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 25, 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: Timber! That sound you hear is high hopes crashing to the ground. Now that the Trump administration has fired what could be the first volley in a trade war by imposing big new tariffs on Canadian imports.

JD: Axing for trouble. Canada's Natural Resources Minister tells us how Ottawa will try to bury the hatchet. And the CEO of an Ontario sawmill tries to get a handle on what's to come.

CO: The needles and the damage done. Arkansas executes two Death Row inmates in one night. And a witness to the second execution is deeply concerned that the lethal injection process is inhumane.

JD: Every ten minutes, a child dies in Yemen. And while the UN is desperately seeking aid for the famine stricken country, our guest says the crisis will only end when the civil war does.

CO: Watch this space. A new book exhaustively documents reported UFO sightings in the U.S. over fifteen-year period. And a shocking increase in close encounters seems to indicate a lot of extra, extra-terrestrials.

JD: And… from borrowed time to borrowing time. After weeks of protests in Saskatchewan over cuts to library funding, the government reverses its decision. And the woman who started those protests is stunned they actually worked. As It Happens, the Tuesday edition. Radio that finds she acted in shelf-defense.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part 1: Softwood lumber duties: Carr/White River lumber mill, Saskatchewan library cuts.

Softwood lumber duties: Carr

Guest: Jim Carr

JD: Donald Trump just made it a whole lot harder for Canadians to sell 2-by-4’s to the United States. The U.S. President slapped duties of as much as 24 per cent on a long list of Canadian lumber exporters. That has thousands of workers here worried about their jobs. But in Washington, reporters wanted to know why, after all his talk about China and Mexico, Mr. Trump was targeting his ally to the north? Here's Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross with response.

SOUNDCLIP

WILBUR ROSS: They are a close ally. They're an important ally. They're generally a good neighbor. That doesn't mean they don't have to play by the rules.

MALE VOICE: What do you mean by generally a good neighbor?

WR: Well, things like this I don't regard as being a good neighbor: dumping lumber. And there's a feeling in the dairy industry that they're a little bit abrupt in the action that they took the week before.

JD: That was United States Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross this afternoon in Washington. Jim Carr is Canada's Natural Resources Minister. We reached Minister Carr in our Ottawa studio.

CO: Minister Carr, between softwood lumber and dairy, are we seeing the U.S. launch an opening salvo in a trade war between our two countries?

JIM CARR: Well whatever it is it's not new. In 1839, between Maine and New Brunswick, lumber disputes broke out. People got pretty angry and there was the threat of violence. But they sorted it out peacefully. Since 1982, this will be the fifth lumber dispute. They go on too long. They're too costly. The consequences for people who lose jobs, for communities that lose livelihoods, and for producers whose businesses are put at risk it's way too high a cost. Every time that we have gone to international tribunals we have won. So this is the latest in a long series of disputes. I wish we could avoid them.

CO: Let’s talk about why you didn't avoid it because this Canada/U.S. softwood lumber agreement expired in late 2015. You've had 18 months to have a plan. You could have guessed that something like this could happen given the kinds of remarks that both Mr. Ross and Mr. Trump have made. Why aren't you prepared for this?

JC: Well, we were prepared for it. And Minister Freeland had been discussing this with the Obama administration. Our Prime Minister and President Obama talked about softwood lumber. Wilbur Ross and Minister Freeland had been discussing the issue, but they were not able to come up with a deal because we're not going to take just any deal. We're going to take one that we think is fair to our producers and our workers and nothing that was on the table was near that mark.

CO: Now you've got this this tariff against the players on the Canadian side. So doesn't look from their point of view like you had a plan.

JC: Well, obviously we don't think that their arguments and their premise behind the action is consistent with our understanding of the facts. And this is not the first time that we've had a disagreement over that. There have been changes as well in the regimes in Quebec and in British Columbia and elsewhere. So we believe that these arguments will prevail. Meanwhile, it's the job of government of Canada to make sure that those who are most affected are given the help they need to get over this bump.

CO: The people who are going to possibly lose their jobs in the mills that are going to shut down and the forced workers who are not going to be able to work in the companies that are affected would take very little solace from what you've just said.

JC: Well, I want them to know that we are working hard and have been for months with our provincial counterparts and with the industry itself to look at ways of doing three or four things. One is to look at the expansion of our export markets. Right now, Minister Champagne is in China talking to the Chinese about our exports, which, by the way, have grown significantly. Minister Duclos is in Europe doing the same thing. I will be in China leading a business delegation in June.

CO: Let me just ask you on that because that was supposed to supplement that was supposed to give you new markets not to replace the market in the United States, a $6 billion dollar market that is at stake here. So whatever are going to get from China and Europe is not going to compensate for what you're losing, is it?

JC: No it's not. And we know that the Americans need our softwood lumber. They can't supply their own demand. The dispute is over the price of that softwood lumber and the competitive position that it puts the lumber industry in the United States. Our argument is that it's not unfair practice and we'll continue to make that argument. And meanwhile, the relationship with the United States is the most important relationship we have and we shouldn't lose sight of the breadth and the depth of that relationship, but not only for the interests of Canada, but for the Americans too. We think that's demonstrable and it's not only the rhetoric of policy and that we enjoy each other's company, which we do. It's also jobs that have been created and continue to be created across the borders throughout the natural resource sector and we’ll continue to make those arguments because we believe they're compelling and we also believe that these arguments will resonate with many people in the United States.

CO: OK, you're saying it is demonstrable, but have you made the case? Because, as you pointed out, your government has pointed out, the U.S. has a balance of trade surplus with Canada and particularly in dairy. This is a market that the United States enjoys in Canada in many different sectors. You have cards to play. When are you going to play those cards? I mean if you say it's demonstrable are you demonstrating it?

JC: We're certainly making the arguments and we've built relationships that are important and that really matter. I've had the pleasure twice now of sitting down face to face with Secretary Perry — the Secretary of Energy — we are making real progress on furthering the North American integrated energy market. My colleagues have spent an awful lot of time not only in Washington, but throughout the United States. Our strategy is Mayor to Mayor, Premier to Governor, legislator to a legislator, union to union, company to company to demonstrate through what we believe to be easily proven arguments that this relationship is creating jobs on both sides of the border. And when we have irritants and when we have a disagreement we should sit down and sort it out.

CO: People have pointed out that Mr. Trump made this announcement ahead of schedule. He was faced with getting nowhere with his wall between United States and Mexico. He needed to do something and he this was something that Wilbur Ross moved ahead with. So do you think that there's a reception to the arguments you're making in the United States?

JC: Well, Carol, you're asking me to speculate on the inner workings of the Trump administration and I wish I was in a position to enlighten you, but I'm not.

CO: So you don't know how this plays, how your arguments are playing with Mr. Trump?

JC: No I don't. I know that they're being made by people who are close to the White House, close to congressional leaders, close to the industry. I know that I find them compelling and I think that many down in the United States do as well. And that we will continue to do that while we look at all options to do the thing that's most important to do right now. And that's to, as best we are able, to soften the blow to workers communities and producers.

CO: just finally Mr. Trump tweeted this morning, “Canada has made business for our dairy farmers in Wisconsin and other border states very difficult. We will not stand for this. Watch.” What should dairy farmers be watching for?

JC: Well I really don't know. We stay carefully attuned to what is said in the United States by officials at all levels and in the White House itself. Our responsibility as the government of Canada is to judge the administration by its actions. The actions that they have taken on softwood we find objectionable. We don't accept them and we'll push back.

CO: So you've had no heads up on any of this?

JC: No.

CO: Mr. Carr, thank you.

JC: You're welcome.

JD: Jim Carr is Canada's Natural Resources Minister. He was in our Ottawa studio.

Soft wood lumber White River mill

Guest: Frank Dottori

Frank Dottori is the co-owner of Northern Ontario's White River Forest Products. His partners are the Pic Mobert First Nation and the town of White River. Their mill was shuttered during the last big soft wood fight and did not reopen until four years ago. We reached Mr. Dottori in White River.

CO: Mr. Dottori, what does this U.S. tariff on softwood lumber mean for you?

FRANK DOTTORI: Well, it's obviously negative news that jeopardizes our economic viability especially because our mill is located in northwestern Ontario. And so we don't have access to the Asian markets like say our friends in BC do or our friends in the East Coast that can probably export to India or in the Middle East or other places.

CO: So how much of your product goes to the United States?

FD: About half.

CO: So what are you hearing from people.

FD: Well, you know it's no surprise. We've been going through this since 1980. This is the fifth time that we get countervailing action against us. It's all unlawful, all illegal. But the big bully you know plays it on Canada and Canada, regardless of the government, has surrendered every time. So I presume they feel they're going to win this one too.

CO: Well the United States this is what Wilbur Ross is saying and they've said it before. They say that the dispute is because Canada has cheaper access to lumber products because it has crown land and its costs are lower because of that stumpage fees. And that's an unfair trade practice. What do you say to Wilbur Ross in the United States?

FD: Am I allowed to say [censored]?

CO: Well, OK. Do you have another word?

FD: Well, I think it's totally ignorant of the facts. I mean some of our trees coming into the yard that we call logs are four to six inches in diameter and in the U.S. south, a log is defined as a log that's 16 feet long with a 10 inch top. We don't even get a 10 inch bottom of a log. So it's a completely different product. You know we're comparing like I'm going out and buying you know cherries and comparing it one cherry to a watermelon. And they’re saying you're cherry is cheaper. Yeah, I hope so.

CO: So you're saying that there is not a level playing field in so many ways because of all kinds of conditions?

FD: Yeah not at all. I mean this is this is not a dispute that's based on facts. It's strictly political. It's a part of the movement by the U.S. to stick it to the middle class by jacking up the price of lumber. In the U.S. it's illegal to fix the price. So what do you do? You throw up a wall and you put quotas in or you limit imports. And that drives the domestic price up. And it's good for the producers. So the big landowners in the U.S. and the big lumber barons are making a lot of money on this. You know there's 140,000 somewhere in that order working in the U.S. lumber industry. But there's three point 3.8 million people working in house building and repairs. So guess who's getting the shaft here? And this is completely contrary, if you get factual, between what Trump is saying about supporting the middle class and making it competitive. This is jacking up the price of U.S. lumber and homes strictly to benefit some U.S. landholders and big saw millers. There's no economic rationale for it in terms of politics. But it's good you can get up there and make America strong.

CO: Sure, but it is whatever the motivations of Mr. Trump are what do you make of the reaction on the part of the Canadian government?

FD: Well, just so we’re clear, this has been going on before Trump. Trump is probably getting some publicity out of it. Trump's not responsible for the situation. He may be out barking, but he's not the originator of this stuff. What do I think about the Canadian government? I can tell you I've been involved in this file for 30 years, every single Canadian government has collapsed in front of the bully. Including the last time when I was leading the free trade lumber and we won all the legal arguments including at the WTO and the former government, who had promised never to do that. At the last minute, before the final announcement came out sold us out. And the argument being you guys are ten billion dollars a business we do two billion per day of trade. Guess what? You get sacrificed. And the current government you know they may be negotiating in the back room, but I have not seen anything to convince me they're going to go to bat for us.

CO: The agreement on softwood lumber expired 18 months ago. It expired at the end of 2015. Do you think that no one anticipated or they didn't anticipate that this was going to happen?

FD: You know we all sometimes have opinions of politicians, but most of them are pretty smart. I can't believe they were that naïve, but there were a lot of people in industry that also believed that they would continue in the agreement or they would settle and move on. The U.S. has never done that in the last 30 years. And so there were a few of us that said it was wishful thinking. You know that's what this turned out to be.

CO: We just spoke to the Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr. He said that there will be supports through employment insurance, interim financial arrangements for companies and in the long term efforts to make the industry sustainable. Does that reassure you?

FD: Sure. I can put my employees on unemployment. That's a great solution from a politician. I think it's better if they were working in creating wealth and taxes. To me that's a better solution and I hope he understands that one.

CO: He says they're also looking to get markets overseas. Is that helping?

FD: No, I mean you know markets overseas take years to develop to start with. We sell you know 15 billion into the US. China is at three billion or something like that today after 15 years of development. So it's not a short term solution. To me it's hypocritical and I think maybe you know it's political, but I hope the Canadian government recognizes that Ontario is important in this transaction as well. A lot of us invested millions of dollars in here and created thousands of jobs in north western Ontario. We've got First Nations working here. We've got the community involved. The Canadian government should step up and take a tough position. And, if nothing else, give us loan guarantees that we can survive till they get some settlement.

CO: How many people are likely to be out of work in your mill?

FD: Well, you know I'm hoping I'm creative enough to… the market is so strong right now that I don't think there's any short term repercussions. The consumers are going to get hammered. Right here, we've got 160 people in the mail and indirectly there's probably 500 just in this region. And we also own another mill further up north. We're just expanding it. So there’s probably another couple of hundred jobs there. It is going to be devastating for the region. Now our intent is not to shut we're just going to have to be smart enough to keep operating. But we're going to need certainly some bridging assistance from either the Ontario or Canadian government.

CO: Mr. Dottori, it is really good to speak with you. It’s really insightful, thank you.

FD: Thank you. Bye.

CO: Bye bye.

JD: Frank Dottori is the co-owner of White River Forest Products. We reached him in White River, Ontario.

[Music: Ambient]

Opioid Trudeau

JD: The opioid crisis in Canada claimed more than 1,000 lives last year alone. There have been countless overdoses and many frontline workers feel that governments could be doing much more. And last night, a harm reduction worker had the opportunity to say as much as that to the Prime Minister's face, at a town hall about cannabis hosted in Toronto last night by Vice. Zoe Dodd has been working in harm reduction for 13 years. And here's what she had to say to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

SOUNDCLIP

ZOE DODD: Your government has you know the bulk of bulk drugs for prescription heroin that's a really commendable thing to do, except for the fact that we don't have the resources to open those clinics. And those resources haven’t poured out. So Cross Town Clinic in Vancouver can only see 60 people. So what about the rest of the country and the access for other people? So yes you've made some decisions that are important like you don't need a prescription for Naloxone. But we don't have the resources to actually do the overdose prevention we need to do. This is an emergency. This is a national crisis. 1,400 people dying in 16 months is a disaster. It's a national disaster. You are not doing enough. The bodies keep mounting. And yes, we are here about legalization of cannabis, but we need millions of dollars. I am a frontline worker who has not been on her job the last six weeks because people keep dying around me and I am completely traumatized because we don't have the resources to do our work. And it is up to you, Mr. Prime Minister, to find those millions of dollars so we can open those clinics and get access so that more people don't die. And I would say to you that you should look to the model in Portugal. They stopped their overdose epidemic when they decriminalized drugs and they’ve have had that model for ten years and it's been exceptional. And we have models to look at. And I would say be brave. You talk about the safety of children. You talk about the safety of youth. It is young people who are dying and as young people who elected you. Save their lives too. It's between the ages of 30 and 39 who are dying in B.C. Those are young people. Those are people who have value and it is not stopping and is not slowing down. Do something. Seriously do something.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: We’ve worked with the provinces who are delivering on health care. We are sending tens of millions of dollars. But I know there is more to do and we will be doing more to support including supporting the frontline workers who I've spoken to whether it's paramedics or frontline support workers in harm reduction sites who are going through PTSD because there are so many people dying on them. We absolutely need to do more to support you. More to support and respond to this crisis and we are doing it.

JD: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, responding to a question or a challenge from harm reduction worker Zoe Dodd at a town hall hosted by Vice in Toronto last night.

[Music: Electronic]

Saskatchewan library cuts

Guest: Christine Freethy

JD: Residents of Saskatchewan have been protesting library cuts in their province for weeks now. There were rallies. There were read-ins. Email campaigns. They never stopped fighting… until now. Because they won. Yesterday, the government reversed its decision to cut funding to libraries restoring all 4.8 million dollars in funds. Christine Freethy founded the “Save Saskatchewan Libraries” Facebook group. We reached Ms. Freethy in Rabbit Lake.

CO: Christine, is not every day you get a government to admit it was wrong. So how are you celebrating?

CHRISTINE FREETHY: We’re basically in shock and all of the admins of the Facebook group are getting together on Friday night to just kind of revel in the moment.

CO: And what did the library mean to you? Why did you get involved in trying to reverse this decision on the part of the Saskatchewan government?

CF: Well, I live in a town of 127 people and we can't get the internet at our house because of poor internet coverage in rural Saskatchewan. So the library is absolutely like it's crucial to our life out here. There's no bookstores. There's nothing to do. And so if you want anything at all, there's no school in our town. The library is the community hub of our town and it isn't just our town. Towns like this all across Saskatchewan.

CO: So when you heard about these cuts and that all these facilities would shut down or lose a lot of their services. What went through your mind?

CF: Just absolute shock. The Saskatchewan library system is well known for being very well-managed and kind of like a world-class setup. I just we were just totally in shock. We could not believe that the government would do that and give us no warning whatsoever.

CO: And so what did you do? Tell us about this this Facebook group — this movement — you started?

CF: That was totally a fluke. I'm like a volunteer for the library and the local library board. And a lot of people were talking on Facebook about like they couldn't believe it and what did this mean for us? But there was no kind of like central place where everyone was discussing. So I just made a little Facebook group and thought I'd invite all the people I know who are also kind of like regional library volunteers. And within a day, we had 1,500 people. And in ten days, I had 5,000 members.

CO: And at peak what did you get?

CF: Well, right now, we're up over 7,500.

CO: And all of these people in the same situation in Saskatchewan?

CF: Yeah, like our members are basically all just from Saskatchewan. Most of them I think are from rural Saskatchewan and they're all people who were having the same experience we were. They were shocked. They knew they needed to do something, but there was no kind of centralized organizing place. So that's what our Facebook group became. And we didn't allow it to become just whining and complaining. It was like you know we have a job to do. We have to take action. And that was the point was to coordinate action and solidarity for this library issue.

CO: Your protest on Facebook. Social media is great now for being able to if you're in a community of 127 people you can connect with thousands of others. But this movement wasn't just on Facebook. It began to do all kinds of other campaigns. Tell us a bit about and expanded?

CF: We used the Facebook group just to kind of like collect everyone. We set up a website so that people could directly email the government from the website. We think over 4,000 emails were sent through this website. A letter writing campaign like handwritten letters, our estimates from what people reported is at least over 1,000 letters were produced in like a week. We held the largest mass demonstration kind of in a generation since 1986. It was called “Drop Everything and Read”, where people gathered in groups in front of their MLAs offices and read as a group. That was over 5,000 people in 86 communities. We had protests with 200 people in communities that have never had a protest. It's unprecedented in the history of Saskatchewan.

CO: Have you ever seen people in Saskatchewan turn out like that?

CF: Never, never. We had people who actually had to watch YouTube videos of what happens at a protest, so when they were organizing their own because they've never been to one or seen one in real life.

CO: I understand there's some soccer moms who had to do that?

CF: Yes, The librarians in Martinsville held the largest protest of all. And Martinsville is a very well-off kind of like suburb of Saskatoon. They had 350 people and there's never been a protest in Martinsville and they rocked it. And there's pictures of them on the Internet in their yoga pants with their megaphone. It was incredible.

CO: It must have made you feel great to see that?

CF: It really moved me. You know like I'm not an important person, Carol. I'm just some lady who lives on a farm and to know that like 7,000 other people, pretty much like me, who are kind of a little bit apolitical and stuff didn't just whine about it. Didn't just accept that the government would do this, we believed that we could change it and we did.

CO: Sometimes governments will actually still believe that they're doing the right thing even in the face of this kind of reaction. Why do you think that actually turned it around for the Saskatchewan government?

CF: Well, first off our group is nonpartisan right. So we're not in the pocket of any political group or party. Our members are people who actually vote for them. So they're angering their own base. The response was so intense and we had obviously had no intention of stopping. So I think that they kind of looked at the price tag for what they were taking a huge hit in the polls and decided you know what? Maybe we should take a breather on this. Because their poll numbers are at historic lows since this budget came out.

CO: And so this cost them 4.8 million dollars. That's all it was that they had to restore?

CF: That’s all it was. So I think that we were the noisiest, cheapest people out there.

CO: But what about next year? What about next budget? And they look to see how they can cut again. Do you worry that this will start being tempting again?

CF: You know the thing about the next year is that they're talking about a review of the Saskatchewan Libraries Act. Budgets are set every year for the library so that it's only one year funding is not unusual. And you know what I have to say to the kind of like the idea of reviewing Saskatchewan libraries? I say bring it. I've got 7,000 people that aren't about to go away. And we're going to be watching this thing and advocating all the way through. We've already started creating local library advocacy groups. So I'm not worried that our movement is about to take a nap.

CO: You’re going to make them sorry they ever took on the libraries.

CF: They are already sorry that they ever took on the libraries. I’ll tell you that right now.

CO: Christine, you are an inspiration.

CF: Well you know what? I guess we just proved that democracy works.

CO: Thank you so much for speaking with us.

CF: Thank you Carol.

JD: Christine Freethy is the founder of the “Save Saskatchewan Libraries” Facebook group. We reached her in Rabbit Lake, Saskatchewan.

Back To Top »

Part 2: Arkansas execution update, Yemen famine

Arkansas execution update

Guest: Jacob Rosenberg

JD: The state of Arkansas killed two more prisoners last night: Jack Jones and Marcel Williams. They were among the eight men that Arkansas hoped to execute before the state's supply of one of its lethal injection drugs expires at the end of this month. Both men were convicted of rape and murder. And lawyers tried to prevent the executions by arguing that the two men both had medical conditions, which could complicate the lethal injection process and could lead to serious pain and suffering. Jacob Rosenberg is a reporter for the Arkansas Times. He witnessed the execution of Marcel Williams last night. Marcel Williams was the second man to die. We reached Jacob Rosenberg in Little Rock. And a warning that some of the details of this story are disturbing.

CO: Jacob, what was happening when you and the other witnesses went into the execution chamber last night?

JACOB ROSENBERG: It was a complicated situation. So when we first arrived in the execution chamber, it was barely moments you know after the execution earlier that evening of Jack Jones. We were still getting media statements. It was within the hour. So we sat down and we’re in the room, which is sort of small. There are a few rows of chairs that faced these windows and then there's a black curtain and behind that curtain we knew that Marcel Williams was in the execution chamber with us.

CO: He was already there?

JR: He was already there. And so then, at that point, we're waiting and we're assuming that the execution will go through at 8:15 sort of as planned. But there's a last minute stay. And the reason there's a stay is because the execution earlier of Jack Jones potentially was torturous and the lawyers debated that for about an hour. During that hour, Marcel Williams was still in that gurney strapped down and we were waiting in that room. We didn't really know what was happening.

CO: So, at this point, you know that Mr. Williams has been strapped to the gurney ready to be executed. There's a stay because of the belief that it may have been torturous the death previous the execution of Mr. Jones. Did they tell you in what way it was torturous?

JR: Well, we didn't learn until later — in the chamber we didn't know. But the potential torturous part of this was the I.V. placement, which is secret in Arkansas. We don't get to see how the I.V. is placed. In Jack Jones, it took supposedly 45 minutes and was a very painful process. And then when they’d resolved that issue, that's when they began placing the I.V. for Mr. Williams. So it was 10:16pm when the curtains finally opened.

CO: when they opened the curtains what did you see?

JR: There's a fluorescent light. It's sort of yellow. The director of the Department of Corrections, her name is Wendy Kelly, is in the room. She asked for Marcel Williams last words. He did not seem to have any. And then the audio was cut from the room. Marcel Williams was in a gurney with his right arm facing us and you could see the side of his face. And at this point we have to assume that the first drug in the three drug protocol is administered. But it's hard to know. There's no announcement that it's administered. It's supposed to you know create unconsciousness for the inmate. It's a really controversial drug though because it's in the same category as valium. It's a sedative not an anesthetic. So it's controversial whether or not that really stops the pain of the second and third drugs. And what really makes it difficult to know if Marcel Williams wasn't in pain during this execution is because the second drug is a paralytic. And once that is administered, you know any movement would be seized. So he could be in extreme pain, but we wouldn't be able to see it because he would not be making any movements. It has been described as a “chemical tomb”. And the third drug is extremely painful. It's been described as “fire running through the veins”. Sotomayor said this process is similar to the chemical equivalent of being burned at the stake. But as a witness in the room it's really hard to know if Marcel Williams is feeling pain or not. All we know it's sort of what we can see.

CO: The Midazolam is the drug that is going to expire at the end of April and this is why these executions are being processed so quickly, is that right?

JR: Exactly. And so that's the reason that the governor has given for setting originally eight executions in 11 days.

CO: When you’re watching Mr. Williams in the execution chamber. Could you see if he was suffering under these drugs?

JR: So it's really complicated. The first drug — when Midazolam — is administered with Mr. Williams, at 10:16pm we believe, when that is administered, his eyes start to droop and they close, but the right one is slightly open just a little tiny bit. But it doesn't really move much. And at that point, his breath becomes pretty labored. He starts moving sort of his chest up on the gurney and his back arches a little bit and this continues you know for quite a while. It continues past when the first consciousness check should occur, which is five minutes afterwards. So at 10:21pm. At that point, Mr. Williams was still moving a lot. And so I believe he failed that consciousness check. And really what happens next should be that the second dosage of Midazolam is administered. And this seems to make sense because at 10:24pm you see no movement anymore. Mr. Williams is almost completely still. I could not detect any movement at that time. But again, I'm not sure when that paralytic was administered. So I don't know if it's from the second dose of Midazolam, if it's from the paralytic. Even if I can't see it the lethal injection process is set up for the viewer in a lot of ways. It's supposed to make it look good for me as a viewer in that room and as a witness that I don't have to see the pain. You know it's hard to know whether or not Marcel Williams was actually feeling pain.

CO: Mr. Williams was convicted of rape and murder and admitted guilt to those crimes. What do you say to those who say it doesn't matter if he suffered?

JR: I think you know there's a lot of people, especially here in Arkansas, who definitely believe that. I can only speak to the fact that, as a media witness, we're just trying to make sure that the protocol is followed. And we want to make sure that the protocols follow it because there are eighth amendment guidelines to cruel and unusual punishment.

CO: How many executions have you witnessed?

JR: This is my first execution I've ever witnessed.

CO: Would you do it again?

JR: That's a really hard question to answer. I don't think it's something I'll ever walk into lightly, but someone has to be there to view it to some extent. And it's something that you have to have knowledge about because you don't want to come out and say that the prisoners were just falling asleep. It's a much more complex process than that. When the curtains close after they put out the time of death. It's like a mirror and you can see your own reflection. It wasn't the most easy thing to deal with.

CO: Jacob, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

JR: Yeah of course. Happy to do it

CO: Bye.

JD: Jacob Rosenberg is a reporter for the Arkansas Times. He witnessed the execution of Marcel Williams last night. We reached Mr. Rosenberg in Little Rock. Four now of the eight executions that were originally scheduled in Arkansas have been blocked by the courts. The last one is scheduled for this Thursday. We have more on this story on the As It Happens website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

Yemen famine

Guest: Hisham Al-Omeisy

JD: The United Nations calls it the world's largest humanitarian crisis. After two years of civil war in Yemen, that country is on the brink of famine. According to UNICEF, a child dies there every ten minutes from a preventable illness. And, so, today, the U.N. held a pledging conference. It is seeking $2.1 billion in aid for Yemen heading into the conference. Only 15 per cent of that amount had been pledged. Hisham Al-Omeisy is a political analyst in Yemen's capital, which is Sanaa. And that is where we reached him via Skype.

CO: Hisham, the U.N. calls what's happening in Yemen the world's largest humanitarian crisis. What does it look like on the ground?

HISHAM AL-OMEISY: It's pretty bad on the ground. I'm kind of surprised that the U.N. took this long to declare it the world's humanitarians worst catastrophe. It's been in the making for the past almost two years, but been eclipsed by the events in Syria. Nobody paid attention to it. On the ground, businesses have shut down. Roads have been destroyed, hospitals, schools and, of course, because of the Saudi-led blockade that has been imposed on Yemen for the past almost two and a half years now, people are suffering from severe shortages in pretty much everything.

CO: And I want to get to some of those things that you've mentioned, but just to go to the conference. The conference that was seeking pledges of $2.1 billion in aid for Yemen. It only had 15 per cent of that amount raised and that's I think in pledges. What do you think of that?

HA: To be honest with you, a lot of people here weren't that optimistic about the conference itself. When the U.N. plan essentially only addresses critical needs only a portion of the population that needs aid I mean you get the picture. It's 18.8 million people who need aid. The U.N. plan will address only 12 million people and only the critical needs of those 12 million people. And even at that it has only been 15 per cent funded. It's a disaster. Yemenis do not want more aid. They want the U.N. to address the root causes that are causing the humanitarian crises. If you do not address the root causes there's no point of the aid and no amount is going to be sufficient. And we're basically begging people to give us money that is not forthcoming.

CO: I just want to clarify that by the end of the day it had gone to 50 per cent that was pledged. But, as you point out, pledges don't necessarily translate into dollars. And what you're seeking is a resolution to this war that has been called by many it's called “the secret war”, “the world's most hidden war”, “the forgotten war”, all kinds of phrases like that, which add up to the fact that there doesn't seem to be any political will to end this. Why is that the case do you think?

HA: Unfortunately there are a lot of factors in play. The Saudi Arabians who leading the coalition and the military campaign here in Yemen. To them it's not just about defeating Houthis. To them they view it as a proxy war with Iran. So Yemen becomes the punching bag. They're not looking into the humanitarian catastrophe into the results of the war. I mean Saudi Arabia, today, at an international aid conference they only donated 150 million dollars. The amount they buy the bombs exceeds that almost 100 times. During a two day raid were they dropped around 200 bombs. The cost of those bombs exceeds that donation — that 150 million dollar donation. To them it is not about humanitarian crises, it's about making a political statement. And to a lot of stakeholders — international businesses — to them the humanitarian crisis is the least of their concerns.

CO: In what way?

HA: Well, for instance, arms dealers and traders that lobby governments. Let's take the U.K. government for instance. The government wouldn't highlight the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen. In fact, it actually tried to downplay it. Refusing or rejecting the idea that the Saudis are committing international human rights violations in Yemen. They wouldn't issue reports that condemn the Saudis or the coalition while, at the same time, they've been selling billions worth of weapons to the Saudis. This is business at the end of the day.

CO: Well Canada is in the process of a deal that would sell 15 billion dollars’ worth of armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia. Do you include them in your analysis?

HA: Yes. Unfortunately I've heard of that lately. But to Yemenis, where we are at the end recipients of those bombs and weapons, Canadians are not that bad because they're only selling trucks. It's the people that sell bombs that are being dropped on our heads that we really are angry with.

CO: Going back to Saudi Arabia's pledge. At the same time, the aid is not getting into Yemen even when it's pledged because of the blockade. And who's responsible for that blockade?

HA: Well luckily the U.N. basically took a bold move two weeks ago, which was surprising. They issued an official statement saying that it is the Saudis that are blocking the aid by imposing the naval blockade. You can find it on the UN's website.

CO: All right. Small progress, but at the same time, you're placing much of the blame for the lack of progress in coming to an end of the war are you putting it at the feet of the Saudi-led coalition. What about the Houthi rebels themselves? What responsibility do they have to try and bring this war to an end?

HA: Well, the Houthis definitely have a huge responsibility in exacerbating the conflict. There are several chances during the negotiations where they could have basically succeeded and where they could have agreed on mutual grounds, but they rejected it. In addition to complicating the conflict, the Houthis also imposed internal blockades. So you have an external blockade on the Saudis and whatever aid that trickles in, the Houthis end up at besieging cities and they block it from reaching those cities. So the Houthis are as guilty as the Saudis.

CO: You're talking about the scale of the crisis in Yemen where there is food insecurity for millions of people. There are children on the verge of absolute starvation. It's really dire the picture the U.N. is painting at this point about what's going on in Yemen. From the point of view of someone who lives in the capital as you do is and lives Sanaa. You have children. What's it like to live in these conditions?

HA: It's really bad. The U.N. said a few weeks ago that a child dies every ten minutes in Yemen. And reading it or hearing about it is very different when you're living through it and you see it with your own eyes. When children are dying right and left it's devastating especially when you have kids and you know that there's going to be a time soon enough when you too will run out of food, run out of money and your kids will be put in that situation. And, to be honest with you, it's quite shocking that the world is just watching this silently.

CO: You talk about these bombs and that are dropping and the size of them — the ordinances — that are landing on populated areas of the country and Sanaa. And you have your children are there. How do you talk to them about what's going on?

HA: Luckily I have a basement, a lot of the homes in Yemen don't. Whatever bombs happen I rush them to the basement. I open some music. I give them my cell phone and open some Disney videos on them trying to keep them distracted and busy. A lot of the kids in Yemen, of course, they don't have that luxury. To be honest with you, I have to lie a lot. They see some blood and I know the people are dead and I have to tell them no, no, no, it's just an injury. Don't worry; he's going to be OK. They see a bomb happening and I told them it's never going to land in our home. So that's how we shelter them. But we know that the day will come when one of their friends or them themselves would be facing the reality that the bomb blasts here are very close by or killing a family member. And we will have to explain to them what's happening.

CO: Hisham, I hope that day doesn't come for you and I appreciate speaking with you again. And I know we will again. So thank you and good night to you.

HA: Good night.

JD: We reached Hisham Al-Omeisy in Sanaa.

Back To Top »

Part 3: Dutch painting auction, Barkley Hendricks obit

Ivanka booed

JD: Well, it was a it was a tough sell to a tough room. Given that it was a largely female audience and given the message that President Donald Trump has long been a champion of family and of women. Nevertheless, Ivanka Trump eagerly accepted the challenge of promoting the idea that her dad is a positive force for women's empowerment. Ms. Trump was in Berlin this morning, at the invitation of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, to take part in a panel at the International Women20 Summit, which also included Canada's Foreign Affairs minister Chrystia Freeland. Ms. Trump made her case, but members of the crowd made it clear that they were not buying it. And that they had not forgotten the “Access Hollywood” video of Donald Trump boasting about groping women, which surfaced, of course, last October. So here's some of the reaction to Ms. Trump's assertions about her papa.

SOUNDCLIP

IVANKA TRUMP: Sadly the United States is one of the only countries in the world — the only developed country in the world — that doesn't have a paid leave policy for the benefit of families. So that is something I'm very, very proud of my father's advocacy long before he came into the presidency, but during the campaign — including in the primaries. He’s been a tremendous champion of supporting families and…

[Sound: Audible boos and groans from the audience]

MIRIAM MECKEL: You here the reaction from the audience. So I need to address one more point. Some adjectives towards women your father has publicly displayed in former times might leave one questioning whether his is such an empowerment to women? How do you relate to that? Are things changing? What's your comment on that?

IT: I certainly heard the criticism from the media and that's been perpetuated. But I know from personal experience and I thank the thousands of women who have worked with and for my father for decades when he was in the private sector are a testament to his belief and solid conviction in the potential of women and their ability to do the job as well as any man.

JD: That was Ivanka Trump responding to questions from journalist Miriam Meckel, moderator of a panel discussion at this year’s W20 or Women20 Summit in Berlin.

[Music: Hip-hop]

Dutch painting auction

Guest: Antoine Comte

JD: This week, in Austria, a Dutch masterpiece will be put up at auction. The painting features a solemn-faced man against a black background is named simply, “Portrait of a Man”. The controversy over the painting, and there is one, is not about the exorbitant price that it is going for, or the number of people desperate to buy it. The controversy is over whether the painting should be sold at all. “Portrait of a Man” was stolen by the Nazis in 1943. Antoine Comte is a lawyer, he represents the Schloss family, from whom the painting was stolen. We reached Mr. Comte in Paris.

CO: Mr. Comte, what do your clients want this auction house to do with the painting “Portrait of a Man”?

ANTOINE COMTE: We are appalled by the fact that this auction house is trying to sell looted art for the second time. Last year, in April, we had learned through Interpol that this auction house was trying to sell a painting, which appears on every website concerning looted art as a painting belonging to the Schloss family, which had been looted in 1943 by the Nazis in France and their French accomplices. So we learned that and we asked the auction house to stop the sale. Their catalogue was cynical enough to mention that this painting came from a looted collection.

CO: Just on that point, the auction house admits openly that they know the work was looted. It was stolen by the Nazis and yet, they have no problem selling it. How is that? What is the law in Austria that allows them to do that?

AC: The problem is they're covering up the eventual responsibility by saying it's looted art. So, therefore, as professionals, they are telling the eventual buyer that this painting is looted art. But they have no problem — either ethical or legal — to sell that painting and their position is that the person who bought initially the painting was honest in buying the painting though this painting appears on all the records in all the registers as looted by the Nazis during the war to the Schloss family.

CO: So the owner, who is putting this painting up for sale — the auction house — claims to have bought the portrait in good faith presuming it wasn't stolen even though it was on record at the time of purchase as having been stolen?

AC: That is why this is a shameful case because no one could ignore that this painting did not come from a looted art offense committed by the Nazis during the war and to the Schloss family. This is why we ask for the restitution of the painting and absolutely refuse any sort of agreement. There is no agreement that can be passed with people who buy or sell looted art.

CO: And that's what they're asking to do. The owner says that he or she is willing to share the proceeds from the sale with your client. And what's the response from the family?

AC: We don't want to have any money from a sale concerning a looted painting. The only thing that can be done which would be ethical and correct would be to give the painting back and forget the sale. They have no right to possess looted art and to eventually sell it.

CO: 333 Works stolen from this collection of this family. Just a little bit of background. Tell us about the family and the collection that they had had?

AC: The family lived in France. These are all French citizens. And when the war started, prior to the war in fact, they understood that they had to hide their collections. It was a very important collection which had been started a century before the days of the Second World War. So they had it sent to a bank and put in coffins in a bank. In 1940, just when the war started, in the in the south of France and the Nazis, of course, knew about this collection. And as they did about all collections in France and wanted to get their hands on it. And so they managed to go with the French Gestapo because the French had also people working with the Gestapo to get the whole collection and seize it and bring it back to the north of France, which was occupied by the Nazis. So we knew this from 1943, and when the French register of looted art was edited after the war. It was edited in 1946,47 and 48 until 1950. It was written in four languages: German, Russian, French and English. And this whole collection was mentioned, of course, with all the items and the items were removed eventually when they were resituated to the family. So no one can ignore that fact. But in Austria, people just don't care about these questions and they're not emotionally or ethically involved in this.

CO: I just want to ask you about the legality because we know in France and other European countries you cannot sell work that is known to be looted and stolen. But in Austria and Germany this can still happen. We've covered a number of stories of this nature and what could you possibly do to recover this painting for your client?

AC: What you have to do in such a case. We have in France an offense which consists of keeping stolen goods to looted art. If you keep a stolen good or retrieve stolen good, you can be sentenced to a different imprisonment. And so when we have a problem in France that we file in a complaint for such and such a painting, which we know is looted. And then there is a case brought against the person who holds the painting. Now in Austria, apparently they don't have that sort of a penal technicality because when we asked the director of Public Prosecutions to give us his opinion on this case. He mentioned without any explanation of any sort that the person who had bought the painting was honest and in good faith. So it is not acceptable because it's not true. You cannot ignore where a painting comes from. We know that a lot of looted art is in Europe and has not been given back to the families. And we have no excuse whatsoever in the French court if you buy looted art. Now, in Austria, I must admit I am sorry to say that but they haven't de-Nazified at all that their country. And apparently they find it quite normal to keep looted art.

Mr. Comte, we'll be following this story and I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

AC: Thank you. Take care.

JD: We reached lawyer Antoine Comte in Paris. And you can see “Portrait of a Man” and find out more about this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Classical guitar]

From Our Archives: Chobani lawsuit

JD: Chobani makes Greek yogurt. Alex Jones makes incoherent noise. And now, the former is taking on the latter. Yesterday, the yogurt giant filed a lawsuit against Mr. Jones, the loud conspiracy theorist behind the website InfoWars. According to the Associated Press, the complaint alleges that InfoWars recently made false links between Chobani and its owner Hamdi Ulukaya, and a sexual assault case involving several young refugees and a girl who was fiv- years-old in Twin Falls, Idaho. Chobani has a large facility in that city and has been very public in its support and hiring of refugees. Last November, As It Happens spoke with Shawn Barigar. Mr. Barigar is the mayor of Twin Falls. We spoke to him about

SOUNDCLIP

Chobani and about the city's own refugee resettlement program. And, at the time, Chobani and its owner were the target of threats and for his support of Chobani, Mayor Barigar was as well. And the Mayor told us about how that sexual assault case had fueled the controversy. Mr. Barigar also spoke. at the time. about criticisms of Chobani from a number of far-right websites like InfoWars. So here is how Mr. Barigar responded when Carol asked him if there was any connection between refugees and the sexual assault in the city?

SHAWN BARIGAR: Well, the fact that the three boys who are involved in the charges are from refugee families that’s sort of where that connection is made. I think some of these news articles made it sound as if this was part of the culture of refugees. That it was encouraged by the parents. That it was a result of Chobani coming here and that's why we have refugees. That local government officials are being paid off by the federal government to turn a blind eye to refugee resettlement and have not followed the rules. That's all just made up.

CO: The man who owns Chobani, this is Hamdi Ulukaya. He has been attacked in social media for begging for helping the refugees. There is a call for a boycott of his products. They say on social media that he is attempting to drown the United States in Muslims and import them to Idaho to work at his factory. What is Mr. Ulukaya's record for helping refugees? What does he actually do?

SB: On a personal level and a professional level through Chobani, Hamdi has taken a very visible and very vocal position in support of refugees and offering them assistance. It’s a very humanitarian effort. This notion that he is personally going out and picking up refugees from refugee camps and flying them into Idaho and putting them to work as planned is just not true. So when the attacks happen against Hamdi, or against me, or others in the city council, or the college, or the refugee resettlement program it's just not based in fact at all and we try to share those facts about how it works. That it's been doing that for nearly four decades and will continue to be a well-managed, well-regulated program

JD: from our archives, that was Carol in conversation with mayor Shawn Barigar of Twin Falls, Idaho in November of last year. Twin Falls is a city where a Greek yogurt giant Chobani has a facility. And this week, Chobani filed a lawsuit against Alex Jones and InfoWars.

[Music: Electronic]

Switched at birth

JD: They do finally know the truth, but it has yet to set them free. Two years ago, Norman Barkman and Luke Monias learned through DNA tests that they had each been raised by the other's biological parents. And then just last year, Leon Swanson and David Tate Jr. discovered the same thing about themselves. Last week, all four Manitoba men met with a team of independent clinical reviewers in Winnipeg and Norway House Cree Nation to discuss their findings to date. And former Manitoba NDP Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Minister Eric Robinson serves as a spokesman for the men. And he shared his thoughts on the outcome of the meetings with CBC national news reporter, Karen Pauls.

SOUNDCLIP

ERIC ROBINSON: I don't think it was positive. I think that the intention was good to bring an update to the victims and to their families about some of the findings that they have made so far and that corrective measures will be taken with respect to how First Nations or Indian people are treated at the Norway House Indian hospital. By and large, it is still an Indian hospital. The counseling methods have to be culturally appropriate. The first language is not necessarily English on the part of the two gentlemen from Norway House. Cree is obviously the first language and that has to be taken into consideration and with respect to the two guys from Garden Hill, their first language is Oji-Cree, so that has to be considered. And two of the four have been to treatment. And part of why we sat down last week was to develop a treatment plan for their individual needs. So I think that going forward that has to be the focus and certainly I think that there's a lot that lays ahead of us in bringing closure to this unfortunate issue that happened in Canada's history and it's more than just reconciliation. I mean after the truth became known that this, in fact, was something that happened the lives of these four men turned upside down. And I think that you and I can appreciate that after learning of these things, thing became difficult to deal with. So the result is where we're at today trying to correct these things. Which we will never entirely correct because after 40 plus years of knowing a certain family and coming to the realization that this is not the child that I gave birth to on the parents part would be very difficult to address. And then the child on the, other hand, the four primary victims realizing this then started questioning themselves you know. So this is simply not a matter that involves four guys that are still around. This involves families and then ultimately the community and ultimately the province of Manitoba. And I think to a larger extent, Indigenous peoples in the province of Manitoba feel that this is one of the many things that have to be addressed in the spirit of reconciliation that the government has set out to do with Indigenous peoples in Canada. So I think that ultimately, at the end of the day, the Prime Minister has to be the individual to deliver an apology to these four men.

JD: Former Manitoba NDP Aboriginal and Northern Affairs Minister Eric Robinson is acting as a spokesperson for four Manitoba men who were switched at birth at Norway House Hospital in the 1970s. He was speaking with the CBC's Karen Pauls.

[Music: Ambient]

Barkley Hendricks obit

Guest: Trevor Schoonmaker

JD: Unofficially, he was known as the portrait artist of the American Black Power movement. Barkley Hendricks was a photographer and a painter who made black people the subjects of his work. Filling what he saw as a disturbing gap in a Western canon almost entirely focused on white subjects. But his life-size portraits were more personal than political. As he once said, “it was political in their minds. My paintings were about people that were part of my life.” Barkley Hendrix died last week. He was 72-years-old. Trevor Schoonmaker curated a traveling exhibition called “Barkley L. Hendricks: Birth of the Cool.” And he also became close friends with Mr. Hendricks. We reached Trevor Schoonmaker in Durham, North Carolina.

CO: Trevor, first of all, I'm sorry for the loss of your friend.

TREVOR SCHOONMAKER: Thank you so much.

CO: When was the last time you spoke with Barkley Hendricks?

TS: Oh, it must have been on the phone this winter. You know we communicated fairly regularly. We've been friends for 17 years. I last saw him in person last fall and early fall, he was here at the Nasher Museum at Duke because I organized a show that he had worked in called “Southern Accent: Seeking the American South.”

CO: How is he doing when you saw him?

TS: He was doing great. Oh he's fantastic. I mean he's in good spirits, he's healthy, he’s funny and critical. Typical Barkley.

CO: Tell us about his art for those who haven't seen it. It's extraordinary and has an impact is the first word that comes to mind. This tremendous impact these canvases have. If you can describe for us, if it's possible, the work that Barkley Hendricks did.

TS: These large-scale portraits are life-size individuals that he started painting in the late 60s while he's living in Philadelphia. And then while a student at Yale and then when he became a professor at Connecticut College in New London. So from the late 60s until the early 80s, he painted these amazing portraits. So his technique was masterful in his little tricks of the trade. But yes, it is his content that really made him stand out in a new way and that he was painting people of color — everyday people of color. Mostly African-Americans and he grew up in North Philly. You know these were friends of his, family members, people he saw on the street and he was taken by their style or their attitude. And that sense of individuality is what makes them really stand out. When you look at a portrait by Barkley there's a connection between the artist and the subject. And so when you're looking into it as a viewer, you feel connected to the portrait. There's an ability that Barkley had to just radiate their character, their personality through the canvas and through his palette. And you just feel like you know these people. Like they get out and walk around at night, like they come off the walls. It's really like an incredible skill that he had.

CO: And how did he capture the spirit of the Black Power movement?

TS: I think by virtue of just doing what he did. And that sounds overly simplistic, but Barkley never set out to capture that political moment. In fact he would have really argued against it. But by not trying to do that he actually did succeed in doing so. His works inherently are political because he was painting African-American people in the 60s and 70s in the height of that movement. But what he was doing was really elevating everyday people to an icon-like status. So some of them literally with a gold leaf background and just really elevating the common person — the everyday person — to a higher level. And I think that's the greatest gift that he gave.

CO: How did you meet him?

TS: I met him when I moved to New York in 98. I gave Barkley a call and I was working in a gallery at the time and they let me curate a summer show. And I thought to myself I'd like him by Barkley to participate in this. But I'd heard he was a little bit difficult. He had a little bit of a personality maybe for being prickly and I called up a colleague and got his number and I cold-called him just out of the blue. And I really wasn't sure what to expect. I thought maybe this guy is going to be angry or caught off guard or just you know give me two minutes to make my case. And what I found when I called him was someone who was so warm and embracing and inquisitive and thoughtful and hilarious. We just hit it off and we talked for over two hours. And part of that is we'd had some similar experiences. I'd lived in Nigeria and he spent time in Nigeria and we shared passion for music.

CO: You had a fascination with one particular person. Can you tell us about that?

TS: Yeah, we had both spent time in Nigeria and fallen in love with the music and politics of Fela Kuti, who is the inventor of Afrobeat music and a strident political gadfly. Like if you were to combine James Brown funk with John Coltrane modal jazz and West African rhythms, highlife music and call and response and then overlay it with the strident politics of let's say Malcolm X and the popular appeal of Bob Marley, you get a sense of who fela was. So I was amazed that people didn't know who he was in the US and I had the idea to do a show about him — an exhibition about him — and his influence. And Berkeley hadn't painted portraits since 1983 when he painted that of his wife Susan. It was a beautiful portrait and 83 “My Petite Cumquat”. And so because he was so inspired by Fela, he offered to paint another portrait. He'd been working on so many different other things and it was just this incredible moment where Barkley was back in portraits again. And that painting became the face of the exhibition.

CO: And I guess the exhibit that established him for many people, but it is his legacy exhibition is something called “Birth of the Cool”?

TS: Yeah, “Birth of the Cool” was a project that we put together with Barkley in 2008. It opened here at the Nasher and it traveled to New York to the Studio Museum in Harlem and to Houston and Philadelphia to the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, where he was in school. The whole project was like an uncovering of Barkley and his biography and his work and just trying to lay the foundation for future generations to be able to dig into it.

CO: How will you remember Barkley Hendricks yourself?

TS: I mean I personally remember Barkley as a friend first and foremost. Someone who is very loyal. Someone who is incredibly generous and warm and funny and that's who he is to me. He'll always be a giant of an artist. I think he's one of the greatest American artists of the last 50 years. His legacy in terms of his impact on younger generations I think is still bubbling to the surface. And to see the love and the outpouring when he passed away was really overwhelming and heartwarming.

CO: Trevor, I appreciate you telling us about Barkley Hendricks.

TS: It was my pleasure. Thank you for the time.

JD: Trevor Schoonmaker is a curator of the traveling exhibition called “Barkley L. Hendricks: Birth of the Cool”. We reached Mr. Schoonmaker in Durham, North Carolina. Barkley Hendricks died last week. He was 72-years- old.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

April 25, 2017 episode transcript

More Stories Like This