation director. Last week, again after 20 years, Duane Buck's death sentence was vacated.

[Music: Folk]

Secret tomb

Guest: Christopher Woodward

JD: For the past year, London's Garden Museum has been undergoing renovations. Now, if you have ever undergone renovations, or your house I guess. The very word renovations might make your eyes glaze over. But at the Garden they're not just installing pot lights. It's a bigger deal than that because the Garden is housed in a church that dates back to the year 1054. It also sits next to Lambeth Palace, the official residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury. So one day, builders made a chance discovery under the old church. And when Garden Museum director Christopher Woodward looked at what they had found, he was startled by what and by whom he saw buried there. We reached Christopher Woodward in London.

CO: Mr. Woodward, can you describe what you saw under the museum?

CHRISTOPHER WOODWARD: Yes, well, we're building a new museum inside an old church and the site manager, Craig, rang up and said you better come quickly. And I felt it would be alarming news. I thought something bad had happened and he was standing in the chancel of what is a medieval church pointing to a hole in the floor. And he said Look down there and you have to lie flat on your belly and stick your head down a flight of steps. And in the darkness was a golden crown placed on top of a coffin.

CO: A coffin and a golden crown. You could see that clearly even in the dark under the floor?

CW: It glimmered and then we all got our torches and phones out. And you know as your eyes adjust you could see more coffins piled up in this dark brick vault.

CO: How many coffins?

CW: Nobody's been down there. It's just being made safe at present. So we think between 20 and 30, they're piled up at the back like left luggage in a railway station.

CO: And you had no idea that there were these coffins and presumably human remains under the museum?

CW: No, the Church stands right on the bank of the Thames. Untill the 19th century the water came right up to the doors. It was a little port on the Thames next door to Lambeth Palace, where the Archbishop of Canterbury has his London residence. And the church dates back to 1054 and the church had been knocked down and rebuilt by the Victorians in 1851. And we knew from excavations elsewhere that there was nothing on the floors apart from earth because they had moved out thousands of bodies from those eight and a bit centuries. And we knew that archbishops and other dignitaries had been buried there because there are slabs and monuments, but we thought that there was nothing under the floor. And we would never have found it if we hadn't had to move a big slab of stone to make access for people in wheelchairs.

CO: As far as you know, at this point, whose remains might be in those coffins?

CW: We know archaeologists got this long camera and then the scope from the hospital and sent it down and they've found the names of four people on the coffin plate. So I think that a picture these coffins. They are big bulging pieces of lead. And what was happens over time is this is the kind of grisly bit is that is that they begin to expand the coffins because people's bodies and some people have been buried we think for over 400 years. They basically become a kind of fluid which expands, so you don't want to touch these coffins because if they burst you would be covered from head to foot in what archaeologists like calling “coffin liquor”.

CO: Oh dear! So it's good to get the experts in there before you started to investigate it.

CW: So we think there are five archbishops of Canterbury buried there. We don't know that, we know they were buried somewhere in the church between 1611 and 1805.

CO: But you see a crown on one of them and you see name plates. You been able to identify them as archbishops. Can you give us some names of people?

CW: The one whose name came up on one of the coffin plates was Archbishop Bancroft. And the crown just what it is as you say is an archbishop’s. And, it turns out, it's actually a gilded tin because it was made especially for the funeral. So when the coffin was possessed if he was someone a king, a duke and an archbishop in your funeral procession it was placed on top of what's called a “funeral attainment”. The archbishop Bancroft was buried there at his death in 1611 and his significance is that when King James succeeded to Queen Elizabeth the First as the sovereign of Britain, it was a time of great religious controversy. And he decided that there should be a new translation of the Bible. And 47 translators were appointed to translate from Greek, Roman and Aramaic. And this book came into production within a few years due to the deficiency and punishes this that this man Bancroft who was the archbishop. He was a very tough person when he was fed up with organizing the translator as he would go box in his lunch. He was a boxing archbishop and he did the final edit and he changed all that 14 of 30,000 verses.

CO: And as you make these discoveries and get more details about them it must at some point give you a bit of shivers?

CW: Yes, because we have this building and we are custodians of it and you're making it alive for modern visitors. It was abandoned in the 1970s and was effectively brewing and the shell was preserved and we're building within it. But it gives you this incredible sense of a very precious cargo in your hold. And these people have been dead for a very long time, but you're suddenly confronted by the presence of them.

CO: Now I understand this discovery was made actually some months ago. So why have you kept it a secret until now?

CW: Basically it wasn't safe. The vault was a single arch of brick and we've just finished about six weeks ago putting a new floor across so that it's safe to tread on top. And also, to be really honest, we wanted to save it up until we were getting ready to reopen. But also because the archeologists are still at work and we were hoping to find out a little more about what was down there.

CO: And what do you do with this burial ground? Will you leave it there? Will you try and find another place to enter these remains?

CW: We're just going to leave them partly for practical reasons. We don't want to move the coffins around, but also just because that's where they are expected to be. They’re safe there and have been there for hundreds of years. What we're going to do is make the proper film, do more research and make a little exhibition about it and visitors will be able to see through a glass Hatch the steps leading down into the darkness. It's also a tricky thing. Not everyone wants to see coffins. Some people love it. Some people actually do get quite upset by the sight of death. And I think it's quite good to have a flight of stairs which does leave it to the imagination of everyone and those who are more interested can look at the film and the documents we will produce.

CO: What an extraordinary find. It must be quite something for everyone in your museum and thank you for telling us about it Mr. Woodward.

CW: I really did just go wow. You have very few wild moments even in a museum job and this was just like wow.

CO: All right, we'll leave it there. Thank you.

JD: Christopher Woodward is the director of the Garden Museum, we reached him in London. Again recently, the tombs of five Archbishop of Canterbury were found under the old church that now houses the Garden. The museum hopes to display the vault for the public when it reopens in May. But you can find more on the story right now. You don't have to go under a church. www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Inide rock]

Soil undies

JD: And now, a message from the Soil Conservation Council of Canada.

SOUNDCLIP

[Music: Rock]

MALE VOICE: Hello everybody, welcome to Canada’s Agriculture and Food Museum in Ottawa Ontario. Today we're here with a group of really funny people to do an experiment called “soil your undies”.

JD: What! No. Whoa, whoa, whoa. An experiment called “soil your undies”. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think that a significant number of us have involuntarily conducted that experiment at some point in our lives and we don't — most of us — want to do it again. We also — most of us — don't want to talk about it. But just a second now, it is the third week of April, so obviously we're in the middle of National Soil Conservation week and we've all been marking it in in the traditional way by making a delicious three course meal and then throwing it in a hole that we dig in our gardens. But what if this undies thing is actually a new initiative that can help us thank the dirt without buying a bunch of pizzas and ice cream sandwiches? Reynold, can you play just a bit more of that tape of Soil Conservation Council president Alan Kruszel and friends and their shovels already.

SOUNDCLIP

ALAN KRUSZEL: So Ed, why don't you do the honors and dig a trench. About six inches deep or so is all you need to do. You don't have to dig very far. Once you get that soil opened up, you can take your undies, put them in the soil. lay them flat perfect. Then you cover them up again. Leaving just the elastic waist band exposed that way they're easy to find. Excellent! All right, so after a couple of months, these things will come back out again and hopefully be fairly well decomposed. You need to put in some kind of a little sign beside them so you can find them again when we come and dig them up in about a couple of months time.

JD: Ah OK, now I think I get it. You bury your Gottsch, you wait two months, you come back you dig them up and you examine them. If the soil is healthy they should be somewhat decomposed. Thanks. OK this idea comes to us courtesy of a Michael Jones and currently I believe a grade 8 student in Midland, Ontario. It was his 4-H science project last year and one of the pairs of his underpants was 47 per cent decomposed when he dug it up, which is at least 12 per cent more decomposed than mine are right now. So I've changed my mind. Good work Soil Conservation Council. Everyone soil your undies thoroughly. Put your briefs in the ground briefly and then debrief us on how much you've been debriefed.

Part 2: ‘Dreamer’ deported, Sylvia Moy remembered and more

‘Dreamer’ deported

Guest: Nora Preciado

JD: “We're going to show great heart.” That is what U.S. President Donald Trump said about the so-called ‘dreamers’, undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. And under Obama-era legislation called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA. Some of those immigrants had protected status. But according to a new lawsuit, a young man with that protected status has been deported to Mexico. He had lived in the U.S. since he was 9-years-old. He has a cognitive disability. His lawyers claim this is the first deportation of a ‘dreamer’ since President Trump took office and that the Border Agency will not give any information to them on how or why it happened. Nora Preciado is one of the attorneys representing 23-year-old Juan Manuel Montes. We reached Ms.Preciado in Los Angeles.

CO: Ms. Preciado, according to the lawsuit you filed. Why was Juan Manuel Montez detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection in the first place?

NORA PRECIADO: Juan Manuel was walking on a sidewalk on his way to get a cab one night in February after visiting a friend when he was stopped by a Border Patrol agent on a bicycle. He was asked for his identification. He had forgotten his wallet in a friend's car and was unable to produce it. He was taken into what we believe a border patrol station and there within a matter of a couple of hours, we got access to an attorney without an explanation why. And without any documentation he was summarily deported despite the fact that he had DACA and permission to be in the country.

CO: OK, DACA this is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals that's what stands for. What does that status mean?

NP: Basically DACA means that the government acknowledges that you're here. These young people have come forward to the government to let the government know they're here. Have gone through background checks, filled out an application and paid fees and they have permission to be in the country for two years and they get a work authorization permit that allows them to work for a period of two years. Juan Manuel received DAKA in 2014 and, at the time of deportation, he had work authorization that doesn't expire until 2018.

CO: He's 23-years-old. He was nine when he went to the United States. And so when he’s sent back to Mexico does he have family? Does he have anyone taking care of him?

NP: This is the place he considers home. He was going to school while he was here. He was trying to get his welding degree at the local community college. He was working in the fields picking crops you know hanging out with friends just like any 23-year-old. Right now, he is with family in Mexico very eager to get back to the place he calls home — the United States — and to just come back to his life.

CO: Has he described for you how he handled it? Did he try to explain to border agents his status? Did he get any kind of opportunity to talk to them about this DACA status that he had?

NP: Regardless of what Juan Manuel shares with border patrol, border patrol once they had his information should have access to all of that information as soon as they encounter him. Again we don't have information about what happened. That's what this lawsuit is about. He didn't know what was happening. He wasn't given an explanation. All he knew was that he was walking to get a cab one night after visiting a friend, encounter's border patrol and within a matter of just a couple of hours, he was deported to Mexico.

CO: He'd suffered a traumatic brain injury when he was young and does have some cognitive disability. Did that affect him at all during this?

NP: Throughout his schooling years Juan Manuel received special education in school. It's hard to tell. You know what a 23-year-old with a traumatic brain injury put into those circumstances the confusion of just not knowing why you were detained in the first place. Why you are being deported. So you know that's what we're trying to get to the bottom of. What exactly happened to him and why.

CO: now U.S. Customs and Border Protection in their statement they've issued they say that he was arrested after illegally entering the U.S. by climbing over a fence. What can you tell us about that?

NP: The government is conveniently today — because yesterday was a different story — they're conveniently focusing on Juan Manuel’s second deportation ignoring the first deportation perhaps because they have no answers as to why he was deported the first time.

CO: Right so he was trying to get back in the United States after he had been deported?

NP: When Juan Manuel was deported late at night. He was trying to get to relatives to safety. He had been deported to a place he didn't know. Unfortunately, walking down the street he was mugged at knife point, he was assaulted and two individuals took his belongings. He was scared. He didn't know what to do at that point in a strange place after this happened to him. He attempted to come back to the U.S. He was intercepted by border patrol and was put in deportation proceedings again.

CO: Well they're also saying that he has been convicted of theft.

NP: Nothing in his background disqualified Juan Manuel for DACA. And if the government wants to now advance that theory that that's a reason for his deportation then his rights were violated because he should have had the opportunity to contest a deportation to get due process.

CO: So he has been convicted for driving without a license and had one conviction for shoplifting. That didn't violate his conditions of this DACA status then?

NP: Minor traffic offenses such as driving without a license do not disqualify an individual for DACA. Nor does any misdemeanor and that's what he had an additional misdemeanor. None of those things in his record disqualified him for DACA.

CO: What larger concerns do you have about this case given that President Trump said he would not target for deportation people protected by DACA. Does it in any way indicate that that's not the case that there is no protection for these young people?

NP: Juan Manuel’s case highlights a lack of accountability in this administration on the one hand saying one thing and their actions completely something different. I think this is a great opportunity for the administration to come out and stand by the fact that they have given these young people a promise that they came forward, they submitted themselves to background checks, filled out applications, paid their fees and that promise was that they shouldn't fear deportation. And they would have the ability to continue to live productive lives to work, to study and to be here in the U.S. That promise has been broken after Juan Manuel. And it's time for the government to give us an explanation as to why.

CO: How is he doing? How is Mr. Montez doing in Mexico? How is he coping?

NP: He is with family. He misses home. He wants to just get back to his life. He wants to go back to school and finish his welding degree. He wants to see his friends. You know he's a 23-year-old who was trying to work, study, be with friends and he misses all of that and he is very anxious to just get back home.

CO: We will follow developments in this case. Ms. Preciado, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

NP: Thank you.

JD: Nora Preciado is a lawyer with the National Immigration Law Center. We reached her in Los Angeles.

[Music: Folk]

Spicer on armada

JD: “We're sending an armada.” Those were the words of U.S. President Donald Trump to Fox News last week. The armada in question was the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson. And he was sending it to the Korean peninsula amid rising tensions between the north and the south. It turns out, however, that the two words” we're sending” weren't quite as simple as one would think because this week the carrier and its support ships were photographed 3,500 miles away heading in the opposite direction from the Korean peninsula toward the Indian Ocean. And now, the administration is saying that the “we’re sending” didn't actually mean that they were sending the armada last week. The phrase wasn't present tense it was present continuous tense referring to arrangements sometime in the future: probably the end of April. And so today, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer tried to… clarify the ship's movements when he spoke to reporters.

SOUNDCLIP

MALE VOICE: Does the President believe that he might have spoken too quickly on this location of the vessel before it was actually arriving?

SEAN SPICER: The President said that we have an armada going towards the peninsula that's a fact. It happened. It is happening rather.

FEMALE VOICE: Sean, I just want to follow up on that. Obviously when the president says there's military hardware going to a region in the middle of a crisis on the Korean Peninsula the allies of the United States are encouraged. When that happens cannot be the case, they can interpret that as a false encouragement. So how is this White House explaining to South Korea and Japan that in fact during the buildup and the actual DPRK missile launch there was no USS Carl Vinson?

SS: Respectfully I would ask you to either touch base with PACOM (United States Pacific Comand) or the Department of Defense. The statement that was put out was that the Carl Vinson group was headed to the Korean Peninsula. It is headed to the Korean peninsula and it will arrive there…

FEMALE VOICE: It's there now though.

SS: What’s that?

Female Voice: It’s headed there now. It wasn't headed there last week.

SS: But that's not what we ever said. We said that it was heading there and it was heading there — it is heading there — so that that remains. If there's an impression there should have been clarification from people who were seeking it. But I mean PACOM put out a release talking about what its ultimate destination was going to be and that's where it ended up. Caitlin.

FEMALE VOICE: Why did the administration never clarify? Because definitely the intent and media reports was that it was headed there now…

SS: With all due respect we were asked a question. No, no, no, no that's not true. What I was asked was what signal did it send that it was going there? And I answered that question correctly at the time that it's signaled foreign presence, strength and reassurance to our allies. That's a true statement.

FEMLAE VOICE: A little misleading. No one found out about it until a picture was posted on a page.

SS: What do you mean? What part is misleading? I'm trying to figure that out. We were asked a question about what signal it sent? We answered the question on what signal it sent. I'm not the one who commented on timing.

JD: That was White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer trying to account for the movements of the U.S. aircraft carrier Carl Vinson. The President, of course, said the ship was heading to the Korean Peninsula last week, but it was photographed heading in the opposite direction.

[Music: Jazz]

Sylvia Moy obit

Guest: Melvin Moy

JD: This week, Stevie Wonder released a heartfelt tribute to a woman he owed his career to. He wrote quote, “Maybe someday in eternity, at it's given time and space, we will write together again. I love you Sylvia.” Sylvia Moy was a Motown songwriter. She saw potential in Stevie Wonder when no one else did. When he was little Stevie Wonder and he was just 13-years-old. Ms. Moy died over the weekend at the age of 78. And now, she is being celebrated as the woman behind some of the legendary label's biggest hits. Melvin Moy is Sylvia's brother. He worked at Motown with her in the 1960s. We reached Mr. Moy in Detroit.

CO: Mr. Moy, first of all, I'm sorry for the loss of your sister.

MELVIN MOY: Thank you so much.

CO: How are you remembering her this week?

MM: Well, I remember her for her contribution to the music industry. She is a trailblazer for women in certain areas of the recording process. And as my sister, who was my mentor. Who taught me the business of song writing and we were close.

CO: I'm so sorry. And the story of how she helped so many artists because of her song writing but in particular Stevie Wonder, who wrote her after she died, “Sylvia Moy has made it possible to enrich my world of songs with some of the greatest lyrics.” How did she come to be working with — collaborating with — Stevie Wonder? What's that story?

MM: Well, we're talking the 60s here. Stevie had breached or went beyond puberty. His voice changed and Sylvia endeavored to be a producer. And she was ghost producing anyway, but she wanted to produce in her own name, which was kind of a taboo for women in those days. So Berry Gordy gave her a shot and told her hey if you could come up with something for Stevie since his voice is changing…

CO: I’ll just point out that Berry Gordy was the founder and patriarch of Motown Records, he was the big guy there.

MM: Yeah he was the big guy, right. And she went to him and said Give me a shot with Stevie because they were going to let him go unless she could come up with songs for him. So they worked together and she learned how to work with him without using Braille, that’s the only way I could put it.

CO: How did she do that? Because that was difficult with no Braille?

MM: It was like she would sing to him from the control room into the studio ahead of a line and then he would sing the line and she would feed him the lyrics and the melody that way. I don't know of anyone else in the world who could do that, but it worked.

CO: Then was her actual song writing which is at some great hits I mean “Uptight”, “My Cherie Amour”, just great songs that Stevie Wonder sang and those were hers.

MM: Absolutely. And she wrote songs for The Isley Brothers and Martha and the Vandellas. They were all hits and Michael Jackson.

CO: But she herself, as you point out, she was as successful as a woman in Motown — in the music industry — when it was very difficult. She broke the glass ceiling as somebody else said.

MM: Absolutely.

CO: What did she sacrifice? What did she have to give up in order to do what she did?

MM: I guess one would have to look at the story of Motown, particularly during the ‘60s. And look at what that organization had to face. You know racism, sexism there were some barriers for all of us. And she relied a lot on our parents and our family — her siblings. And that was her support system.

CO: In what way? How did she how did she lean on you and the others?

MM: We are still a very, very close-knit family. That's the way our parents raised us. In fact, a lot of the lyrics she wrote were based on the love between my parents.

CO: Songs like “I was made to love her” is that one of them?

MM: That is definitely on of them?

CO: And that was about your parents love for each other?

MM: Yes, absolutely.

CO: There's another song I'm really curious about “My Cherie Amour”. What's the story behind that?

Mm: Here again, it's mostly about the love between my parents. She used French I can't tell you why she used that. She spoke French and I think Motown was doing well in Europe. But the story itself is still about my parents.

CO: And Stevie wanted to call it “Oh my Marsha.”

MM: He may have. I don't know how they came to some kind of agreement, but he was he was very young then. And I must mention Henry Cosby, he fought for Sylvia to become a producer and he was part of the team as well.

CO: But your sister wanted to sing as well. She wanted to be a singer she wanted to record. Did she have to give up some of her dreams?

MM: Well, to be honest with you, Sylvie could sing. She was an excellent vocalist. She had a very broad range. I’m not sure if she really had the desire in her gut to go that route in the music business. She went to Motown as a singer, when she got there they needed songs.

CO: They had a lot of artists and not enough songs.

MM: Again, Hank Cosby and some of the others began exposing her to the art of song writing and she clipped right in on it and bam you know.

CO: Henry Cosby was a Motown producer?

MM: He was a producer.

CO: I understand when she was young her music was so intense and she would play the piano on the radiator?

MM: Well, all of the Moy siblings inherited the creator’s gene. We used to whatever we could get. You know we both played oatmeal boxes. And later on, my parents started paying for piano lessons and they bought me a drum set and we all began to grow. She took it a bit further. She was multitalented. She had vision she was willing to share. And to me it's a divine gift and she was willing to share it.

CO: Mr. Moy, I so appreciate you talking about your sister with us. Thank you.

MM: Thank you so much.

CO: Take care.

JD: Melvin Moy is the brother of Sylvia Moy, who co-wrote some of Stevie Wonder's biggest hits. And here now is Ms. Moy on the song that put Stevie Wonder on the map.

SOUNDCLIP

SYLVIA MOY: Stevie, yeah, you know his voice had changed and this and that and the other. And he just wasn't selling for a period there. I don't know I just believed in him. I knew it was possible that they might let him go. I was begging give him to me. Please let me have him. I said show me what you're doing Stevie, see if there's anything we can work with. He played through some things, but I didn't hear a hit. So I was going to go home and get on the piano on my floor. Finally as I was walking out of the room where he was he says I forgot one thing, one thing, one thing. And I said wait a minute, let me take this and work with it. And that was all he had. I took it home and started working with it.

JD: Sylvia speaking to the Detroit Free Press last year.

Part 3: Dairy farmer on Trump, wolf skier, short story prize winner

Peel imam

JD: For two decades, Muslim students in suburban Toronto have been allowed to observe Friday group prayers known as “Jummah” in their schools. In recent months, however, people within the Peel District School Board have been expressing opposition to that tradition. Opponents have shouted anti-Muslim vitriol at school board meetings. One man went so far as to rip pages from the Quran and stomp on it. Tensions are so high the school board has stepped up security measures for its meetings. Now, one Mississauga imam has asked for added protection at his mosque too after he received a death threat on Friday. Imam Ibrahim Hindy had previously reached out to the school board, after hearing concerns from some students. And he has since been targeted himself by opponents to the religious accommodation. So on CBC Toronto's “Metro Morning” today, host Matt Galloway asked Imam Hindy how he had reacted.

SOUNDCLIP

MATT GALLOWAY: What was the death threat that you got? You got one on Friday via email.

IBRAHIM HINDY: They don't want to impede the police investigation. But there was an email sent to me and it was referring to me and then it had a picture of five men being hung. So that was the one threat that was emailed to me. There was also on social media there were people talking about burning down the mosque as well.

MG: How did you react when you got those?

IH: Well, you know I think the intent of people sending you death threats is they want you to be quiet and they want you to cower and they want you to be afraid. And so even though those are natural feelings for someone to feel immediately when you receive something like that, I kind of had to push myself to it to be defiant and to not just be quiet and be silent and cower in fear. But rather to be a bit more courageous and to say that this is a problem. It's a problem that seems like it's taking over the globe. It's a problem it seems like in every country and every society in different forms and enough is enough. People have to stand up and they have to talk about it and they have to help each other to overcome it.

MM: But at the same time, you have a family and so you've called the police to get involved here. What's being done to make sure that you're safe and that your mosque is safe as well?

IH: So they’re increasing patrols around my home and around the mosque in order to ensure that we have safety in these times.

MG: What is happening do you think in Peel region where this issue around the school board and something that has existed for decades at that school board seems to have caught fire?

IH: Yeah, I think there's a lot of political incitement and people trying to use it as political opportunism to jump on the bandwagon of bigotry to get some political currency out of it. And I think that's really shameful. But you know again, we can focus on the Peel issue by itself but really there is there's a much grander issue at stake. There's been a lot of issues where people have been trying to stoke hatred in different forms throughout society. And so you know this is not the Canada that we stand on guard for, right? I've been here my whole life and people have been about decency and tolerance and respect and not about threatening somebody or threatening the life of somebody that you happen to disagree with on an issue.

JD: Imam Ibraham Hindy on CBC Toronto's “Metro Morning” today.

[Music: Country]

Dairy farmer on Trump

Guest: David Wiens

JD: David Wiens says President Trump has some things to learn about Canadians and their cows. Mr. Wiens is a Manitoba milk producer and the chair of the Dairy Farmers of Manitoba. Yesterday, he heard the U.S. President take aim at his industry. Donald Trump promised to address what he called Canada's “very unfair” treatment of his country's dairy exporters. We reached David Wiens in Montreal.

CO: Mr. Wiens, is President Trump really so wrong when he says that Canada is “unfair to U.S. dairy producers”?

DAVID WIENS: Yes, and so basically we're being unfairly targeted here. Those comments sound like rhetoric, but certainly not based on fact. And that is not good when you know where these things get spoken so easily when it's not based on the reality.

CO: They say that they lost the Canadian market when changes were made that made it impossible for them to competitively sell their ultra-filtered milk. Is it not true that they lost market?

DW: So in Canada the dairy producers and the processors have actually made some changes to our domestic policy. But there have been no changes to the regulations that are related to dairy imports or no changes to Canadian dairy tariffs. So we need to be very clear on that because those were the kind of comments that were implied by the President. What we've done here in Canada does not block imports…

CO: Though it is a domestic policy change did it not affect the Wisconsin farmers in the way that they say it affected them?

DW: I can't speak specifically to what those farmers were doing in terms of imports, but the U.S. dairy product imports in this past year has increased by 17 per cent. And when it comes to trade between Canada and the U.S., the trade imbalance is in the favor of the U.S. by about five to one. So it's not fair to be singled out as being the problem of the American dairy industry. We produce milk for our domestic market, but we do not trade surpluses. The problem in this case is a production situation and possibly a processing situation in the U.S. But it's not things that we're doing here. We don't have surplus products that spill out onto world markets. So it would be wrong then to suggest that Canada is somehow to blame for some of the problems they're experiencing in the U.S.

CO: We're hearing from Mr. Trump it's a pretty strong statement he said to the farmers, “What's happened to you is very, very unfair. It's another typical one-sided deal against the United States. It’s not going to be happening for long. We're going to get together and we're going to call Canada and we're going to say what happened? But we don't want to find out what happened. We just want their solution.” because they want solutions so that's kind of typical Trump talk and it's tough talk. So do you think that he's going to act on that?

DW: Well, first of all, you know you take those words in light of what the reality is. And so the reality of it is that the trade imbalance between Canada and the U.S. is a ratio of 5 to 1 in favor of the U.S. that that would make those words sound pretty hollow certainly not reflecting reality. And in a report that's come from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on dairy outlook, I mean they have identified as one of the problems is some of the situations that are happening worldwide. And particularly one is surplus milk. So to blame Canada for problems they're having in the U.S. simply isn't fair and it does not reflect reality. It is not based on fact. It may play to his audience, but it certainly is not based on fact.

CO: Don't you think the real target in all of this is Canada's system of supply management? Isn't that precisely what Mr. Trump is talking about? And he's not alone.

DW: Yeah, and to me the kind of comments that are being made here reflect a lack of understanding of how our system works. Never have we somehow skewed international dairy markets. Canada is about one tenth the size of the U.S. And so we are a relatively small market, one that is already filled with Canadian milk. And so you know we cannot solve their problems. They need to address those and it certainly is not up to us to tell them what they need to do. But you know we can't be the scapegoat for problems that they're having in the US.

CO: So the perception beyond Mr. Trump that happens with supply management in Canada is that it protects the Canadian industry and creates an unfair price system. We've heard from Maxime Bernier, who's a front runner to become head of the Conservative Party — possibly the next prime minister. He says Mr. President, you're right supply management is unfair. We’ve heard well from Brad Wall, the premier of Saskatchewan, who is in Washington saying that he believes it should be scrapped. This is Canadians not that Mr. Trump and the Americans who say that they that they've got a target on the supply management system. Do you get the sense that perhaps there are a lot of people ready if push comes to shove in negotiations that they might be willing to throw the dairy farmers and their management system under the bus?

DW: No, the Canadian government is very much aware of our contribution to the Canadian economy. They also know that Canadians want to have the kind of high-quality milk and dairy products that we that we put out into the Canadian marketplace.

CO: But Canadians also want cheaper prices.

DW: There is value to what we're doing in terms of when we produce milk, it's done in ways that reflect the values of Canadians whether it becomes animal care, environment, quality, food safety, all of these things are extremely important. And I know that there are critics out there and have always been. And you know our government has steadfastly defended our system and it is interesting to note that the critics don't talk about the subsidies that exist in many other countries, particularly in the U.S. So there is silence on that and that's something that needs to be addressed. And certainly you know our government is very much aware of the situation there.

CO: All right, we'll leave it there. Mr. Wiens, thank you.

DW: OK. Thanks Carol.

JD: David Wiens is a milk producer and the chair of the Dairy Farmers of Manitoba. We reached him in Montreal.

[Music: Jazz]

Wolf skier

JD: As a Canadian Olympic skier, Alain Masson regularly faced competition that may have wanted to rip him to shreds — speaking figuratively, of course. However, last weekend, when he went out alone to ski outside of Atlin in northern British Columbia Mr. Masson found himself facing a group whose desire to bring him down appeared to be all too literal. He told his story to CBC Whitehorse host Roch Shannon Foster.

SOUNDCLIP

ALAIN MASSON: Just went around the southern tip of The island shooting arrows. And as I was skiing away from the narrow, I looked in to one of the beta island side of the lake and saw some movement. So I stopped and it was the first things that I noticed on the lake. So I took my binoculars and looked and in the bay, about a kilometer away, I could see wolves running. So I quickly packed my binoculars and was just about to resume my skiing when I saw them running very quickly towards me. So I stayed there and within minutes, they were very close to me — about 50 meters. Then they kind of split up in a group like two of the larger ones went behind me and then the rest was in a half circle in front of me — maybe 50 meters in front of me.

ROCH SHANNON FOSTER: What was going through your head?

AM: I mean I was scared because I mean they are large animals and having so many of them so close to me in the middle of nowhere I didn't really know what their reaction would be. I just decided to stand as tall as I could. Like just doing the same as encountering a bear and put my poles in the air and tried to yell at them to see what the reaction would be. And eventually the one in front of me took a couple of steps back so I thought I'll try this to be a bit more aggressive and skied towards them and then they retreated a little bit. And eventually, I managed to scare them and make them move. And they started to go towards the island again, except for the two big ones that were behind me. They stayed for maybe another kilometer following me as I resumed skiing.

JD: Former Canadian Olympic skier Alain Masson, speaking with CBC Whitehorse host Roch Shannon Foster.

[Music: Ambient rock]

Short story award winner

Guest: Alix Hawley

JD: When asked to describe her CBC Short Story Prize entry in five-ish words Alix Hawley declared quote, “soldier comes home, girlfriend flips.” Now of course that's reductive, Ms. Hawley’s story is indeed the tale of a soldier's homecoming, but it's narrator's reaction to her partner's return it's somewhat more complicated than flipping. Alix Hawley is the winner of this year's CBC Short Story Prize for her entry called “Witching”. It is a poignant account of a life that looks normal but feels anything but. Ms. Hawley is also the author of “All True Not a Lie in it”, which one the Amazon.ca First Novel Award and was long-listed for the Scotiabank Giller Prize. Her short story was selected from 1,800 submissions to the CBC Short Story Prize. Reading “Witching”, here now is Kelowna, BC writer Alix Hawley.

SOUNDCLIP

[Reading]

Alix Hawley: The second he came back he was different. Although who else would have read it in him? The walk was his; the skin was his, the long face and dark hair and old mildly surprised expression. He came out of the depths of the arrival's tunnel and stood in the airport florescence smiling and the smile was mine, for me. He kissed me. He smelled the same. I waited. I waited, anybody would be changed.

AH: Read the stories of Vietnam. Those men who came back in pieces, legs off eyes, gone not talking. Not just the ones who'd had their jaws blown away. Nobody talked. If pressed they'd say there was nothing to talk about. If pressed harder they'd say there was a lot of mud. That's all you'd get out of them: the mud. I read a lot of those accounts before he came home. I felt like a student with a final exam looming. I can't get much more out of Dylan, except there wasn't mud in Afghanistan. Sand, sand in your eyes and your mouth and all the crevices of your body, that's what he'd say. The word crevices was startling, weirdly tender coming from him. He obviously thought it out. I keep thinking of the first plastic surgeries. Not the very earliest messes, the glass balls as breast implants. Corpse ears stitched to living earless heads. I read about those too, but I mean the ones after the assorted horrors of World War One. The man missing his face after being burned to the bone, he got a wide strip of his chest cut out and slapped in to rebirth his forehead and eyelids and nose. They kept the band attached to his torso with long tentacles of flesh until the blood supply was established. You could see the doctor's frustration with their material. It puckered, it glowered, it wouldn't live the way they wanted it to lie. Dylan is physically fine; he has a small blister on his heel that won't close up. It weeps like an eye. He lets me put Band-Aids on it for him. He lets me do everything. He still goes running. He still eats tuna sandwiches. He folds his shirts in the same squares, but part of him is misplaced. I think that's what I mean. I look at him and some kind of threads are holding him down as if he were a balloon in a parade and the parade is in the desert going on and on through the golden light and sand moving away forever. He doesn't twitch. He doesn't sit around hollow-eyed. He's fine. He's completely fine. He just comes out with odd words sometimes a little British or something else unlike him: crevices, trousers, sport. My heart laid bare.

AH: I mean you can watch the Exorcist and believe in the spinning head, but even churches say possession isn't real. It's a metaphor for something: being lost to God maybe. Dylan isn't lost, he's right here in his sweat pants or sweat trousers. Laying his heart bare, or not. When he hugs me with his long arms I know the hug and the arms, the sparse black hair on them and the backs of the hands. The pats and the “love you’”, his head doesn't spin. He's calm. He watches hockey with his feet up on the back of the couch. Same as ever, but in my mind I keep seeing a wasp nest, a gray papery shell full of building and buzzing in some insect language. I have no idea what it means? He doesn't move in his sleep. He says he doesn't have nightmares; he doesn't have dreams at all. He breathes steadily all night. I ask him about his sleep in the morning and he just smiles and stretches, clear-eyed as a kid. Late last night, he was on the couch with the dog and his laptop. When I came downstairs I could see the screen, the naked women looking skilled and efficient at what they were doing to each other: nothing weird.

AH: I said hi and he turned around and smiled his old smile at me and went back to watching. I said come to bed. He said look at this: bodiless romance. I said I see plenty of bodies. Come on, it's late. The women move their limbs slowly as if they were trapped in honey. Dylan said the bodies don't matter they're not the point. Not the point of porn! What are you talking about? I sat on the back of the couch and touched his shoulder. I said Dylan, did you see bodies in Afghanistan? He turned and looked at me his face glowing blue in the laptop light. He said bodies are never the point. They are just vehicles for experiences. This felt like a break through before he shut his mouth I climbed over the couch to kneel by his feet. I put my hand on his leg and said Sweetheart, I'm here. You’re home; we can talk. You can tell me everything. He was still smiling except it had turned puzzled, a little pitying. He said sure Melli, I’m stay down here for a while okay? Bodiless romance I heard all right. I sat up in bed alone. He used to call me Melli when we first got together like I'd popped all saintly out of “Gone With The Wind”. I tried to read a big novel. I thought about when I was young and obsessed with the Bronte’s, more with their lives than their novels. Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester left me pretty cold, but I thought a lot about Charlotte Bronte dying. The last of her young siblings unable to believe she was going now that she was happy married and pregnant at last. I had cried a little at the time reading about that. Why? Maybe that's what Dylan was talking about a wishful connection with somebody else somebody real but impossible like watching them naked on a screen. Feeling like you understand them, although how can you? What did I know about being a writer? Dying of morning sickness in Yorkshire parsonage in the 1850s? Charlotte Bronte was angry though. I got that. Life had no other plans for her, boom, the end. And when she was dead, her dad cut up her letters and manuscripts to send to desperate fans seeking a piece of her hand writing. Any word, any mark, any piece of her. I'd be angry too. Dylan didn't come upstairs at all. This morning, he's gone off somewhere. Maybe his veterans PTSD group, except he doesn't have PTSD. He just likes to go and hang out and have coffee he says. That's mostly what they do there. Now, I'm so full of huge startling rage I'm going to collapse and die on the kitchen floor with my teeth bared to the gums. My pulse bangs in my head and my neck. I have to lean over the sink and run the tap icy onto my scalp. What I want is I want to drag him back from wherever he's gone from the dead. Only he's not dead. I want to cut all his clothes into Voodoo pieces. Shake him. Duck him underwater, reassemble him. Only he's not broken either. That's the problem. He just kissed me goodbye and drove off at a normal speed like a perfectly reasonable person. I take myself and the dog for a walk. A few of the neighborhood houses have pumpkin squatting on their front step. Up the block, two tiny girls are running around their yard in identical witch masks. One is holding a pink plastic Barbie broom above her head and screaming, yah. Does Barbie do her own sweeping? The dog barks at the girl or the broom. He didn't bark at Dylan at all when he came back, even though it had been more than a year. The smaller girl falls over a lawn chair and howls for real, but she doesn't pull off the mask. The other crouches to peer at her through her own eyeholes. Maybe Dylan has a new face. Maybe he isn't Dylan. Body-snatched, are there which is in Afghanistan? The little girl goes on howling. I cough. My head is cold. The air swarms faintly smoky into my lungs. I think again a wasps building away quietly, chewing wood into paper — making things into other things. The dog whines. We walk and Dylan drives past now, going very slowly up the street watching for something. I feel his eyes pass through my body like x rays. I feel myself vanish. A girl in a slouchy green cap is walking ahead and Dylan raises his hand a small private salute. The girl does the same. She looks about 16 maybe 15 maybe less. The car nearly stops the wheels grind forward Dillon’s mouth shapes words at the window.

AH: What words? Love? What? Vehicles for experiences. Like what? Like this? I see it now how he loves being transformed by the war and the sand in his crevices. He's happy and it's a happiness I can't reach. I can't see around it. Chimney smoke threads into the sky and I think of all the people ever left behind praying for their World War One dead. Trying to contact them through mediums in toilet parlors séances. Don't you have anything to tell me? I think too of Charlotte Bronte’s old dad cutting up all he had left of her. And I get, it I get it. I do.

JD: “Witching” was written and read by Alix Hawley. The Kelowna, British Columbia writer is the winner of this year's CBC Short Story Prize. You can find out more about Ms. Hawley along with the text of her story at www.cbcbooks.ca. Be sure to check out the CBC Poetry Prize, which is currently accepting submissions. The winner will receive $6,000 from the Canada Council for the Arts. They will have their poem published in Air Canada's “enRoute Magazine” and they will get the opportunity to attend a 10 day writing residency at the Banf Centre for Arts and Creativity.

[Music: Classical]

Chips shortage

JD: OK, let me walk you through what you are about to hear. When the commercial opens, a golden dog with long, luxurious hair is lounging on the grass.

SOUNDCLIP

A YOUNG VOICE: [Speaking: Japanese]

JD: Ok, a kid’s soccer game. Someone scores. The goalie: a young girl is sad, but here's the golden dog on its hind legs pointing out various animals that can fly. It tries to fly. It can't fly. Then it's sucked up by a UFO and then it comes back with huge glowing red alien eyes and a bag of Calbee potato chips. Girl smiles and eats a chip.

JD: End of commercial, beginning of recurring nightmares. That golden dog, which frankly I suspect is really a person in a golden dog suit. That dog has appeared in several commercials for Calbee over the years. Each of which is terrifying in its own way. But Japan's current snack horror doesn't involve the dog invading your dreams. It involves the dog and the chips not showing up at all. Over the past two weeks, Calbee and fellow chip company Koike-Ya have stopped selling dozens of flavors including: “French Salad”, “Plum Flavor”, “Pizza Potato” and “Rich Consommé”. Stores in Japan have instituted a one bag per customer policy. A black market has sprung up with bags going for exorbitant prices all because of a record number of typhoons on the island of Hokkaido last year, which severely damaged the potato crop. Now at the moment, neither Calbee nor Koike-Ya has any idea when they will be able to produce chips again. And that means a severe salty snacks shortage for the foreseeable future. It also means the Calbee dog has been kenneled indefinitely. Possibly in a UFO and for the first time ever, people are actually yearning for the day that that mascot/monster is once again unleashed.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

April 19, 2017 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode