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 11, 2017

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

CO: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

CO: A new Cold War heats up. With a Moscow meeting imminent, the White House applies more pressure to convince Russia to stop supporting Bashar al-Assad. Our guest says Vladimir Putin will not be moved -- at least, not like this.

JD: The last thing they had left to lose. New revelations from African migrants leaving their homes to cross the Mediterranean -- who say they've been sold as slaves by people-smugglers and militia groups in Libya.

CO: An un-gentle man and a scholar. Hungary's PM, Viktor Orban, has targeted one particular university for destruction -- which has plunged the head of that school, Michael Ignatieff, back into the political fray.

JD: Pressed secretary. Sean Spicer makes an offensive reference to Hitler at the White House briefing -- and fails to improve things with a clarification, or a clarification of the clarification.

CO: Drawing criticism. The Canadian graphic novel "This One Summer" has been singled out for praise -- but in the U.S., it's also been singled out for banning by people who find its candid content pretty sketchy.

JD: And... a United affront. As the American airline struggles to deal with a PR catastrophe, we'll get in touch with a man whose nasty experience really struck a chord: the guy who wrote "United Breaks Guitars" after United broke his guitar.
As It Happens, the Tuesday edition. Radio that wonders, "What's the deal with airline feuds?"

Back To Top »

Part 1: Syria: Russia, Michael Ignatieff, United Airlines follow-up

Syria: Russia

Guest: Evgeny Buzhinskiy

JEFF DOUGLAS: On the eve of what is expected to be a tense meeting in Moscow, the White House is applying more pressure.
Today, U.S. national security officials said they believe Russia tried to cover up last week's chemical attack in Syria. And tomorrow, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is expected to confront Russia with evidence of its complicity.
At a Group of 7 foreign ministers' meeting in Italy today, Secretary Tillerson said: "It is clear to all of us that the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end."
And tomorrow, Mr. Tillerson will be appealing to Russian President Vladimir Putin to help the U.S. end that reign.
Evgeny Buzhinskiy is a retired Lieutenant-General in the Russian military. He now works at the Russian Center for Policy Research in Moscow. That's where we reached him.

CAROL OFF: Lieutenant General Buzhinskiy, Rex Tillerson is meeting in Moscow tomorrow. He is going to ask for Russia to take a side against Bashar al-Assad. How is Vladimir Putin likely to react to that?

EVGENY BUZHINSKIY: Well, I am absolutely sure that President Putin will reject this. Well I don't know how to call it, demand or offer or ultimatum but I am absolutely sure that President Putin will reject such a request. Let's put it mildly.

CO: What's in it for Russia to cover for Bashar al-Assad?

EB: Several reasons. The first reason is that Assad is actually the only person here in Syria who is seriously fighting Daesh. Russia is helping him. But of course, the main actions are on the ground and [unintelligible] forces are on the ground. Second, my strong belief is that now there is no secular alternative to Bashar al-Assad. If he steps down, the only alternative to him will be a radical Islamist. It's an illusion that someone from the so-called moderate opposition all their leaders spent most of their lives in Paris, Brussels or some other comfortable European city, just take part in the elections and be elected. And third, which is the most important, I trust estimation of our intelligence that is supported by at least 50 percent of the Syrian population who are living in Syria.

CO: When you say “supported by at least 50 percent of the population”, more than half the country's population is either internally displaced or has fled the country. So that percentage of support has been questioned. But I understand the point you're making. I guess the issue here is that the United States is making it clear that, they're saying Bashar al-Assad's regime is coming to an end. The allies of the United States are saying that they blame him for the chemical attack. They're not going to relent on that. So at what point does Russia have to find a different strategy or else find itself in a serious clash with the United States?

EB: Well first of all I do not accept this position that a United States Senate or a U.S. president says, Assad should go. Assad was elected by the Syrian people, by the way. I think they should be a very objective and thorough international investigation because I'm doubtful about the alleged chemical attack. For what reason? Assad, who is winning, who is having success on the ground used chemical weapons against his rivals. Second [unintelligible] disposed of the chemical weapons.

CO: But the United States is saying that Russia either doesn't seem to know about Assad's chemical weapons or Russian intelligence is incompetent, that they're not giving you much wiggle room on that.

EB: Russian intelligence, believe me, is competent. There are the two storage sites which are left, which are in the territory in the province of Idlib, which is not and was not controlled by Assad. So if Syrian engagement actually hit the storage site in Idlib, that's possible. It's absolutely clear that there is and there was no chemical weapons in that airbase which was damaged by the U.S. cruise missiles.

CO: This report that was released today, a declassified report from the United States, their assessment that Idlib and the attack on Idlib was a strategic thing and that Assad would have reasons for using chemicals. They have intelligence both signals and geospatial, and samples from victims that say that this was clearly a chemical weapons attack made on that village. And no matter how much Russia says it's not the case, they're not going to change their mind on that. So where does Russia take it at this point?

EB: Well I understand that Americans are the most objective judge in this world, on this planet. But we are awfully sorry that we are Russians, awfully sorry, but we have our own opinion of some events and we are not obliged to take the U.S. opinion and U.S. lead in in all matters possible.

CO: No you're not obliged, but what are you going to do about the fact that you seem to be on a collision course with the United States.

EB: It's the choice of the United States. What can we do if the United States wants the escalation?

CO: Well there are other options. Détente, talks with them, figuring out how to move forward together. I mean is there nothing else but to continue on what appears to be a collision course.

EB: It's perfectly all right if they want to talk, we are ready to talk. But we want to be listened to and we want to be heard. The Russian president is not going to talk in the terms of ultimatums. Either you are with us or you're against us. President Putin will never change this position under pressure.

CO: But will he change his position through any other means?

EB: He may change his position. But he should be convinced for the time being, all the arguments I know, I was dealing with the Americans when I was the Minister of Defense. These arguments, trust us, we know what we are talking about. We have proof but we won't prevent it because it's classified. It won't go with us.

CO: I do sense you're leaving the door slightly ajar for some discussion, some possibility that that Rex Tillerson and Mr. Lavrov could agree tomorrow about how to proceed with Bashar al-Assad. Do you think it's possible for Rex Tillerson to find common ground with Mr. Lavrov tomorrow?

EB: I think so. Why not? If Mr. Tillerson will be objective and will be convincing, why not? But we should have thorough investigation.

CO: We we'll leave it there. General Buzhinskiy, thank you.

EB: Thank you.

CO: And good night.

EB: Good night.

JD: Evgeny Buzhinskiy is a retired lieutenant general in the Russian military. He now works at the Russian Center for Policy Research in Moscow. And that is where we reached him.

[Music]

Spicer on Hitler

JD: At his daily press briefing today, White House spokesperson Sean Spicer saw fit to compare Bashar al-Assad to Adolf Hitler. Here's what he had to say:

SOUNDCLIP

SEAN SPICER: We didn't use chemical weapons in World War II. You know, you had a, you know someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons. So you have to, if you're Russia, ask yourself is this a country that you, and a regime that you want to align yourself with?

JD: The White House Press then gave Mr. Spicer the chance to clarify that statement.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: Quote “Hitler didn't even sink to using chemical weapons.” What did you mean by that?

SEAN SPICER: I think when you come to sarin gas, there was no, he was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing. I mean there was clearly… I understand your point, thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. There was not in the… he brought him into the... to the Holocaust Center. I understand that. But I'm saying in the way that Assad used them, where he went into towns, dropped them down, to innocent, into the middle of town. It was brought… so the use of it… and I appreciate the clarification there, that was not the intent.

JD: That was White House Spokesperson Sean Spicer at a press briefing earlier this afternoon at the White House. In response to Mr. Spicer's comments. The U.S. Anne Frank Center put out this statement “On Passover no less, Sean Spicer has engaged in Holocaust denial, the most offensive form of fake news imaginable by denying Hitler gassed millions of Jews to death. Spicer's statement is the most evil slur upon a group of people we have ever heard from a White House press secretary. Sean Spicer now lacks the integrity to serve as White House Press Secretary and President Trump must fire him at once.”
After the press briefing, Sean Spicer took one more crack at clarifying what he meant. This time, in a written statement. I quote, “In no way was I trying to lessen the horrendous nature of the Holocaust. I was trying to draw a distinction of the tactic of using airplanes to drop chemical weapons on population centers. Any attack on innocent people is reprehensible and inexcusable.”

[Music]

Michael Ignatieff

JD: Michael Ignatieff left Canadian politics long ago. But now, he's at the centre of one of Hungary's most contentious political fights.
Mr. Ignatieff is now the President of the Central European University in Budapest. Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has passed legislation that threatens to shut it down. He says he's combatting fraud and foreign influence. But he's been met with thousands of people protesting in the streets.
Mr. Ignatieff calls the law an attack on academic freedom. And he's appealing to the outside world for help.
We reached Michael Ignatieff in Budapest.

CO: Michael Ignatieff, what does legislation in Hungary mean for the future of your school?

MICHAEL IGNATIEFF: Carol, I think it would shut us down. We've been here for 25 years. We're a graduate institution that issues masters and doctoral degrees that are accredited in the United States and the government is basically saying you can't issue those degrees and if you're going to stay here you have to be pursuant to some bilateral agreement between the federal government of the United States and Hungary. And we won't sign anything that compromises our academic freedom. And so we've been resisting very very sharply. And I think it's awakened a chord in Hungary simply because we're one of the few remaining truly free institutions in the country. And that's why we end up getting you know, something like 70,000 people in the street chanting in support of academic freedom. Who knew?
You know, it's been a, Carol, it's been a very moving and emotional time for us. We haven't started those demonstrations, we don't have any part in them, but boy when you're in a university and someone's parading out your window saying you know “Free universities, free country”, it's pretty pretty strong stuff.

CO: Prime Minister Orbán says this is broad legislation that he needs to crack down on fraud. Do you think your university has been targeted?

ME: Well the fraud stuff is particularly outrageous. You know, we're proud of the fact that we're one of the very best universities in the region, one of the best in Europe. You know why is it happening? You'd have to ask the prime minister. He's got an agenda.

CO: But you think your university has been targeted?

ME: Oh I think there's no question it's been targeted. I could give you chapter and verse about this. This legislation actually has only one institution that it could possibly apply to. And that's us. I think he just is worried that we are a threat to him. In fact we're not any kind of threat to him. We're actually a university, we get up every morning and do those thrilling things like medieval history and analytical philosophy. You know, stuff they do at the U of T or Université d’Ottawa.
But he construes this as being some kind of threat to his regime. It never is never will be. But none of us here is going to be pushed around, and because we're private and independent and endowed, we can fight back.

CO: What do you mean when you talk about Prime Minister Orbán ‘s agenda?

ME: Well Carol, I mean I honestly feel we've been hijacked. That is, the government wants to get the attention of Washington. And so they've taken an American institution hostage as if to say you know “Hey pay attention to us. We want a meeting in the Rose Garden. We want this kind of attention. We can't seem to get otherwise.” So it's a strange business. I think there's another element to this which is apparent. You know Mr. Orbán received a scholarship from the founder of this university, Mr. Soros in 1989. And I think there's some weird uncontrollable father son dynamic here that I actually don't understand, don't care about. I think he thinks he can take a Soros institution hostage but we’re not actually a Soros institution in the sense that I don't answer to Mr. Soros, I answer to trustees and it's an independent institution.

CO: Mr. Soros, he's the founder of the university. He endows the university. So is it so off the mark that by Mr. Orbán would see an attack on this university as an attack on George Soros?

ME: Oh sure. I mean I see that. But if this is about academic freedom, then Academic Freedom cuts both ways. It's academic freedom in respect of governments, but it's also academic freedom in respect of founders. I mean I got you know the chancellor, vice-chancellor of Oxford University and the chancellor of Berkeley, and ex-president of Stanford on my board. You know, they're the people I answer to; they're the people who hired me. And this man, let it just be entered in the record, you know, is a Holocaust survivor, unbelievably generous towards Hungary over 30 years. You know it makes my blood boil. I don't answer to the guy, but he's done more for this country than anybody I can think of.

CO: But there is still a lot of support for Viktor Orbán, maybe outside of Budapest more, but that he is still a popular politician. His objective as he stated very clearly, is he does not like liberal democracies. He is trying to transform Hungary into a populist nationalist entity. He's got that vision, and does it appear that your university is in the way of that?

ME: I think there's no doubt about that. He thinks there's some electoral gain in taking a run at us. But I just think that taking a run at an American institution is actually a strategic mistake. I think taking a run at a free institution riles up Budapest. I think taking a run at academic freedom triggers you know support from academic institutions around the world. I don't, I just genuinely don't think he gambled on that. I'm not going to comment on his agenda. Liberal, illiberal is not my business. But you know, my only job is to defend this institution and that's what we're doing.

CO: Leaving aside your political adventures here in Canada, that career. You have been a journalist, and author, you have written about the Balkans, Eastern Europe for decades, and to some extent, have you become a player in the story that you've been analyzing for years?

ME: I don't think I'm a player. I mean I think I'm just I got caught in something that is a lot bigger than me. But I’ll tell you Carol, you know, I've been in and out of academic life all my life, but I think the last three weeks have taught me more about academic freedom as a value then than I ever dreamed. I mean, a lot of your listeners may think, oh academic freedom that's a privilege that professors have. You know, actually it has a much deeper connection to our democracy. Universities are among the first self-governing institutions and a lot of our ideas of democracy are connected to the idea of self-governing institutions. And when you see an institution fight like I've seen this one fight, you really discover a passion for self-government, self-rule, to be free of government interference that's very powerful. And I'm not swept up in it, I'm trying to lead it. But it's moved me a lot and deepened my attachment to universities and you know, to the stuff that we do and I think that's the thing I take away. I don't think I'm a player in the search but I think the fact you were kind enough to say, I’ve thought about this part of the world for a long time, I married into this part of the world. I think that actually helps me get some kind of handle on what's going on. But it's been an amazing adventure and it's not over and I'm not out of the woods and I don't want to proclaim victory. We're still in a really stubborn battle that could go on for some time and frankly I need, I mean I shouldn't be using you airwaves to do this, but I need all the support from Canada I can get.

CO: We will leave it there but we will be following this story. Mr. Ignatieff, thank you.

ME: Pleasure Carol.

CO: Good night.

JD: Michael Ignatieff is the president of Hungary's Central European University. We reached him in Budapest. And you can find more on this story on our website cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: “United Breaks Guitars”]

United follow-up

Guest: Dave Carroll

JD: That's a taste of Dave Carroll's song, United Breaks Guitars.
You may remember Mr. Carroll, a Halifax musician, was flying on United Airlines to play a show. Sitting on the tarmac before takeoff, he looked out the window, sees baggage handlers throwing guitars around, when he arrives at his destination, his guitar was broken. It cost him twelve hundred dollars to fix it. United refuses to pay. Thus Mr. Carroll writes this song.
Well, as you have no doubt heard by now, United has a new public relations crisis on their hands after a passenger was filmed being violently dragged off a plane on Sunday.
As It Happens spoke with Dave Carroll back in 2009. And we thought we'd check in with him today, to see what he thinks of United's latest customer service disaster. We reached Dave Carroll in Halifax.

CO: Dave, I didn't think that you and I would be talking about United Airlines again since they broke your guitar. So what do you make of this latest incident?

DC: I think I was a shock. I discovered it myself after touching down in Halifax yesterday, after ironically I was I was coming back from a customer service meeting where I was sharing my United guitar story, and my phone lit up with interest and some requests to do a fourth song and I looked into why and then I saw the video that everybody else has seen now and it's been pretty horrific. And I felt for everybody on that plane.

CO: So guess why you got all those calls is because people remember what happened to you and your song which is United Breaks Guitars. And it became a bit of a public relations fiasco for United back in 2009. Is your sense then that they haven't learned anything since you encountered their reaction?

DC: No. I would have thought they made some advances but I think seven years later now, the same sort of problem has emerged, and I think it has to do with the culture in the company. When my video went viral, I received letters from the flight attendants and the pilots associations on their letterhead that I'm paraphrasing, but they said essentially if you think it's bad flying with us, try working here. So how are you supposed to dazzle your customers with great customer service if the people providing the services feel such disconnection to the company. So I think they have some problems that they have to change culturally. And I think if they bring more compassion into the conversation, they'd be better suited.

CO: We’re wondering how the CEO of United is responding we heard from him, Oscar Munoz, he released a statement after the incident where he apologized for having to re-accommodate customers and said that they were investigating.That was the extent of his comment, widely condemned for that. Now today, he has gone further in saying that they've all responded with outrage, anger, disappointment and they have the deepest apologies for what happened. But why do you think it took 24 hours for the CEO to figure that out?

DC: It's a mystery. I've had a crisis communication expert named Todd Bardos who is a friend of mine, explain his own way, the way he saw it, and he thinks that either he should never be writing his own press releases or he should maybe let go of the person who was helping him do that. Because first one was so awful and I think a billion dollars in market cap later they realize that this one story is actually affecting the profitability of their company. So he had to step up and give a more heartfelt apology that showed caring and showed respect for the person who was affected, and it's not just a story, this is a person that was actually humiliated and assaulted on a plane and that that needs the personal attention from the leader and the voice of the entire brand to the person affected. And that was the second apology was where it should have been in the first place.

CO: Do you think the first apology, he was thinking about liability issues?

DC: Yeah I think especially in big brands, they surround themselves by people with a single focus and in this case, a roomful of lawyers are taught how to protect the brand on the basis of what is legally entitled. And that, sometimes, should be much farther down the list. In this case, it’s obviously a negative story for the airline and now the companies are realizing it themselves, with a billion dollars in market capitalization dropped today.

CO: I know that your song United Breaks Guitars went well went all over the place, had some changes for you. How has writing that song ended and its publicity changed your life?

DC: About a month into the video going viral, I was invited to go to Colorado Springs and do a keynote presentation as a speaker which I'd never done before. And I discovered I really enjoyed it, and it felt as gratifying as a good musical performance to me and it's turned into a seven year career as a speaker and I've traveled now to 26 countries. And in the process, I think people sometimes expect that I'm going to talk about how to tear their mind down and bring it down to its knees. But really the bigger story for me is on compassion and compassionate design. And if the company is a little bit more compassionate, they can have better outcomes and empower not just their employees, but their passengers to think differently about their brand to the benefit of everybody.

CO: So you talk you gave is about compassion in business.

DC: Yes it is, I share the insights that I gained as a customer service and the importance of becoming a great storyteller and that your brand is nothing more than the conversations being had about it. But ultimately, I think the big story behind United Breaks Guitars has always been about the lack of compassion that was there and why compassion should be a central feature of your culture.

CO: And your company is called Big Break Enterprises.

DC: Yup. I thought that would be a nice tongue in cheek way to celebrate the opportunity.

CO: Just finally, has your song gained popularity in the past 48 hours since this story broke?

DC: Sure, as I was just notified today, that it went up nearly half a million views in the last day and it was at a big number of $16 million, but that's a big percentage increase after seven years in just one day.

CO: All right, well maybe United learned something that they didn’t learn about from your song and when it broke your guitar, maybe you learned it from this. Dave, it’s good to talk to you thanks.

DC: Thanks very much, Carol. Bye-bye.

CO: Bye.

JD: Dave Carroll plays guitar in Sons of Maxwell and he wrote the song United Breaks Guitars. We reached him in Halifax at a pool where his kids were taking swimming lessons which does account for some of that background noise. We have got more on the United debacles on the As It Happens website which you can find at cbc.ca/aih.
Also as you heard Carol mentioned in there, United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz did release a more detailed apology this afternoon which reads in part “I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.”Mr. Munoz also promised a review of the policies that led to the man being dragged off the plane. He said the results of that review will be released on April 30th.

Back To Top »

Part 2: Libya migrant slavery, banned book

Libya migrant slavery

Guest: Othman Belbeisi

JEFF DOUGLAS: You might have thought that it could not possibly get any worse for migrants trying to reach the shores of southern Europe by crossing the Mediterranean from North Africa. But now a new and terrible story is emerging. Some African migrants have told the International Organization for Migration, IOM how they were sold as slaves in Libya.
Othman Belbeisi is the IOM's chief of mission for Libya. We reached him today though in Geneva.

CAROL OFF: Mr. Belbeisi, can you tell us about the people who are being sold as slaves? Where are they from?

OTHMAN BELBEISI: They are from different countries, mainly Western Africa. Here we are talking also about this modern slavery where also migrants are being held in different locations against their will.

CO: And who is conducting this trade? Who are who is selling these people? Unfortunately here we are talking about armed groups in different parts of the country. Those groups who hold those migrants against their will, mainly in farms or in houses, what we call bondage houses, where migrants are kept locked for extended duration. Many of them try to ask for ransom from the families, if the families can't pay the ransom, or, some are being sold in the market to conduct mainly daily intensive labor. They live in very poor conditions. They receive the minimal amount of food just to keep them alive. And the treatment that they face also is inhumane. Many are subject to violence. And you can be killed if you cause problems to those smugglers.

CO: How did these slave traders get hold of the people that they're selling and recruiting in this way? How do they how do they get them?

OB: In Libya, the streets are full of migrants. This is one thing. On the other hand, many of the migrants who are in the hands of the smugglers during the movement process from the south further to the western part of the country. So they end up in the hands of the smugglers and being locked up in different locations. Or many times they are in the streets and they are just attacked or there are raids by those smugglers where they collect the migrants and hold them in different locations inside the country.

CO: We're talking about the most vulnerable, desperate people you could imagine. Any particular stories because you've been meeting these people, you've been gathering their testimonies. What have they told you? Any one in particular, or few that have stood out for you?

OB: So the most common story is that people are locked in overcrowded places. They receive that minimal amount of food, and then they always talk about violence and incidents that happens either to them or to their friends. From the cases we help to return back home, there are many who are injured. Some cases are Woodburn's and some cases are with burns, and some I would say, signs of violence. So most of the stories agree at least on those points.

CO: And when you say that they're, when they're sold, that brings up images of a marketplace, of a slave trade. How does this business transaction how is it conducted?

OB: You can pay to get free labor or you can pay to have a number of people. And then you can use those people to do work for you. And when you finish your work, many of the times they are released, or in other incidents actually they face even more violence, or the person tries to sell them again if the buyer is another militia.

CO: So clearly there's a market for this. People are going, and they do they know that they're buying people who are not being paid, who have been gathered up in this way? Are the buyers aware of what they're doing?

OB: The buyers are aware because they are paying money to get free labor. This means they are fully aware of what they're doing.

CO: And the authorities, I know that Libya is a failed state. It's got many problems. But is there any effort to try and rescue any of these people?

OB: A Definitely talking to the authorities, there is a will. And we were informed that there will be concrete steps in fighting those smuggling and the smuggling networks. We all know the challenging situation in the country but I believe that there is a commitment to fight this phenomenon.

CO: I understand that there are people, the prices for these slaves differs according to what skills they might have or who they might be. Can you tell us a bit about that?

OB: Yes the price varies depending on your skills. If you have skills on painting or tiles work or agriculture, but also the prices are between two to 500 Libyan dinars. Now with the difference in the exchange rate in the black market, I believe the average would be between one and two hundred U.S. dollars.

CO: And what about women. Are they being sold as well?

OB: Women are also part of this trade, to a lesser extent, the majority are men. But what we also hear a lot of stories about forced labor, forced prostitution, especially across the route when they first enter Libya in the desert as well.

CO: Do you have any idea how extensive this is? How many people you might be talking about?

OB: From our side, we interviewed say from 40 to 60, but everybody we interviewed mentioned that they were with a group of hundreds of people in the same place. And they all end up with the same treatment. So some are being sold, some are held against their will to conduct some businesses then they are released. Others, they call their families to provide some money so they pay some ransom for their release. So different stories but what we hear is always they have been hold in larger numbers.

CO: And these are people, the families would be people who are hoping that whoever it is has been able to get someplace to send money back, not to try and get money from the place where they have departed.

OB: Definitely facing all those risks and dangers in a foreign country, you can imagine that you are trying to do whatever you can just to survive yourself and send some money back home to support your family and you end up with the hands of those smugglers and you end up working for free.

CO: When you are able to find these people to rescue them or liberate them, what do you do with them?

OB: For those who want to stay in the country, we try just to provide the basic support for them. But for those who want to go back home, since many of the migrants do not have travel documents, we help them in coordination with their embassies to issue travel documents and we help them to go back home. When they are back at their countries of origin, we also target them with reintegration programs to start a new life back home.

CO: This is just a tragic story in Mr. Belbeisi.

OB: Yes, yes definitely it is. And while people fleeing their countries looking for a better life, they end up in a much worse situation. And for us, you can imagine if you accept this very high risk, it means that you have very limited options back home. And I believe those people deserve better treatment and better opportunities.

CO: Thank you for speaking with us tonight. Thank you. Thank you.

JD: Othman Belbeisi is the International Organization for Migration’s Chief of Mission for Libya. We reached him today in Geneva. And there is more on this story on our website, cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Mudslide house

Amber Mackie and her son, Ryley, were inside their home in Tappen, British Columbia late last week when it was hit by a mudslide. It pushed it off its foundation and also destroyed another home in the area. Here is what Ms. Mackie told the CBC about what she was doing before the mudslide hit.

SOUNDCLIP

AMBER MACKIE: Worked all day, my son was at school, we got home, put your stuff down, you let the dog out, and then you know I thought, oh I'm going to go bug my landlords, and I went to the front door and that's when I heard something. Something my son says it sounded like water. And he actually got out of his room to come find me to say you know “What is that sound?” And I just kind of looked at the front door and I thought “Oh, it’s happening and before I knew it, the force of the house threw me down and threw stuff on me and passed me. The whole motion of it went fairly quick. A lot of smashing and very loud noise. I felt the gravity of the house sideways. I kind of went with the ride of the house. I don't know how to explain that. Like I just went with it and I kind of went down with it as the house went down and I went on my butt and I didn't lose consciousness. I just yelled out for my son and my son was like “What just happened?” And I said “Are you OK? And I got up and I honestly never looked beside me or anything, I just saw what was in front of me. I saw that the house was on an angle, the stove had been pushed into the fridge and everything was everywhere. And again Riley is saying “What just happened? And I climbed over the stove to get to him, to feel him to see that oh my God he's OK.
Same time as me climbing over everything, I saw my purse which still had my cell phone in it. And I called 911. My son was a bit of a panic trying to bang on the patio door and I thought oh he's right maybe there's more coming like we have to get out of here. And we started trying to move the kitchen table away from the patio doors so we could try and break it or push it or do anything. And that's when Jean and Steve's face became visible and smashed the patio door open and got us out.

JD: That was Amber Mackie in conversation with the CBC's Brady Strachan yesterday after a mudslide moved their house 20 meters. And the names she mentioned at the end of that clip were her neighbors who helped them get out of the house. Ms. Mackie and her son suffered minor injuries. Friends have now started to GoFundMe page as Ms. Mackie and her family look for a new home to rent.

[Music]

Banned book

Guest: Mariko Tamaki

JD: A Canadian book has joined classics including To Kill a Mockingbird and the Harry Potter series. Not however, necessarily in a good way. This One Summer is a graphic novel created by Toronto-born author Mariko Tamaki and her cousin Jillian Tamaki. It was released three years ago. And now, it has become the first Canadian book to get the top spot on a yearly list of books Americans have tried their hardest to ban. We reached Mariko Tamaki in Toronto.

CO: Ms. Tamaki, how did you feel when you found out that your graphic novel was at the top of the American Library Association's list of banned and challenged books?

MARIKO TAMAKI: As somebody who was never very athletic in high school, it's always kind of pleasing to find out that you're the number one. So that was kind of nice, but at the same time I think it is frustrating because what this really means is that the book is being removed from school libraries which means that people who can't for example maybe afford to buy a comic book won’t be able to read it which is frustrating.

CO: What's your book about?

MT: This One Summer is a book about two girls named Wendy and Rose, and it's basically the story of their summer up at the cottage, in sort of this Muskoka type Lake area. And really, it's just a story about growing up. It’s the story about what life is sort of like as you move from being a kid to trying to be an adult. And it's a story about them and their parents and the teenagers who work and kind of live around the corner store at the cottage.

CO: What are the kinds of conversations that those girls have and actually and also conversations that they hear?

MT: I really think that children are sort of like anthropologists of adulthood. They're you know attentive listeners to adults and they're trying to figure out from what they hear what it means to be grown up. And so Rose's parents are having a hard time that summer and they're fighting a lot. And Rose's mother was at one point trying to get pregnant. So that is something that they talk about. And at the same time, there are these boys at the corner store who are constantly talking about sex and their girlfriends and calling their girlfriends sluts. So they're sort of taking up all these various sources of information as they go to get their gummy [unintelligible].

CO: And there are also, these are 14 year old girls , is that the age?

MT: Rose is 13, 14 and Wendy is yeah 11, 12.

CO: And they're discovering their bodies, they’re looking at them, comparing with each other, as girls of that age do.

MT: Yeah I mean when I was that age, everybody was talking about whether or not you were going to get a bra, or what kind of bra you would eventually get if you didn't already have a bra. Like that was something that I remember girls being obsessed with.

CO: And so there's one sequence where the two girls are on the beach talking about their boobs.

MT: Yeah, they're talking about their boobs and they talk about… one of the girls is adopted so she’s not really sure how it's going to go, and they're talking about it as though it’s like a geography course. They’re sort of like sussing out what their various options might be. And Wendy is a little bit younger so when they think it's very funny, and in fact they even get chastised by an adult for being too loud and about talking about their views.

CO: So what have been the objections from the various places where the book has been removed or banned? What is their problem?

MT: So basically what this list means is that people who have taken the book out of a library or school have brought it back and have complained. The complaints include LGBT characters, that it includes drug use and profanity, and that it is considered sexually explicit and contains mature scenes.

CO: There was one quote from a parent in the Orlando area, where it was removed, and the parents said, how do you explain this to a 9-year-old, the things that are in this book? And based on that complaint, it was deemed inappropriate through the whole Orlando area school district.

MT: Well and to be fair, the book is listed as being for readers 12 and up. So I would say even I would probably not give the book to a 9 year old, because I think that there would be a lot of things that you would have to discuss. I don't think that they're the ideal reader just because the book is about an experience that's a little older than a nine year old. You know, there are all different kinds of readers and there are probably even 12 year old or 13 year old readers that this book isn’t for. I mean I have a lot of faith in a young person's ability to stop reading a book that they don't understand or don't like. And I think that that ability means that you can have a book on a shelf out of a library for example that is not necessarily for your child, or for you know, a particular student, but could be for another one.

CO: But the reaction you're getting is from the parents who don't like it not the kids.

MT: Yeah, oh exactly. I talked to a teacher once who said that he had given the book to a young boy who I guess was in grade 5 or 6, and the boy brought the book back to him after reading it for a little bit. And he was upset because he said that the book was too sad and he didn't want to read it anymore. And the teacher and I agreed that I was kind of the ideal situation like that. He decided himself as opposed to having someone else decide for him that he didn't like the book.

CO: The book has won a number of awards. The Caldecott Honor, a Governor General’s Award. Is it after it became acclaimed, that you got this attention, that you started having the most number of issues with the book being removed from libraries and schools?

MT: I think there was one sort of swath of attention that came with the Caldecott Honors because that honor is generally associated with elementary school books or books for young readers. I think it was possibly ordered by a bunch of sort of elementary school librarians who would have then assessed the book and decided it wasn't for elementary school readers. But this particular distinction is a little bit different because it's not librarians assessing the books themselves and just removing it from the shelves. It's based on a series of complaints and so I think especially when you see that the top five books were all removed for LGBTQ content specifically, I think it's more that it's a book that is a book for young readers and also deals with adult things from a kid's perspective and I think that that's a commonality amongst the books that are removed.

CO: Other authors who are on this list, the American Library Association's list of Banned and Challenged Books: Judy Blume, Margaret Atwood, J.K. Rowling. How do you feel being in that company?

MT: I wish it was a party instead of a list that we could all just like hang out and just like you know have cupcakes or something. I think that would be really great. I mean it is nice to be in the company of people who write books that I think are really powerful and really important books. So it definitely sort of takes the sting of being the number one banned book is knowing that I have read other number one banned books and I really liked them and I thought they were really great books for like teen readers so it's not something I take personally.

CO: We will leave it there. Ms. Tamaki, thank you.

MT: Yes thank you.

CO: Bye-bye.

[Music]

Honesty brain study

JD: Dan Hill is right. Sometimes the honesty is too much. And not just when we touch, but whenever your desire to be truthful is compromised by our desire to get cool stuff only for yourself, and let everyone else go suck an egg.
It can be difficult sometimes not to let your self-interest override your honesty. But what if I told you that transcranial direct current stimulation to the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortext could help?
I know: it seems like such a simple solution, a no brainer. But according to a research team from the University of Zurich, it can work.
Here's what that team did: first, they got 145 people to take part in a dice-rolling experiment. They won for rolling certain numbers. But also they were allowed to lie about what they had rolled, which would mean they'd win even more.
Then the scientists did the experiment again. This time, however, they stuck electrodes to the subjects' scalps, and turned on a low, constant current. That's the transcranial direct current stimulation. Which was applied to that particular part of the brain that plays a big role in making moral decisions: the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. And the scientists found that, when the current was applied, their subjects were less likely to cheat.
There were exceptions, though. Some people never cheated, whether they were being zapped or not. And some people always cheated, whether they were being zapped or not. Which may suggests that the brain stimulation only makes a difference to people who are morally torn, not to people who never even considered being honest.
The researchers are really just trying to understand the way the brain works. But it does seem like, maybe, little white liars could be cured by some little light wires.

Back To Top »

Part 3: "The Story of Us": Annapolis Royal mayor, coral bleaching follow-up

Dateline: Giant Rubber Duck

JD: Dateline: across Ontario.

[Music]

JD: If it looks like a duck, and is almost six stories high, 24 metres wide, 27 metres long, and weighs in at 13,600 kilos -- then it is probably Dutch.
That is, it is most likely the work of a Dutch artist named Florentijn Hofman. For ten years now, Mr. Hofman has been releasing versions of his giant rubber duck into waterways around the world. And now, it's our own baby country's turn for some bathtime fun, as it counts down to its 150th birthday bash this summer.
Mr. Hofman's Rubber Ducky will be making stops in several ports across Ontario as part of the Ontario 150 Tour, in partnership with Ducks Unlimited Canada. The artist says the inspiration for the gigantic rubber ducky came to him as he envisioned a world in which a gargantuan baby had strewn his toys all about. "And to be honest," he added, "I am this baby."
As his website declared, "The Rubber Duck knows no frontiers, it doesn't discriminate, and doesn't have a political connotation. The friendly, floating Rubber Duck has healing properties: it can relieve mondial tensions as well as define them. The Rubber Duck is soft, friendly and suitable for all ages!"
Still, it hasn't always been smooth sailing for the flock of jumbo inflatable birds, which have suffered both fowl play and foul weather. In 2009, while docked in Belgium, one duck deflated after someone made clear it hadn't relieved their mondial tensions, by stabbing it forty-two times. And in 2013, one of the ducks mysteriously popped during New Year's celebrations in Keelung, Taiwan. Officials weren't immediately able to pinpoint the cause of its collapse, but an eyewitness swore she saw an eagle attacking it. The next year, while floating on the Nanming river in China, another was swept away by a torrential flood.
But that's all water under the bridge. Here in Canada, things are sure to go swimmingly, not least of all because, with six ports on the schedule, it'll hardly be a humungous sitting duck.

[Music]

The Story of Us

Guest: Bill Macdonald

JD: The CBC issued an apology today to anyone who felt misrepresented by the series Canada: The Story of Us. The TV series is part of the broadcaster's Canada 150 celebrations. It was meant to connect viewers to their history. But the first couple of episodes left some feeling anything but connected.
Bill MacDonald is the Mayor of Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia community traces its roots to the French settlement of Port Royal, founded way back in 1605. That story wasn't part of The Story of Us. We reached Mayor Bill MacDonald at Town Hall.

CO: Mayor Macdonald, how satisfied are you by the CBC's apology today?

BILL MACDONALD: Well, I mean the apology basically suggests that it's directed at people who've felt misrepresented. I think he should have apologized to history, because it was history that was misrepresented. From our perspective here in Annapolis Royal, in the province of Nova Scotia, I along with the premier of the province of Nova Scotia, our local warden from the county, and our Member of Parliament, wrote to the president of CBC, Mr. LaCroix, you know urging him to issue a public apology so be it. But we also asked for an additional episode, a prequel if you will, to set the record straight to complete the story of telling about the origins of our nation.

CO: And what response did you get from Mr. LaCroix?

BM: We received a letter that was essentially contained the same response that was issued today, talking about how they had a lot of history to look through, that some decisions were made, and that they were planning on having a social media chat or discussion in future following episodes. Of course that doesn't do us any good because Episode One is long gone and we have no opportunity to provide for a secondary story.

CO: And just, we've talked about this story before, but just remind us what, in a nutshell, and I’m sorry to do that, what I'm trying to do that because this is exactly the problem, this nutshell business. But can you tell us where you feel Annapolis Royal was left out of the story of Canada?

BM: Well there are two streams of continuous French Settlement in Canada, so there is the Acadian stream which arose out of the savaging of Port Royal here in 1605 in Nova Scotia, and Quebec stream beginning in 1608 out of Quebec City. Both were critical to the growth and foundations of our nation and both deserve to be recognized.

CO: And they chose one over the other is that right?

BM: They did, that’s exactly what they did.

CO: And so you think they should have had both or should have been collapsed as one, or what do you think?

BM: Well they certainly had an opportunity to connect the two stories because Champlain arrived here in Indianapolis basin as it's now known as a cartographer with the Pierre Dugua, Sieur de Mons, who was given the monopoly for the fur trade. He was he was appointed the Governor of Acadie. They remained here. Champlain moved on to later established Quebec. These are all important foundations stones to the exploration and settlement of Canada.

CO: But the argument that the producers gave for this is that that Port Royal was not a continuous element. It was intercepted and that Quebec was continuous, and that they had to choose one or the other, that they had chosen Champlain as one of their characters who would drive the narrative. They're looking for stories and Champlain was that story, and that Port Royal didn't make the cut.

BM: Well certainly we would argue that for Royal was a continuous settlement. They make reference to 1607 as a critical date. But in fact, really what that was, was when Pierre Dugua lost the monopoly for the fur trade, he returned to France. He left Jean de Biencourt as the governor of Acadie, left him in control of the habitation, bequeathed all the lands to him. He returned to France to bring his family and more colonists back to Port Royal. He left the care of the habitation in these lands with the chief member to, and the Mi'kmaq people. They returned. There was an interruption. It's like saying if you close up your house here in Nova Scotia to go to Florida for the winter, that you're no longer a permanent settlement.

CO: You mentioned the beginning that the apology should go to history and that's what we're talking about. These are the facts and details of history but CBC was doing is television and storytelling and TV tends to collapse information. It doesn't have a great love affair with detail or nuance and it makes it difficult to tell complex stories. Isn't that the limitation that the producers were working with?

BM: Well I think that they you know by their own admissions made some editorial decisions. You know, they suggested they considered Port Royal, they discussed Port Royal at length and made a decision to go with Quebec City. It probably would have been, as I suggest, very easy to have included the story of Champlain's voyages, the arrival in St. Croix, the arrival in Port Royal, moving on to Quebec City, all as part of the narrative. It wouldn't have taken very much film time. These are really compelling parts of the story about our origins here. The episode one, it’s full of drama, it's full of adventure, it's full of violence.
Champlain and Pierre Dugua were greeted in peace and friendship by Chief Member to and the Mi'kmaq people here. That set the template for a relationship that from my perspective certainly would have been a good point to bring forward in telling a story about the creation of a nation, certainly in celebrating Canada's 150th anniversary of Confederation.

CO: What are you going to do yourself to correct the historical record?

BM: Well the CBC has been pretty clear. Mr.Thompson suggested that there will be no additional episodes. So from my perspective, and I can't speak for the other three signatories to the joint letter to the CBC but I'm going to be recommending to them that we basically just have the episode produced ourselves.

CO: The episode of what?

BM: The prequel, as it were to tell the story of Port Royal.

CO: And who would finance that, how would you do that?

BM: Well certainly I'm going to have this conversation with Premier McNeil and with our local MP Colin Fraser, and with the board in of the county county. We need to talk about this, we need to have the story told. And it may be that we just have to tell it ourselves.

CO: And if you were to produce these, would you get the CBC, would you ask them if they would, the CBC would broadcast?

BM: As the public broadcaster, of course we would. We would we would love it if they would broadcast it for us.

CO: All right well I look forward to the continuing Story of Us then.

BM: All right well it's been a great pleasure talking to you. I'm a big fan of the show.

CO: Thank you Mayor MacDonald. Bye-bye.

BM: Bye Bye.

JD: Bill MacDonald is the Mayor of Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia.
After releasing the CBC's apology today, the corporation's spokesperson Chuck Thomson issued the following clarification. "Just to be clear, we're not updating or correcting any of the episodes. Beyond what we've already said, we wanted to go a step further in acknowledging that coming off the first two episodes, certain groups felt misrepresented and we wanted to extend an apology to them. Additionally, we're announcing a series of live digital conversations."

[Music]

Quote Unquote: Piers Morgan ham

JD: And now, Quote Unquote.

[Music]

JD: If you look at the Twitter feeds of some As It Happens producers, you're going to notice a pattern: every few tweets, there's going to be a tweet that reads something like, "Hello [potential guest's name here]: wondering if you're available for an interview." Twitter is a quick way to reach whomever you're trying to reach, and since everyone checks their Twitter every ten seconds, it's also sure to be seen.
Of course, radio and TV producers all over the world use Twitter the same way. Including those arranging interviews for the ITV program Good Morning Britain. But we have an advantage over bookers for that show. Because our guests will be talking to Carol Off. Whereas their guests will be talking to Piers Morgan.
Now you may know Piers Morgan as a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is television host with a healthy disdain for political correctness. Or you may know Piers Morgan as a snide, pompous former sort-of-journalist with the ethical integrity of a steak-and-kidney pie, the compassion and sensitivity of a Cumberland sausage, and the nuanced opinions of a Yorkshire pudding.
Ruby Tandoh is in the latter group. The one that compares Mr. Morgan unfavourably to food.
Ms. Tandoh was the runner-up on the 2013 edition of the hit TV British program The Great British Bake-Off. She's now a kind of baking celebrity. And this week, a producer for Good Morning Britain contacted Ms. Tandoh over Twitter to ask: "Are you available for a chat to talk about potentially coming on the programme?"
To which Ruby Tandoh responded, also on Twitter: "I know it's just your job, so no hard feelings, but Piers Morgan is a sentient ham, and frankly I'd rather die."

[Music]

South Pacific production

JD: Casting is still in progress for Calgary Opera's upcoming production of Rodger’s and Hammerstein's South Pacific. In the meantime, however, doubt has been cast on the potential casting choice of one of the characters. That character is Bloody Mary, who, in the musical and in the book on which it is based, is Tonkinese -- hailing from north Vietnam, or what was I guess French Indochina during the period in which the story is set.
Well, now, three people -- including the director, have left the production, after learning the Bloody Mary role could go to a white performer.
Bob McPhee is the former CEO of the Calgary Opera. He now serves as a special adviser to the company. And yesterday, he spoke with the CBC about the controversy.
During his interview on The Calgary Eyeopener, host David Gray played a clip of director Mark Bellamy explaining why he had stepped away from the production. You'll hear Mr. Bellamy first, followed by some of Mr. McPhee's response.

SOUNDCLIP

MARK BELLAMY: The theme of the show is actually about racism and intolerance. When Rodger and Hammerstein chose to write South Pacific and create South Pacific, they did so to create a conversation about this issue.
So when you're doing a show that is about racism, you have to be very very cognizant of the casting and the message of the show and the totality of the show. And as a director, that's what I look at I don't look at just the vocal prowess. And my feeling is that Rodgers and Hammerstein created this show to spark a discussion about racism, they didn't create this show to showcase voices.

DAVID GRAY: All right. That's Mark Bellamy, the director who left the production of South Pacific. Mark, a well-known director around town. My guest is Bob McPhee from the Calgary Opera. What do you make of that?

BOB MCPHEE: Certainly the underlying story of South Pacific is racism. But the key message is that we should be colorblind, race shouldn't count. And therefore, it's kind of ironic we're making it count. So you can look at it from both sides. Certainly the character, for my purposes, we’re an opera company. And with all respect Mark is a very fine director, but he comes from the musical theater side of the equation. The priority is voice. It will always be voice in opera.
If we become too strict on some of these things, we're going to lose some of the greatest repertoire in our side of the industry. And I would not think twice of casting a person of Asian descent in the role of Mimi from Boehme, in the 1800s in Paris. Am I politically wrong in casting an Asian Soprano in that role? And yet I can't cast a Caucasian in this role. I honestly do not know the answers to these questions. But if I can fill it with the person to give the best possible performance I believe by the end of April, beginning of May we're going to move forward.

JD: Bob McPhee, former CEO of the Calgary Opera, now a special advisor to the company, speaking yesterday with David Gray, host of CBC's The Calgary Eyeopener.

[Music]

Coral bleaching follow-up

Guest: James Kerry

JD: "Unprecedented".
That's how the newest findings about coral bleaching in Australia's Great Barrier Reef are being described. Using aerial surveys, researchers have seen an extent of damage far beyond their worst fears.
James Kerry is one of the researchers behind the findings. He's with James Cook University. We reached Mr. Kerry in Townsville, Queensland, Australia.

CO: Mr. Kerry in what way is this newly revealed damage to the coral unprecedented?

JAMES KERRY: It's unprecedented because this is the first time that we've had two major bleaching two years in a row on the Great Barrier Reef. And the scale of this footprint now covers two thirds of the Great Barrier Reef.

CO: And is that recoverable?

JK: It is recoverable technically. So it takes about 10 years for the fastest growing coral to recover to the state that they would have been in. But for the large of the corals it takes more like 100 years. So if we keep getting these bleaching events, it's not likely that the reef would ever return to its former glory.

CO: Some of the scientists who have seen the data and the images say that last year was devastating, this year's terminal. Last year they were shocked by the amount of bleaching of the coral. But this one is far worse. Is that your view?

JK: That's not my view. I was in the plane areal survey plane both years. I think last year's event was more extreme. This year it was very bad. I think what shocked people is the fact that we've had two years now. And as I mentioned, that's unprecedented. I think people were hoping that would have had more of a respite between these two events. And that's what's really shocked people.

CO: Can you describe what you see and the difference between what the reef looked like and what it looks like now.?

JK: Well right now the portion that's most affected, the central third, most of the corals are whites or death resting, which is a term we use when the coral is stressed and the colors become incredibly vivid. So it can actually look to the untrained eye quite beautiful. But it's actually a sign of the coral that’s about to bleach and turn white. So within the next month, the corals that don’t recover will die and then it will become a brown or gray algae covered sort of graveyard basically, of coral.

CO: And how extensive is this bleaching?

JK: The worst affected area this year is about 500 kilometers which I think is around 300 miles. Last year, it covered a long stretch of about seven hundred kilometers. So the combined footprint is about a thousand kilometers because there was a slight overlap of about 200 kilometers between the two of them.
For some reefs have actually been hit, the same reefs, have been hit for two years by these two events, and they've had zero chance of recovery really from the 2016 event to now.

CO: And now tell us why it seems to be spreading so quickly?

JK: Well we've looked for various drivers that could be causing bleaching. And we have only found that the water temperature explains, or I should say the water temperature anomaly, say where it's hotter than normal for several weeks on end then what they would normally experience in summer, that describes very closely where you actually see the bleaching. We haven't found any other metrics to explain the bleaching such as water quality or fishing pressure. And so our view is that climate change and global warming is what's driving this new phenomenon of coral bleaching for the first mass bleaching occurred on the Great Barrier Reef 20 years ago, in 1998. We have another event in 2002, and then we had the third and fourth then back to back last year and this year.

CO: But given what we know about the warming waters and temperatures how likely is it that this is going to be reversed?

JK: The window for us to reverse this is rapidly closing. The directory is obviously not good. And unless there is a concerted global effort to reduce emissions in the next decade or so, it's not very likely that we will cease to see these events, in fact if anything we may see more of these more frequently these these bleaching events. And that obviously is not good news to the Great Barrier Reef.

CO: What possibility is that you'll see it again next year, they'll be a third year in a row of bleaching?

JK: Yeah. It's hard to predict until we get a bit closer to the Australian summer. But you know, we weren't expecting this event, 2017 event. So it is possible. I don't know how likely it is that we'll have an event in 2018 but I certainly wouldn't rule out the fact that I might be in the airplane again next year. So…

CO: It's a beautiful place. It's a World Heritage Site. Can you explain the scientific value of the Great Barrier Reef. Why does it matter in larger terms?

JK: It is a beautiful place. I think it's really important still to make that point because we're not saying that the reef is completely trashed at this stage, and we wouldn't want people to give up on it.
Scientifically it's fascinating to talk because it's a complex ecosystem with lots of interactions between different species. There are 800 species of corals, I think 1500 species of fish, lots of turtles and dolphins. So it's just valuable for its size and complexity. It also has a protective effect on the Queensland coast up here in Australia. It's referred to as the Great Barrier Reef and it literally acts as the barrier and prevents strong wave energy from inundating the coast. The exception to that would of course be cyclones. I don't know if you covered the cyclone that hit Queensland's last month but that's, when it's that strong, the reef can’t protect the coast, but otherwise it actually has very important protection factor for the Queensland coast.

CO: Well this is very distressing news all around. Mr. Kerry, I appreciate you speaking with us. Thank you.

JK: You’re welcome, bye-bye.

JD: James Kerry is with James Cook University and the Australian Research Council's Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. We reached him in Townsville, Queensland, Australia.

[Music]

Peeps record

SOUNDCLIP

MATT STONIE: I’m just to go on record and say I don’t think any human being has ever eaten this many Peeps in a single sitting. Ever, so. World record baby.

JD: That's Matt Stonie -- also known as "Megatoad", preparing to eat 200 Peeps, the little marshmallow candies shaped like chicks, in a YouTube video he posted on March 25th, 2016. And he did it. Eventually. He choked down all 200 in fourteen minutes and twelve seconds.
Now, when you think about it, that is an amazing achievement. Also when you think about it, you wish you could stop thinking about it. But you can't just yet. Because this past Saturday, just a little over a year later, Mr. Stonie set out to defend his title at the World Peeps Eating Championship in National Harbour, Maryland. And he did it in unprecedented fashion.

SOUNDCLIP

ANNOUNCER: Your Peep eating champion, the second year in a row here in National Harbour. From San Jose, California–

[Sound: Girl in crowd yelling “I’m so proud of you Matt Stonie”]

ANNOUNCER: With 255 peeps in five minutes, [unintelligible], Matt Stonie.

JD: 255 Peeps in five minutes. Breaking his own record of 200 Peeps in five minutes, which he set at last year's championship, just weeks after managing 200 Peeps in just over fourteen minutes.
You may wonder how Matt "Megatoad" Stonie prepares for a gruelling event like this. You may also wonder when I'm going to stop making you think about trying to swallow mouthful after mouthful of squishy, sickly-sweet, bright turquoise marshmallow chicks. Soon, I promise. But first, an excerpt from Mr. Stonie's interview with the Washington Post, after his triumph.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: How do you how do you train it to eat two hundred fifty five seats in one setting? I mean what does the body go through? How do you train for something like that?

MATT STONIE: I was eating Peeps for the past two weeks I've been eating some Peeps, getting used to the texture and the flavor. You know it's not like in a hamburger. You know Peeps is kind of like, it's really sugar. You got to get used the flavors so. I mean I trained for this, just like any other like, an athlete would train for their contests.

REPORTER: How does your body feel after downing all this sugary candy? What do you what do you feel?

MS: I mean surprisingly not that bad. I'm most of the contests that I do are like 10 minutes long. This is the five minute contest so it's really short really quick. So you know, during it you're kind of feeling like tired, but I feel great right now.

REPORTER: Can you even think about what like your next meal is going to be after participating in a contest like that?

MS: During the course as I'm just thinking about what I'm doing. After the contest I'm thinking about going like a nice like sandwich or something delicious afterwards. But no I mean, this could take a couple days to recover. I’m going to be on a liquid diet for a couple of days just digesting the Peeps. But, you know once I go back to normal I’ll get something good.

JD: Matt Stonie, speaking to the Washington Post on Saturday. We salute your achievement, Megatoad. Although, like the hundreds of Peeps that will live in your system forever, it will take a while to absorb.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

April 11, 2017 episode transcript

More Stories Like This