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 June 29, 2017

Hosts: Laura Lynch and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

LAURA LYNCH: Hello I'm Laura Lynch.

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

[Music: Theme]

LL: Firing lines. A coroner's jury in Toronto ruled the shooting of Andrew Loku was a homicide. And his family’s lawyer says it's time for police to ask why they're more likely to pull the trigger when there's a black man at the end of their gun?

JD: Sending her regrets. A Mi’kmaq woman from New Brunswick explains why she will not be joining the national birthday party when Canada officially turns 150 tomorrow.

LL: No Direction Home. A gay Iranian refugee has been stuck in Turkey since December trying to get to the United States. But with President Trump's travel ban in partial effect, there is no way out of the way station.

JD: The pursuit of hoppyness. He put in a lot of work before he jumped to a surprising conclusion, which is how a Pennsylvania man bounced to a new world record for fastest mile on a pogo stick.

LL: Claws for concern. A Georgia man is plenty steamed when one of his lobsters he's taking home to eat becomes an internet celebrity thanks to a photo posted online by TSA agents.

JD: And… biscuit case. A New Zealand store owner says the makers of a cereal called Weet-Bix are blocking her shipment of Weetabix. And she also says the company told her she won't see her product unless she agrees to play bowl. As It Happens, the Friday edition. Radio that considers this worthy of cereals consideration.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part 1: Loku homicide, travel ban, NZ Wheetabix

Loku homicide

Guest: Jonathan Shime

“Homicide”. That is what a coroner's jury is calling the police shooting of Andrew Loku two years ago. One of Mr. loku's neighbours placed this 911 call at that time. Here are some excerpts from the 911 call and a warning. The tape is disturbing.

SOUNDCLIP

OPERATOR: Who is that screaming?

NEIGHBOUR: It’s the guy with the hammer.

OPERATOUR: Is there a woman screaming?

NEIGHBOR: Yeah, one of the neighbours and him.

OPERATOR: Where is he?

NEIGHBOR: In the hallway

OPERATOR: He’s still there?

NEIGHBOUR: Yes. The police are here.

OPERATOR: How did they get in?

NEIGHBOUR: I’m not sure; nobody opened the door for them.

[Sound: Gunshots]

OPERATOR: What was that?

NEIGHBOUR: Oh my god! There were gunshots! Are you OK?

OPERATOR: What was that?

NEIGHBOUR: Gunshots from the police officers.

JD: Those are excerpts from a 911 recording of the police shooting of Andrew Loku in July of 2015. This afternoon, a coroner's jury found that Mr. loku’s death was a homicide. Now this is not the same thing as a criminal finding, but the jury has issued a series of recommendations for the Toronto police. They include training to address both anti-black racism and mental health issues. Jonathan Shime is the lawyer who represented the loku family at the coroner's inquest. We reached Mr. Shime in a car outside Toronto.

LL: Mr. shime, I’m sure hearing that tape brings back disturbing memories for your clients, Andrew Loku’s family, what does today's findings mean for them?

JONATHAN SHIME: Well, it's a sad day. It will be almost two years the next week since Andrew was shot and killed. Obviously, that’s never going to change regardless of the rest of the recommendations. So it's a difficult day. At the same time, I think everybody who participated in the inquest feels that the recommendations were very thoughtful from the jury and that they clearly listened to the evidence about what happened. And the recommendations reflect that they took that into account in issuing the recommendations, particularly as it relates to the need for better police training, broadly speaking with particular respect to de-escalation of situations. But also some recognition that we have a very troubled history in Toronto and Ontario with a disproportionate number of black men who are being shot and killed by police and the jury recognized that and clearly wanted to try to take steps to ameliorate that situation.

LL: And I want to go into those things in more detail, but first of all, for listeners who don't remember Can you describe the sequence of events that led up to his death?

JS: Sure. Andrew was a 45-year-old man, a father, a brother, a husband who had emigrated to Canada around 2004. He had been sadly tortured in his home country of Sudan. So he had post-traumatic stress disorder. He struggled for the first few years in Canada, but the inquest showed that from 2011-2015, Andrew was doing very well. He got his citizenship, he was going back to school, he had work and he was trying to bring family over. Things were going quite well. On the night in question, there had been a dispute with some neighbors upstairs. It was part of an ongoing issue that Andrew had with the noise coming from the apartment upstairs, and he went upstairs out of frustration with the hammer and apparently issued some threats to the people of the apartment, who called the police. The police arrived very soon after — about two or three minutes later — and within 21 seconds of even seeing Andrew, they shot him and ultimately he died.

LL: How much did the police know about his situation?

JS: The police knew very little about him. They didn't have a name when they arrived and his background information. They really just were working off 911 call. But what the police should have known and could have known is that this was a situation that was going to be impacted by the conduct of the police and how they managed it. And sadly the evidence disclosed that although the police took all sorts of steps to plan how to drive from point A to the location safely, they didn't take any steps to plan either how to manage the 911 call and ensure that everybody left the situation safely. And that lack of planning and it would seem that their inability to follow their training led to a traumatic outcome of this case.

LL: And in fact, the jury's recommendations include improved police training. And one of the areas is in anti-black racism. In your closing arguments, you said the police let their fear of a black man with a hammer overwhelm their compassion. What did you mean by that?

JS: Well, I think we heard evidence at the inquest with respect to implicit bias, as well as institutional racism. So without asking any specific aspersions on the officer who was involved, who issued an apology to the family, a genuine apology which the family accepted. What the evidence, number one, is that too many black men are being shot and killed by police a disproportionate number. Number two, there was an expert who was called on implicit bias and how all of us have certain biases, in particular in relation to the black community that black men are perceived to be more menacing and more threatening and more dangerous because of some of the biases and stereotypes we all hold. And lastly, there was evidence called with respect to institutional racism within institutions, and in this case looking at the Toronto Police Service and how many institutions have structures that contribute to the problem and that includes the police service and steps are really needed by the Toronto Police Service and others to address those issues.

LL: So then how should the police have responded given all this?

JS: Well, what their training taught them was first of all as soon as Andrew turned, he was 28 feet away. The peak of the threat had been diminished. He was actually no longer even at the apartment where the 911 emanated from. Some other neighbors had come and were just speaking to him and he was speaking to them quite calmly. And as soon as he turned, and the police were there, and he looked at them they saw the hammer in his hand, and they both pulled out their guns and started screaming at him. And all of the evidence that we heard said that was the wrong approach. The first approach should have been for one of the officers to communicate with him and say what seems to be the problem or how can we help you? And in fact, their conduct resulted in an escalation of the situation because they were both pointing their guns at him and yelling and screaming. So a much calmer approach with one police officer offering assistance would have de-escalated the situation. And we heard from six other witnesses who dealt with Andrew in the minutes and hour before he died. And all of them said yeah, when we spoke to him and just kind of reasoned with him he was able to calm down. So there's no reason that the police needed to pull their firearms and start yelling and screaming at him.

LL: Mr. Shime, I appreciate you taking the time to talk to us.

JS: Not at all. Thank you for taking the time to cover this story. It's an important story and I hope we'll see some changes in the future.

LL: Good bye.

JS: Take care.

JD: Jonathan Shime represented Andrew Loku’s family at the coroner's inquest into his death. We reached Mr. Shime outside Toronto.

[Music: Folk]

Travel ban

Guest: Alireza

JD: Last night, aspects of President Donald Trump's travel ban went into effect. Refugees and visitors from six Muslim-majority countries will not be allowed into the United States unless they have a quote “bona fide relationship” with a person, business, or university there. Regardless of what various courts have said, many refugees have been stuck in limbo since the ban was first announced in January. Alireza is a gay Iranian refugee. He has been granted refugee status by the UNHCR, and selected for a third-country resettlement in the United States, because he is vulnerable in Turkey, where he is living now. We are not using his last name because he fears for his safety.

LL: Alireza, what did you think when you heard the U.S. Supreme Court was reinstating a part of the travel ban?

ALIREZA: Well, it was again a shock for us, as we had a lot of hope as we give ourselves every day hopes and new hopes that maybe that process of our resettlement will go ahead. But seems like every time that any news comes about this travel ban it would give us another shock that this temporary ban of so-called 120 days, which is like continuing for more and more.

LL: How long have you been hoping and waiting to get to the United States?

A: Well, we have had hoped to leave this country when we entered Turkey like two-and-a-half years back. We were just we're hoping to have a better life. We did not have any idea of where we will end up, either America, or Canada, or anywhere in European countries. We were just hoping to leave this situation.

LL: Why did you have to leave Iran?

A: We had to leave because we felt persecution there and we had lots of problem. Iran is a very homophobic, Islamic, traditional country. The worst cases they hang gays. In many news they raid the gatherings. They track them. I have been writing weblogs in Iran. I've been tracked. I've been followed. I've been asked for security service agents in Iran. I’ve have been called for questions and they keep records of everything; of all our activities. Who we meet, what do we do and just in a second they can kidnap us. They can hang us with no information to our families. They can do anything to us because according to the rules in Islamic Republic of Iran, they can do anything to homosexuals.

LL: And what is life like for you in Turkey then?

A: The life in Turkey is what I did not come here expecting anything. I just expected maybe a safer place for me. But it did not turn out to be the same but because the gay life in Turkey is not very safe, especially after the last year’s coup in Turkey. They're facing a lot of problems. Istanbul is a cosmopolitan city, but they are not sending refugees to Istanbul. We are residing in small towns. I'm in that small city; the people are homophobic and religious here. We are not even allowed to leave to leave our cities. They don't give us any permission; we are just prisoners here. We are not allowed to work here.

LL: If you’re not allowed to work how are you supporting yourself?

A: We have to find hidden work. We have to clean the restaurants. We have to serve tea hidden in the back of the restaurants. And recently, we had to quit our work because in the last few months the police have become so harsh towards the refugees who are working. According to them, working is illegal. People are so homophobic that if they realize that we are homosexuals, they will not let work for them because they consider the money earned from our work not clean. So we have to hide our identity from anyone.

LL: Have any of your friends made it to the United States?

A: Well, I just had a very lucky friend who just got into the United States three days before the first refugee ban announced in January. But after that, I know so many people were counting on getting out of this situation — this harsh situation of LGBT refugees living in Turkey. And they have been counting every day of it because every day's a struggle living here. Every day is hard. We have to earn for our every month rent. Every kilo of rice we have to buy and live on that. So people have gone through the medical tests and culture classes and everything and their interviews. And they have just been waiting for their flights and everything has got canceled.

LL: What kind of toll does that take on people you know?

A: Everybody is in depression and shock. People are committing suicide in every community, and I hear from everybody here they're getting into suicidal thoughts. We've just gone low-profile and hiding ourselves. We have no happiness and no life here. Sometimes we give ourselves hope that OK ,this time the refugee ban is going to stop. At least they're going to process, but it's not happening. Every time there's some news that comes about the travel ban everything resets another 120 days. This is not temporary. This is permanent.

LL: Well, what are you going to do then?

A: We don't know? We are left with no option. We were expecting more from the other communities, at least after this travel ban. They see what is happening to us or maybe they are not aware of what's happening to us. But we expected more from the countries who are claimed to be more open to refugees and LGBT community, but they're not helping. The situation of life is very, very, dangerous for LGBT refugees. We have suffered already for all our lives, and we are still suffering in here.

LL: I know this is difficult for you. I'm wondering did you try to come to Canada?

A: Canada, generally they do not issue us a visa or it's not very easy. I've been asking for some lawyers in Canada from years back is there any way that I can get to Canada? But they say because you are from Iran, it's really not easy to get a visa for you, and there is no option. We were only left with coming to Turkey and seeking asylum, which has turned out all our hope is turning down and we have no hope here.

LL: Without that hope though I wonder what you think about doing next. Do you think about possibly trying to cross over into Europe?

A: We have thought about that. We may have to risk our lives doing that. Me and my partner have been stuck here for over 31 months, and we thought that if nothing is going to happen in these few months maybe this summer we have to risk our lives. We just have to get out of here because it is not an easy life for us here. We have no hope; there is no future.

LL: How will you cope in the coming months?

A: Well, first of all, we try to fight our mental health problems and our depressions. We try to find jobs that we can provide for ourselves. We have no support and we have no family here. We are not refugees who have their families to turn to. We have no connection even to our families. We are single individuals in danger every day of our life. We have to hide ourselves and struggle to provide for ourselves and just to live and not to be killed by others or ourselves.

LL: Alireza, I appreciate you talking to us, and I hope you stay safe. Thank you.

A: Thank you. Bye.

JD: Alireza is an Iranian refugee. He has been trying to make it to the United States. We reached him in Turkey. We are not using his last name because he fears for his safety. To read more about Alireza's story, go to our website: www.cb.ca/aih.

[Music: folk]

NZ Weetabix

Guest: Lisa Wilson

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: The bell on an alarm clock]

ANNOUNCER: First thing in the morning, when it's time to go to school, call the Weetabix.

MALE SINGING VOICE: A proper start is needed here.

YOUNG BOY: So get some school fuel!

BOTH: Make it Weetabix.

JD: That, believe it or not, was a commercial for Weetabix. You probably do believe that… The crisp grain biscuit that turns to mush in milk is a product that Lisa Wilson likes to stock for her customers. Ms. Wilson lives in New Zealand, and she owns a business called “A Little Bit of Britain”. And as the name suggests, she imports snacks and food from Britain, including Weetabix. Recently however, Ms. Wilson learned that a shipment of her cereal had been seized by customs agents. She says that followed a complaint from a company that produces other cereal called Weet-Bix. We reached Lisa Wilson in Christchurch.

LL: Ms. Wilson, how did you learn you wouldn't be getting your order of Weetabix?

LISA WILSON: We got a call from our shippers, who deal with all our importing of the food, to say that New Zealand customs have been asked to come out and inspect the pellets and the container. And I had a slight suspicion then that it was probably the Weetabix since this has previously happened to the old owner. Turns out it was, and customs have held up the pallet for Sanitarium.

LL: How do you know that the cereal was seized because of this company Sanitarium that produces the other cereal, which is called Weet-Bix? Not Weetabix, Weet-Bix.

LW: Just because I guess I knew from the previous owner that they had gone on with him before about the same case, and it was off to high court. So I was quite lucky that I had some background information on that. But yeah, customs informed me that it was the Weetabix, and later on that night, I got a call from Sanitarium saying was I aware that they had held up the pallets? And that they would send me an agreement later on, either that night or the next morning.

LL: What has Sanitarium said about why it doesn't want your cereal in New Zealand?

LW: Because they have a trademark on Weet-Bix, so they feel like Weetabix is a trademark infringement. Which I disagree with because you know for trademark infringement you've got to confuse, deceive, or pass it off. And you know we're not trying to confuse any customers that we Weetaxix is the same as Weet-Bix. In fact, we're kind of doing the complete opposite. We only pretty much have British Expats buy the product. That's what they’re brought up on. We don't have any Kiwis come into our little specialty stores buying Weetabix because they are all brought up on Weet-Bix.

LL: But to be fair, Ms. Wilson, the cereals are pretty similar. They're both these biscuits made of wheat, and they have very similar names, so doesn’t Sanitarium have a point?

LW: Yeah, I just don't feel they do. One's obviously manufactured in the UK, and then Sanitarium’s in New Zealand or Australia. Yeah you know, we’ve just got completely different customers. And if you actually taste them, they do taste different. And, like I said to a few other of our supporters and stuff, if a Kiwi came in and bought some Weetabix, or we went up to them on the street and said try this and had a bowl of Weetabix and Weet-Bix, I can guarantee they would be able which one the Weet-Bix was because it tastes different. It's what you're brought up on and what you're used to.

LL: According to the Guardian, Sanitarium has said it will let you have the cereal if you place a sticker over the Weetabix label and blank-out the name on line. And I'm wondering what your response is? Are going to cover up the labels?

LW: No, we've went back to them and say you know we don't feel like we need to do that because we don't feel like it's a trademark infringement. Another thing is we never would have our product on the same shelf next to each other ever. For starters, Weetabix only sells in British food stores around New Zealand. You know people that are just like me that have a small business and import British food, so even if the New Zealand supermarkets where to take on Weetabix, it would never be side-by-side on the shelves because the Weetabix is a British product, so it would go into “International” Isle. So we just feel like the principles there we shouldn't have to cover it up.

LL: There is another point here that Sanitarium’s general manager in New Zealand also apparently told the Guardian that the Weet-Bix brand, that’s the New Zealand brand, is protected by international law, and it in turn is often precluded from being sold in other global markets due to the Weetabix trademark. So how fair is this to the company?

LW: Well, I've had to look into it. If you Google the company and they've got an international food store in London, which sells Sanitarium’s Weet-Bix, and they sell other New Zealand products and Australian products. So Weet-Bix is sold in the UK. I think a few of our supporters have started posting some links of Amazon UK selling it. And obviously in the UK and there was a few other ones. So their product is sold over there, and I guess no one's going up there marching saying you know you have to re-label your products.

LL: How far are you going to take this fight in the name breakfast cereal?

LW: You know we've said to them we would intend to put it in front of a judge. It was going to go to the high court four years ago with the previous owner and Sanitarium backed down. They left the previous owner alone, and he imported Weetabix for the rest of his time owning the business and never had issues. According to him and his lawyer at the time, the border protection that Sanitarium have on their products for coming into the country and being able to stop it was given out on the wrong case law. According to him, they know that and that's why they backed down the last time he went to the high court and left him alone. They obviously wouldn't want to lose that law of being able to stop products when they come into the country. So whether that's 100 per cent true or not obviously I'm not sure because I wasn’t the one going to court.

LL: But you will go you will go to court to fight for your right to Weetabix?

LW: Yes.

LL: I want to thank you very much for telling me about the looming battle over breakfast cereal. Ms. Wilson, thank you.

LW: Thank you.

LL: Bye bye.

JD: Lisa Wilson is the co-owner of “A Little Bit of Britain”. We reached her in Christchurch, New Zealand. And if you'd like to hear that interview again or share it, visit our website: www.cbc.ca/aih. We did reach out to the company that makes Weet-Bix, we did not get a response before we went to air.

[Music: Cultural]

Smile study

JD: I don't know if you know this, but you can actually hear someone smiling on the radio. I'm doing it right now. Do you hear it? A follow up question: how many teeth do you hear? Is it too many? Is it too few? Oh, that's exhausting. You know that saying about how it takes more muscles to frown than to smile? That's garbage! And the thing about a smile is it's supposed to be spontaneous, right? Something makes you happy, you smile — a genuine expression of pleasure. And then along comes science and overanalyzing it suddenly you're so self-conscious you're scared to go past a grimace. My point is, I have bad news. Most of us may be and are likely smiling wrong. Because according to this new study by researchers from the University of Minnesota, there is an ideal way to smile and many, many, unideal ways. This will help: after showing 802 people at the Minnesota State Fair pictures of a computer-generated face smiling in various ways, the scientists reached a conclusion. And according to The Guardian, it is quote “The best smiles on average have angles between 13 degrees and 17 degrees, and with between 55 per cent and 62 per cent of the distance between the pupils of the eyes. OK, great so let me just adjust my mouth angle here and my pupil-to-lip ratio distance. But while I do that… how do I do that? I mean how does anyone do that? Especially while also keeping in mind that the study suggests that I shouldn't smile too broadly, or show too much of my teeth, or smile too narrowly, or too small an angle. Oh but also one of the co-authors says this quote, “While there is a sweet spot that we found, it is important to be clear that there is not just one really, really, good smile. Just because your smile is different doesn't mean it is in any way bad. OK, now I can relax. Well you hear that? I'm smiling again, but at what angle? What about the width? You know what, frowning is easier.

Back To Top »

Part 2: Canada 150, lobster owner, no more ties

Canada 150

Guest: Cheyenne Joseph

Tomorrow is of course Canada day, and seeing as it is the country's 150th birthday, it is going to be a big party. But many Indigenous Canadians have mixed feelings about the sesquicentennial. Some went to Ottawa to express those feelings. They put up a teepee on Parliament Hill to remind Canadians how much work still needs to be done. Cheyanne Joseph is a Mi’kmaq woman whose parents come from both European and Indigenous backgrounds. She has decided to not attend any Canada Day events tomorrow. We reached Ms. Joseph in Moncton.

LL: Ms. Joseph, as an Indigenous woman, what is making you reluctant to celebrate Canada Day this year?

CHEYENNE JOSEPH: Well, as someone that has mixed ancestry, it's a bit difficult to decide or was, in the beginning, a bit difficult to decide what to do with July 1^st? So one of my parents is Indigenous, and I am fully aware of the impacts that colonisation has had on that side of my family. And it certainly has an impact on me in terms of how much of my culture I know, and how much I need to be actively seeking out on my own because it can't be sort of shared with me through it through my parent directly. And then I have another parent who has a long history of family members who were settlers and have spent many generations here. And so what do you do on July 1^st?

LL: What tipped the balance for you?

CJ: What tipped the balance is that I spend, for the most part, most of the other days of the year I live as a Canadian. And when it comes to a day where Canada is celebrating its birth, then I have to think about the Indigenous side of my family and the impact that colonisation has had on my family and how it impacts me? And that voice needs to be heard. And so that is what the tipping point was. I spend most of my other days doing other things that I think are very Canadian, and Saturday will be a day that I make sure that I can be part of that voice across the country that says this day can't be a celebration if we're not going to acknowledge what's happened over the last 150 years.

LL: All right, not a celebration. Watching how the Canada 150 events have been playing out so far, what exactly are the parts that are making you feel uncomfortable?

CJ: Well, certainly this week highlights one of those things when a group of Indigenous people are putting up a teepee, doing ceremony on Parliament Hill and are being treated I think with a lot of disrespect. Some of the celebrations aren't really about honoring the people that were on this land before the arrival of settlers. Some people are using Canada Day and incorporating Indigenous cultures, music, and people and highlighting their accomplishments and that's great. But part of me also says is this going to be another broken promise?

LL: What needs to be different?

CJ: I think that we need to get to a point in this country's state of being when Indigenous people have equity. When we're treated fairly, and we are accessing the same kinds of services, at the same level, with the same kind of funding. When you compare the health statistics for example of indigenous people versus other Canadians when there's that kind of disparity or our living conditions when there's that kind of disparity within a first world country I don't think that we've arrived there yet. So if celebrations are going to be Canadian than it needs to honor the first people. Let's see if it's going to be in New Brunswick, it would need to honor the Mi’kmaq people.

LL: Ms. Joseph, you spoke generally about things that you see need to change. I wonder if you could get a little bit more specific for me. What are the injustices that need to be fixed?

CJ: Well, as a health care professional I see this all the time. So when community members can tell me all kinds of stories about how they get treated at an emergency room or by other health care professionals…

LL: What happens to them?

CJ: Well they might go into an emergency room, present with signs and symptoms of an illness and instead of being fully assessed like anyone else might be, it is presumed that they are under the influence of alcohol.

LL: What's your reaction when people do say that this country is only 150 years old?

CJ: You know sometimes in certain social situations it's really hard to be that voice that has something very different to offer, and feel confident to say wait a second that's not correct. Indigenous people have been on this land for thousands of years. So I don't know that we can say that this country is only 150 years old. Have I ever said that to someone? No, but I do use educational opportunities within my job, within my career and out in the community to find opportunities to share an Indigenous perspective on the history of Canada.

LL: Ms. Joseph, you said that your life I think is markedly better than your grandmother's or your father's life. But I wonder have you ever felt the sting of racism?

CJ: Oh for sure, so when I am offered let's say a position or a promotion, there is an undercurrent that I get a sense in the workplace that I was given a job or the promotion simply because I'm Aboriginal, and not because I've worked hard, that I'm just as qualified, that I'm able to do the job just as well as anybody else.

LL: Has someone said that to you?

CJ: Yes.

LL: That you got this job because you're Aboriginal?

CJ: Yes.

LL: What did you say?

CJ: It's hard to really have a response in that moment. It's quite shocking. But really the only response is I got this job because I'm qualified and I'm the right candidate for this job. I've worked just as hard as any other candidate, and I'm just as educated as they are.

LL: So what are you going to do tomorrow?

CJ: I'm going to stay home, just like I do most Saturdays, and garden and spend time with my kids, like I always do.

LL: No flag waving.

CJ: No, I've never waved the Canadian flag.

LL: Ms. Joseph, thank you very much for your time.

CJ: Thank you so much.

LL: Goodbye.

CJ: Take care.

JD: We reached Cheyenne Joseph in Moncton, New Brunswick.

[Music: Hip-hop]

Umpire rescue

JD: As a Major League Baseball umpire, John Tumpane is used to making tough calls. None of them have ever come close to the call that he had to make off the job in Pittsburgh on Wednesday. On his way back from a run, he saw a woman who had hopped over the railing of a bridge. He decided to strike up a conversation. And what followed was an incredible rescue effort involving Mr. Tumpane and other bystanders, which ultimately saved that woman's life. John Tumpane shared the story with reporters. Here's an excerpt.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN TUMPANE: I was coming back from lunch, made my way back over the bridge and about maybe 30-feet in front of me I saw a woman up ahead and I saw her put her leg up on the rail. And obviously, that grabs your attention, and there was a couple ahead of me. I scurried up a little bit and said what’s this lady doing? Right as I said that she flips over the rail onto the other side. My instinct was just to go right at her and I didn’t want to scare her because I wasn't sure exactly what was going on. I just approached her and I said hey, what's going on? She said I just want to get a better look from this side of the rail. And I just kind of put my arm on her on her shoulder and I said come on; why don’t you come back on this side? It's the same view over here. She said no, no, no, I'm good. And at that point, I knew that she wasn't just taking a look at the other side. And at that point, she said Just let me go it will be better off that way. And I said No, come on, let me buy you lunch. Why don’t you come back on his side and we'll talk things over? It will all work out. And at that point, I was able to get both my arms around her and hang on and just try to console her and talk to her. And at that point, other pedestrians had walked by, and I was able to mouth to one of gentleman in the back. Thanks to him, I said call 911. And they did. And then another gentleman came up and asked what he could do? He held onto one arm. Another gentleman walked by, he works for the Tampa Bay Rays, but we didn’t know this at the time. He asked what he could do and I said if you could try to kind of hold her ankles through the bottom rail that could help us. And he was able to do that, and the police showed up. We got her on this side, and after I got here back on this side, I went up to her. She said you'll just forget me after this, and I said no, I'll never forget you. This was an unbelievable day and I'm glad to say that she can have another day with us and I’m glad I was in the right place at the right time. This isn't about me. I’m just glad that it’s a positive story and not a sad story.

JD: That was John Tumpane, a Major League Baseball umpire who saved a woman from jumping off a Pittsburgh bridge this week.

[Music: Guitar]

Lobster owner

Guest: Christopher Stracuzza

JD: Christopher Stracuzza was vacationing in Connecticut and decided that he wanted to plan a big old cookout for his friends back home in Georgia. So he bought more than a dozen lobsters to take back with him on his flight, including a really big lobster that weighed in around nine kilos, which is about 20 pounds. So Mr. Stracuzza saw this undersea monster truly as little more than a delicious meal. But he also assumed that he was one of the very few people who had seen it at all. And then he went online and he saw that he was wrong because officials with the Transportation Security Administration had taken photographs with his giant lobster. And he was not happy about that — not at all. We reached Christopher Stracuzza in Savannah, Georgia.

LL: Mr. Stracuzza, when did you first see these pictures.

CHRISTOPHER: STRACUZZA: I was sitting at work on Monday afternoon, and I got a call and was like hey, you won't believe this, but your lobster is all over the internet. And I was kind of like what are you talking about? And then so they were like it's in the Boston Globe or Boston or something. So I looked, I was like no way! Because I realized that TSA had gone through my stuff obviously when I got home on Sunday. And then I really realized, and the world realized, that there was this huge lobster that went through Boston's airport on Monday I guess, and then it just spread like wildfire after that.

LL: Well, for our listeners who may not have seen it can you describe the photographs and what the TSA people were doing to your lobsters?

CS: Well, it was one of the dozen lobsters that I had. It was obviously the biggest lobster that I had. The way I had to pack was largest at the bottom, then six pounds and three pounds in between that. I put damp newspaper in between him and then I think it was seven two-pound lobsters above that. I mean obviously you know whenever I saw it I got photos of the lobster to send to my friends. And I see this guy — this TSA agent — with this ugly smirk on his face you know holding my lobster up all over the Internet, and just holding him up by its claws. And I was like there's no friggin way because I had to pull all the lobster out to get to him. And when I got home on Sunday, that lobster was on top.

LL: What's wrong with that because the TSA is allowed to search whatever you put on a plane?

CS: That's right they are, but posting photos of other people's property on the Internet that's not you know a privacy issue, which I believe should be a privacy issue. They may not have said hey, this is a Chris Stracuzza’s lobster, but it doesn't matter. You know I don't go through your stuff posting pictures of it online just for giggles. I packaged the lobster because the lobsters were already out of water and they're already going you know on a trip that's it. You know I took all the precautionary steps to try to keep these lobsters as calm and like in a good stage before I took them out put them in the pot.

LL: So what do you think they were up to then? You don't think this was legitimate on their part?

CS: You know who knows what they're up to all the time? They just wanted their five seconds of fame or whatever with pulling the lobsters out. But they had a ton of lobsters out to get to him. I mean I probably would have been less upset you know because you know you're stressing out the lobster already you know taking it out of its environment, putting it into a cooler and then transporting it. But I had all intentions of just making it as less stressful as possible for the lobsters. I hear it does something to meat possibly the more stress that they have.

LL: So you were you were interested in taking care of the lobster because you knew eventually it was going to end up on your dinner plate?

CS: Yeah, yeah, you know like going to a restaurant you don't want to tick off the waitress. Yes, they have obviously the right to search a bag that goes through their conveyor belt. But they also have X-ray machines that can sit there and look right through your body and see every single thing. I mean people actually like just Google what an X-ray machine looks like at TSA, they’d be able to tell that you can see every single thing in there.

LL: I understand you actually named the lobster?

CS: Yeah, we called him Dinnah.

LL: you called him Dinnah…

CS: Yeah, I lived in Maine for a little while, and all those all those Mainers up there I caught on to their accent. Like “river” would be “rivah”.

LL: Some people might find a little odd to hear you become so upset about what they did with your lobster when it was you who decided to drop it into a pot of boiling water.

CS: A lot of people get upset about a lot of things. You know I'm mostly upset that they're taking pictures of people's private property…

LL: It wasn't like an intimate photograph.

CS: It doesn't matter. See that’s where everybody is like oh, it just wasn't this. It just wasn't that. I mean is that our supposed react to it all? It actually was an example of something small that should not even be allowed in the first place. Yes, it's a government agency, but they still don't have the right to do that. And if they do, why do they have the right to do that? They shouldn't have the right to go through and pick out what they want to pick out, to post the photos that they want to post. Realistically that's what it boils down to. Oh, it's funny boils down to.

LL: Mr. Stracuzza, when you finally sat down to dinner with Dinnah, how did she taste?

CS: Oh, it was all good. All the lobster was gone. You know it's just one time of year that we do this, and we don't care what type of money it's going to cost us. Next year I'm going to buy an even bigger lobster if I can find one.

LL: Mr. Stracuzza, thanks for telling us about all of this.

CS: I appreciate it. Thank you much.

LL: Bye Bye.

CS: Bye.

JD: That was Christopher Stracuzza. We reached him in Savannah, Georgia. If you'd like to see some photographs of those lobsters, head on over to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Folk]

No more ties

JD: With all the important happenings to attend to in the UK right now, you wouldn't think that parliamentary fashion protocol would be high on the list. And yet, in the House of Commons on Wednesday, the speaker was asked to adjudicate an important issue: Should male MP’s be required to wear ties? Here is one MP’s question, and the response of the speaker John Bercow on the issue.

SOUNDCLIP

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT: Sir, I’m not really one to talk about dress sense, but I noticed that a member was allowed to ask a question in the chamber without wearing a tie. Now I have no particular view on that, but you have the rules on that changed sir?

JOHN BERCOW: To short answer to the honorable gentleman is that this is something provided for, if memory serves me correctly, in the conventions and courtesies of the House. The traditional approach was that as a member, effectively a male member, would be wearing a tie.

[SOUND: Laughter]

JB: There is absolutely no obligation on female members not to wear ties if they so choose. I must say to the honorable gentleman I think the general expectation is that members should dress in business-like attire. So far as the chair is concerned, I must say to him I fear this will greatly disquiet him. It seems to me that as long as a member arrives in the House in what might be thought to be business-like attire, the question of whether that member is wearing a tie is not absolutely front and centre stage. Am I minded not to call a member simply because that member is not wearing a tie? No, I think there has always been some discretion for the chair to decide what is seemly and proper. Members shouldn't behave in a way that is disrespectful of their colleagues or of the institution. But do I think it's essential that a member was a tie? No, and opinions on the honorable gentleman's choice of ties do tend to vary. And it has to be said the same could be said of my own.

JD: Always entertaining the UK House of Parliament. Speaker John Bercow speaking on the issue of whether male MP’s in Britain should be required to wear ties?

[Music: Indie rock]

Pogo record

JD: You know how to pogo stick, don't you? I mean probably as well as anyone does really or most people do. You put your feet together and you just kind of bounce. The thing is I guess the way you and I use a pogo stick is not the way that drew McQuiston uses a pogo stick. My recollection is… and we're going back a few years here. Is that I would put my feet on the supports, I would manage a quick burst of erratic jumps and then I would fall and then I would kick the stick and then I would cry. Mr. McQuiston, though, is leaps and bounds beyond that kind of amateurish incompetence. He is… and this is not a contradiction in terms, a serious pogo sticker, a pogo stickist, he is a pogoer, a serious pogoer. And last Saturday, the 20-year-old po-go-getter set a new world record for the fastest mile ever pogo-sticked. The Pittsburgh news site TribLive was there to film it. And it was also there afterwards to add surprisingly loud, triumphant-sounding stock music. Here is a clip from that video.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: I don’t even know what to put here? Cheering and Coldplay-like music; let’s pogo with that.]

JD: From the TribLive website, that was the sound as Drew McQuiston set a new world record for the fastest mile completed on a pogo stick. The old record was nine minutes and 16 seconds. Mr. McQuiston time has yet to be officially verified, but it appears that he finished in a staggering seven minutes 40 seconds. Now, as I mentioned, the celebratory music kind of obscures everything else. But if you listen closely to this clip, you will hear that Mr. McQuiston’s pogo stick hits the track. Listen.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Great! This song is back! There are also faint bouncing noises]

JD: Yes, if you can hear that, his bounces are at least a full second apart. And if you could see it, you would see that each of his jumps covers at least a metre. So congratulations to Drew McQuiston, for both recognizing and defying the gravity of the situation.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

June 30, 2017 episode transcript

More Stories Like This