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 2018

The AIH Transcript for February 08, 2018

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 Douglass. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

CO: She's home, but that's not where her heart is. After being detained while trying to smuggle her children out of Lebanon, Canadian mother Jolly Bimbach is back in the country without her kids.

JD: Small arms retraining. Armed groups in South Sudan have freed more than 300 child soldiers. And a UNICEF representative explains what's being done to welcome them back.

CO: Poking un-fun. After several complaints go public, a former Manitoba politician apologizes for his treatment of women which earned him the nickname “Minister Tickles”.

JD: Street cred. Michael Cheng just considered it a smart investment to buy an exclusive San Francisco cul-de-sac. And now that he's suing the city for rescinding that sale, he'll tell us about the realty of the situation.

CO: Quiche me, you fool. The chefs for Norway's Winter Olympic team freak out after ordering 15,000 eggs, instead of 1,500. But their eggcitment is nothing compared to the media's ineggscusible eggsplosion of egg puns.

JD: And… a false alarm about a false alarm. Yes, a news agency stuck a photograph of Jeffrey Wong next to a story about the person who screwed up the missile alert in Hawaii. But Mr. Wong wants you to know that attacking him is way off target.

JD: As It Happens, the Thursday edition. Radio that's a whistleblower for a guy who wasn't the missile-blower.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part one: Detained Canadians: Update, Minister Tickles, Hawaii missile scare

Detained Canadians

Guest: Jolly Bimbachi

JD: Jolly Bimbachi and Sean Moore are safely back in Canada. As you've likely heard on the news, earlier this week, they were released from captivity by a Syrian affiliate of al-Qaeda. Ms. Bimbachi originally left Canada in November to go to Lebanon. She says her ex-husband had taken her two sons there two years ago, and she was going to fight for custody. On Monday, it was revealed that the two had been detained in Syria while trying to smuggle Ms. Bimbachi's children out of the country. Her sons are now back with their father in Lebanon. We reached Jolly Bimbachi in Ottawa.

CO: Ms. Bimbachi, did you think that when you returned to Canada, you would be without your boys?

JOLLY BIMBACHI: I had actually really high hopes that my boys were going to come back with me. And I had lots of dreams and lots of plans. But I knew that there was a chance that they weren't going to come back. I just didn't want to think of it.

CO: This ordeal you have been on — this journey — begins with what? What were you hoping to accomplish when you went to Lebanon months ago?

JB: I was actually hoping maybe something agreed with the father, either through the courts or just between us that I could bring the boys back home. And we can kind of come together as co-parents for what's best for the boys. But he didn't want to talk to me and have anything to do with me. And there was a lot of like threats, and there's no way to get through to him.

CO: He allowed you to see the boys?

JB: I got court papers to see them after three weeks in Lebanon. For the first three weeks, he barely let me see them. And if I saw them, it was like for 20 minutes.

CO: And how were those encounters with your children?

JB: I'll tell you the first two encounters were kind of awkward. The older one warmed up to it straight away and was really happy. And the younger well was happy, but he didn't know how to express himself I think. But by the third visit, he was just like son the son I knew I had. He was just a very bubbly and excited all the time and playing.

CO: How old are the boys?

JB: They're six and eight right now.

CO: And it's been two years since you've had that contact with them?

JB: Oh yeah, two-and-a-half — almost three years.

CO: At what point did you give up on being able to negotiate some kind of an arrangement with their father, and when you decided that we're going to try and smuggle them out of Lebanon?

JB: So, in the back of my mind, I was always planning to see what I can do to get them out of Lebanon. But I wanted to go through the legal route. But I found out very quickly that even if I went through all of the possible legal channels, that at the end, I still would not bring them back home. The thing is in Lebanon my ex-husband didn't commit a crime.

CO: Can you tell me about that moment when you realized that you were going to do this — that you were going to try and take the children out and try and smuggle them out?

JB: It was probably the most scary moment in my life. But I knew I had to do something. And I knew that there was a big possibility I might never see my kids again. But I also knew there was a possibility I might have them forever.

CO: And you were willing to take that risk?

JB: Yes, I was.

CO: When did you come up with the plan that you would try and go through probably one of those dangerous places in the world — to go through Syria?

JB: The thing is it happened so fast, and then we didn't actually plan to go to Syria. We had a plan to go to another country. And you know we had to we had to pay money. And then the people who we paid money to change their plan, and I think it was just this huge conspiracy now that I look back at it that. They told us two days before we are getting ready to leave that we're going to Syria — I believe it was two days before. I already paid the money, and I was like it's in God's hands; if that happens, it happens. I'm going to take this risk, and I'm going to do what I have to do. And if that doesn't happen, maybe something good will come out of it. But I never once thought I would stopped the way I got stopped.

CO: How did you get stopped?

JB: There was a Facebook post that my ex-husband's cousin put about me with my face and my kid's faces on it. And said that I was stealing the boys, I was a bad mother, this and this, and all kinds of things. And said that I was going to bring my boys and raise them as Christians, and when you say that in an Islamic country it makes people's eyes open, right? And so somebody saw the post, and they stopped me. I got lucky that I was put in with very good people, and I was helped out of Syria. Unfortunately, if I would have ended up in another area, Sean and I might not have made it out alive.

CO: The name of the group it's been reported is an al-Qaeda-affiliated group called Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. What were they like? How did they treat you?

JB: I have to be honest; they treated me really well. They treated me as like I guess part of the family. They put me in a family’s home that is I guess in that area. I was treated like part of the family. They gave me money to buy whatever I needed if I needed anything for myself or the boys.

CO: The boys were still with you at that point?

JB: Yeah, they were still with me. They were with me for about I think another ten days before while I was in that area before they took them. And then after, I stayed another twenty-six days by myself.

CO: When they took the boys, can you tell us about that moment — what that was like for you?

JB: It was probably the most devastating moment I've ever been through. I felt defeated, I felt alone, I felt cold, I felt I felt like my boys were my kind of my protectors until then, and then they were gone and then I felt nothing.

CO: You must have been in a great deal of pain at that point?

JB: I was. I tried to hold it together as much as I can before they actually took the boys. They gave me a few hours with them. And I won’t tell you I was strong; I wasn't. I cried when I was with the boys. But I tried to hold it back as much as possible. But as soon as they left they left, I just broke down.

CO: Did you have any hope even at that point there was some way to get your children with you before you returned to Canada?

JB: You know what? Yeah, I did actually. And I told one of the guys that was in my car. One of our I guess escorts you could call them. Like, are you guys are going to surprise me with my boys at the border? And then they laughed, and they're like we're sorry; they're in Lebanon. And like I still had hope, and I still do have hope until now.

CO: What hope do you have given all you’re telling us about your former husband and now he's I suppose suspicious about you even being with him. What hope do you have that you will see your children again?

JB: I’m hoping that maybe not just the Canadian government, but the Lebanese government could kind of come together and help us figure this out. And I'm not asking for my kids to be with me 100 per cent. I think it's very important that their dad is in their lives as well. I'm asking for the Canadian government and the Lebanese government that we can come up with treaties to enforce co-parenting between people from different nations.

CO: What do you say to those who might criticize you? That might question that you would smuggle your children through a war zone? What would you say to them?

JB: You know what? At this point in my life, I don't really pay attention to any criticism. And what I would say is please do not judge me. You have no idea what I've been through. You have no idea what's going on, unless you have been to the same emotional pain, and through the same path, and have you’re your children; then you have no right to talk about me. And any other person would do anything desperate enough to have their children with them. I didn't have children not to raise them. I had my children because I was I wanted to raise them, and I want to be a part of their lives, and I want them you know to have every opportunity in this world that they can have. So anybody who wants to criticize me, I honestly will not read it, or I will not listen to it. I don't need criticism in my life. I'm going through enough already.

CO: How did you leave your boys? What were your parting words to them?

JB: I said be strong. And I told them be good. And I said, please forgive me. And I'm sorry, and I love you.

CO: And did you say that you'd see them again?

JB: Yes, I did. They were so happy to come to Canada; they couldn't wait. And I told them don't worry I’m still going to bring you home. And I'll see you as soon as I can see you, OK? They said OK, Mama. And they hugged me and kissed me. And then the youngest one said I'm going to save all of my money so that I can buy you a nice gift.

CO: Ms. Bimbachi, I appreciate you telling us the story. And I hope everything works out for you and your children.

JB: Thank you so much.

CO: Thank you.

JD: Jolly Bimbachi returned to Canada last night, after spending several weeks being held by an al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria. We reached her in Ottawa.

[Music: Folk]

Minister Tickles

Guest: Joelle Saltel-Allard

JD: She called him "Mr. Tickles". But for Joelle Saltel-Allard, Stan Struthers' behaviour was no laughing matter. Mr. Struthers was a long-time NDP MLA in Manitoba; he held various cabinet portfolios, including Minister of Finance. Ms. Saltel-Allard worked as his Press Secretary. But it wasn't the work that proved problematic. It was what the Minister was doing with his hands. We reached Joelle Saltel-Allard at the Ottawa airport.

CO: Ms. Saltel-Allard, when do you first remember feeling uncomfortable with your boss, Stan Struthers?

JOELLE SALTEL-ALLARD: Well, I had felt uncomfortable probably from the beginning when I was assigned to his department in late 2009, that's when the incidence of tickling and touching had begun. Probably from the start, and it continued on until I left.

CO: When you say tickling, I mean this is something we associate with what we do with children. What was he doing to you?

JSA: Yeah, he would always come and put his arm around me, and then around my waist, and would start tickling. It was a little bit childish in terms of the behaviour, but you know when somebody who is your superior who's doing that kind of thing it makes you feel very uncomfortable. And he was also doing it in front of other staff and other you know his assistants, deputy ministers, that kind of thing.

CO: And the tickling, and there was just touching in general. How often would he do something like that to you?

JSA It was almost every single time I would see him, or if I'd happened to walk by him in the hallway at the legislature. You know, it was something that happened so often that I can't even give you a number.

CO: You aren't the only one. What else did you know about the Minister?

JSA: Well, I didn't really have any other names of people who had gone through it. But when I did try to talk to co-workers, they would say oh no, don't worry about it, that's just Stan. That's just the way he is. So, clearly, there had been other similar incidents that had occurred before me.

CO: Were you the one who gave him the nickname “Minister tinkles”?

JSA: You know I can't remember where that came from. You know the few people that I had shared with, either colleagues or friends or family, it's kind of what we started referring to him, and everybody knew the story as soon as you would say that. Other colleagues used it as well, but I don't know where it came from.

CO: But it was common enough that you don't even know where it came from, but it was just a common use to calling him “Minister Tickles”. It was that known that he would be doing this kind of touching that people just accepted this nickname.

JSA: Yeah, that's right. And as soon as you said it, you didn't have to mention his real name or anything like that they knew exactly who you were talking about.

CO: Would he say anything? Would he comment on this well he was touching you in this way?

JSA: I don't remember specific words, but there was one situation where it kind of got a little bit more serious for me is when I was with him, and we were driving to a press conference in southern Manitoba — it was about a two hour drive south of Winnipeg — and he put his hand on my thigh, and proceeded to talk about stories with sexual references, and really made me feel uncomfortable. Because he was making references to sexual acts, and you know there were some implications with what he was saying after that particular situation, which occurred in September of 2010. I reported it to my immediate director.

CO: And what happened after you reported it?

JSA: My immediate director went to the chief of staff, and it was relayed back to me through my director that I basically had to shut up and suck it up.

CO: Shut up and suck it up, like just that comes with the territory — it’s just Stan?

JSA: Yeah well, it was that. And also, there was an election coming in 2011, so you know we didn't want to rock the boat. We don't want to cause any kind of controversy. You know the focus is bigger than my little complaint of sexual harassment. So it was mostly ignored.

CO: Michael Balagus was your party's chief of staff?

JSA: Right, at the time.

CO: And he was the one that your director took these incidents and reported the behaviour of the minister to Michael Balagus?

JSA: Yes.

CO: And he has said — Mr. Balagus — has said in a CBC story that he doesn't recall that particular complaint, but he does remember having to tell Ministers Struthers to not massage and hug women.

JSA: Yeah, well I mean he never approached me about my complaint. He never acknowledged my complaint. And you know there was a lot more that could have been done. There could have been an acknowledgment of my complaint. There could have been some sort of mediation or counseling, or you know a number of different things that could have been done internally that weren't done.

CO: Did you bring it up with Mr. Struthers himself? Did you ever try and speak to him about how this made you feel?

JSA: You know when you're dealing with a person in a situation of authority you don't really feel comfortable because you feel like your job might be on the line. I never brought it up; I was scared that I'd probably lose my job.

CO: The other women who are coming forward and corroborating this story and saying the same thing happened to them; he treated them in this way. Have you spoken with them?

JSA: You know since the story broke this morning, I've had numerous, numerous emails and messages and text messages from you know I'd say about a dozen women who have said yeah, you know what? This happened to me, and he did it to me, and thank you for speaking out. Lots of them are still perhaps working within government or in other positions where they feel like they can't come out and publicly explain their situation because of fear of retribution.

CO: It's 2018, and you're saying that women who are contacting you don't want to name themselves or come out publicly because of fear that it will have ramifications for their careers. What do you make of that?

JSA: Well, I mean it's upsetting to hear, especially given that I have a nine-year-old daughter who is going to be coming into the workforce, and I hope that the situation isn't the same when she gets there. But I mean I kind of understand. Fortunately, for me, I'm in a position where my career is established, I'm in a good place, I'm not worried of any kind of backlash. But I could see where some of these women might feel like they would suffer for coming forward. It's unfortunate, but, hopefully, my voice can speak for them as well.

CO: Mr. Struthers has now apologized. He said — this is a quote from him in his statement; he wouldn't do an interview — “This week, I learned of incidents in which my behaviour made former colleagues and staff feel disrespected. I am sorry. I apologize for any interactions I've had that have been inappropriate and that have caused any person to feel disrespected or uncomfortable.” What do you make of that?

JSA: You know I appreciate the apology. I really respect the fact that he's acknowledged his behaviour. So I mean I think that's a first good step for him. But I personally don't have anything against him. My issue is really with the process and with the party itself how they dealt with it. And probably how they continue to deal with these types of situations that's really where I think that things need to change.

CO: And how are you feeling now that the story is out?

JSA: I have a huge sense of relief actually. It was it was very therapeutic for me to be able to share my story and finally be heard, and have my complaint acknowledged.

CO: Ms. Saltel-Allard, I appreciate speaking with you.

JSA: Thank you.

CO: Thank you.

JD: Joelle Saltel-Allard is the former Press Secretary to former Manitoba cabinet minister Stan Struthers.

[Music: Ambient]

Hawaiian missile scare

Guest: Jeffery Wong

JD: When the false alert was sent out last month telling people in Hawaii that there was an incoming ballistic missile, Jeffrey Wong wasn't there. Instead of being at the emergency management agency office where he works as an operations officer, Mr. Wong was on an island. And on that island, Mr. Wong helped lead panicked guests to shelter in a restaurant, until he confirmed the alert was a mistake. But instead of being congratulated for his leadership, Mr. Wong has been the victim of online threats. It started when an Associated Press photograph of Mr. Wong in a Hawaiian shirt in the agency's operations centre began circulating online; causing people to assume — mistakenly — that Mr. Wong was the "button-pusher". We reached Jeffrey Wong in Honolulu.

CO: Mr. Wong, when did you realize that people thought you were the so-called “button-pusher”?

JEFFERY WONG: When the photo of me taken at the state EOC was actually redistributed by other social media outlets and other news organizations a few days after the actual false missile alert.

CO: Who did they say you were?

JW: The people that were posting on social media, as well as saying in the other news organizations, were saying that I was the button-pusher; I was the person who had triggered the false alert alarm.

CO: And to be clear, you are not that person.

JW: That is correct. Actually, I was on a neighboring island — on the island of Kauai — at the time when the missile alert occurred.

CO: When do you say that social media and some media — some pretty big media — was running your photo, and saying that you were the guy. How did they have this photo? How did they come to put you into that, do you know?

JW: Well, what had happened was back in July of 2017, Associated Press came to the state EOC for a visit because, at that time, our agency the — Hawaii Emergency Management Agency — was beginning our outreach program to the people of Hawaii in regards to preparing for a possible, but unlikely ballistic missile attack. So that photograph was taken during a tour of our facility. And I just want to make it perfectly clear that the Associated Press did not recirculate the photograph after the false missile alert. What had happened was that photograph since it was published as part of an article back in July 2017 individuals searched the Internet and, apparently, had found photographs that were taken during that visit and then redistributed it.

CO: What happened to you? What kind of reaction did you get from people who thought you were the guy?

JW: Well, it was really shocking, it was really upsetting, and it was disturbing that individuals who would look at a photograph not knowing the person that I am or the circumstances of that day would immediately associate me as being the person responsible for the false alarm.

CO: They said some pretty nasty things to you, didn't they?

JW: Yes, they did. These were all posted online. They were racially derogatory comments. There were comments that were questioning my loyalty to the state of Hawaii and the United States. There were specific threats stating that I should be shot for what I did — or supposedly did. There were comments about waterboarding. There were comments about deporting him. There was also accusations of me being a planted Chinese agent within the agency to stir-up trouble. A lot of misinformation was put out there as a result of the photograph.

CO: Wow! And how hurtful was that to you?

JW: Personally, it's very hurtful because, again, the people making the comments do not know who I am, what I do for my family, what I do for the organization — the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency — or what I do for the people of Hawaii; the residents and visitors alike.

CO: In fact, what you were doing at that time during that horrible 45 minutes for people in Hawaii, you were trying to help folks. You were on another island, as you mentioned. There’s been people who have been saying how helpful you were to them at that time. What, in fact, were you doing?

JW: Well, I was on the island of Kauai, which is a neighboring island to Oahu. And I was there for a Civil Air Patrol meeting of senior leaders and staff members. And we were just beginning our morning meeting — this was shortly after 8:00 — when we received on our cell phones the message that there was a ballistic missile inbound to Hawaii. So what I did was I instructed everybody to go to the safest point in the hotel, which was actually the hotel restaurant. So after getting everybody in our meeting room into the restaurant, I came outside a side door of the meeting room and entered the lobby area where people were confused, people were panicking, and I immediately said everybody go to the restaurant that is the safest place; that will be our place to shelter. So we got everybody into the restaurant — as many people as we could. And I could not find a hotel manager or an employee. It was just it was really chaotic at the time. So what I did was I stood up on a stair and announced myself, gave everybody my name, told them that I worked for the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency and that everybody needs to remain calm until we can confirm if this, in fact, was an actual missile launch.

CO: People have said that you were just invaluable to them; you were so comforting. And we should point out that within 45 minutes you were like everybody else on the islands: you didn't know if this was your last 45 minutes. You didn't know what was going to happen just like everybody else.

JW: Right, that’s correct though.

CO: So this is how you were acting at a time when a lot of people with stories you've heard is that people were just huddled with their families thinking this was the end.

JW: That's correct. I mean we did not know that if, in fact, this was an actual missile inbound to Hawaii. There was limited to no cell phone coverage. We could not get through on a landline. I attempted to try calling the State Emergency Operating Center via landline, and the lines were all busy. So I had as much information available as the people in the hotel restaurant at the time.

CO: Of course, everybody was quite traumatized by this as you know far better than I. There's no excusing the things people have said to you. But the fact that they were so emotional about this was just so frightening do you think that fed into this assumption that you were the person responsible?

JW: Oh definitely, because this event affected many, many people. And I can understand how the anxiety wears off. The anger set in. You know who's responsible for this? Who caused me this traumatic experience? And I can see where people were angry, and they needed to direct their anger and frustration towards somebody. And, unfortunately, with my photographs being out there as you know the face of the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, I was the easy target, so to speak.

CO: Well, I appreciate speaking with you. And I'm glad at least that's partially been cleared up, Mr. Wong. Thank you.

JW: Thank you.

JD: That was Jeffrey Wong, the man falsely accused of sending out the Hawaii missile alerts last month — the erroneous one. We reached him in Honolulu. And we have posted that infamous photo of Mr. Wong on our website. Please do not share inappropriately.

Back To Top »

Part two: South Sudan child soldiers, San Francisco private street

South Sudan child soldiers

Guest: Tim Irwin

JD: In South Sudan, a total of 311 child soldiers — including 87 girls — have been freed by the armed groups they were fighting for. The releases have been hailed as an important first move towards the emancipation of tens of thousands of children believed to be fighting in the country's civil war. It is expected that about 700 children will be liberated in the weeks ahead. At a ceremony in Yambio, in the south-west of the country, the children were provided with civilian clothes and offered counseling. Tim Irwin works for UNICEF in South Sudan. He was at the ceremony. We reached Mr. Irwin in Juba.

CO: Mr. Irwin, can you give us a sense of how these children are doing?

TIM IRWIN: I spoke to several of them yesterday when the release took place. And they were, obviously, very emotional and delighted to be back with their families. I spoke with one girl who had being amongst the armed forces for about six months. And I spoke to a young boy who had been with the armed forces for about two years. And both of them had very similar stories. They had been walking home from school when they were, in their own words, arrested but, obviously, abducted by this armed group, and forced to take on different roles. In the case of the girl, she was forced to be a cook and run errands. And in the case of the boy, he was forced to be a bodyguard. And in both cases, their parents thought that they would never see them again. And so, obviously, the release of these children and their reunification with their families was very much a joyous moment.

CO: How many of them had families there? Were they all reunited — all 311? Did they have families come to get them?

TI: No, I mean there were many families, and the young girl that I spoke to was there with her mother. The young boy was hoping that his father would arrive, and so the reunification process is a major part of this process because, for those in the immediate vicinity, they may have a mother, they may have a father, they may have an uncle or an aunt, but many of them have lost track of their parents. And you know in the case of these children that I spoke to many of the parents have given up hope of seeing their children again. So you know, obviously, we need to provide psychological support and counseling to these children. We need to provide them with medical support and make sure they're okay and provide them with education. But above all else, we need to reunite them with their families.

CO: Now, in South Sudan, there's more than one militia that was recruiting and abducting children and putting them into their ranks. There's two militias who have released children, and more to come. How did you come to get these militia groups to release the children?

TI: These are very long and slow processes, as you can imagine. And the group which released the bulk of the children yesterday was a group that had been in opposition with the government forces — the national army — called the SPLA. Up until about six months ago, when they signed a peace agreement and, at that point, it was decided that the adult forces of this opposition group would merge with the national army. And, at that point, it was decided that the children would be released. But it's become a very fractured conflict in this country. And so it's not just one side against the other. And so we have many opposition groups; we have one, obviously, government group. And so these processes take a long time, and we are continuing to work to see that the bulk of the 19,000 children that remain within these armed groups are released.

CO: You know what we've heard children who have been released from these militias — child soldiers — they have had horrible lives. They have gone through all kinds of punishments and brainwashing. They've had violent experiences during their very formative years, which makes it very difficult to go home even if there's a home they can return to. How will you help them to make that transition?

TI: You know there are many steps in that process. And, as you say, it's a very delicate one. And it's a very challenging one. But what we need to do is to support the child to return to their family to feel that they have other options ahead of them. The majority of these children have been brought into these armed groups against their will. But there are some who joined these armed groups voluntarily. And some with the support of their families because it seems there were no other options for them in their community. And so we need to bring these children back to their families to decrease the economic burden of having another child by providing substantial support to these families. And into providing them with education and vocational training, so that they can see that there is a future ahead of them that does not involve them being a part of one of these armed groups in the country.

CO: Specifically how will you help the girls? Because, as you know, many of them have been sexually abused, they've been taken into sex slavery by these militias, and not only is that awful for them, but a stigma that the families can't accept. How will you help them?

TI: We help them in the same way that we help the others that we provide them with the psychological counseling that they need. And we work with the community to accept these individuals back into their ranks. There are members of certain communities who are afraid to have some of these children whether they be boys or girls, back amongst them. And so we reassure them that they are, above all else, children, and that they were brought into situations which were beyond control. I think it all comes down to the children and their families and their communities seeing that there are other options. There is a future which they can work towards, which in the case of children, is about obtaining an education in most cases. When you speak to all these children, the number one thing that they say is I was taken out of primary school. I just want to go back, I want to complete my education, and I have dreams and aspirations, which go well beyond the experience that I had.

CO: You mentioned there's a total of about 19,000 children who are in militias in South Sudan. Is there a timeline for when you hope that these children might be released from those militias?

TI: I mean the timeline would be you know today or tomorrow, but you know realistically we need to expect that there will take certainly weeks before these children are released. I mean most of the armed groups in this country have signed agreements with the United Nations that they will not have children in their ranks. And that they will release children. And you know what we see is an ebb and flow of recruitment of children depending on the insecurity and the level of conflict that we have in various parts of the country. But we have to be optimistic. We are moving forward in a peace process in South Sudan. If that gains traction, then we have to continue to push to see that all of these 19,000 children are released and that we have many more days that we saw yesterday.

CO: We'll leave it there. Mr Irwin, thank you.

TI: Thank you very much.

JD: Tim Irwin is the chief of communications for UNICEF in South Sudan. We reached him in Juba. We have more on the story on our website: www.cbc.ca /aih.

[Music: World music]

Kinsman ‘s remains

JD: Since June 26th, of 2017, Andrew Kinsman's whereabouts has been a mystery. Even when Toronto police charged alleged serial killer Bruce McArthur with his murder, his body had not been found. Today, tough, police revealed that Mr. Kinsman's remains were among the remains of at least six different people found in planters on a property in Toronto's Leaside neighbourhood. Mr. McArthur has been charged with five murders so far, but police did confirm today that they believe more charges are to come. Nicole Borthwick was a friend of Mr. Kinsman. She spoke to CBC's News Network host Andrew Nichols earlier this afternoon.

SOUNDCLIP

NICOLE BORTHWICK: Now we do have confirmation of the remains that are found; we have a sense of closure that can start. But there’s been a lot of sadness, and a lot of grief, and a lot of anxiety around this issue. And now that there is a final finding, closure can start.

ANDREW NICHOLS: And how does that work? How does that closure start?

NB: That closure starts by saying goodbye; he needs a proper burial for family, friends, and close ones. But that’s up to his sister.

AN: We heard from Pat Kinsman, the sister of Andrew Kinsman, as you say, this will be up to the family to decide how to remember Andrew Kinsman — that they're still trying to grasp it. But that the most important thing is that they can bring him home to and area east of Toronto — the Ajax-Pickering area. And that they're going to have a proper memorial. They're going to think about it over the next little while, and it may coincide with Gay Pride celebrations that take place in June. How would you like him, Andrew Kinsman, to be remembered?

NB: Andrew was very much part of his community and what I’d like to remember about Andrew is his generosity, and his kindness, and his giving toward other people. People who we didn't know and I think that is paramount to me because I remember Andrew as a very kind-hearted individual with a warm heart and a beautiful smile.

JD: Nicole Borthwick was a friend of Andrew Kinsman. She spoke to CBC's News Network earlier this afternoon. Toronto Police did confirm today that Andrew Kinsman's remains have been found at a property in the Leaside neighbourhood. Bruce McArthur has been charged with Mr. Kinsman's murder, and the murders of four other men. Police do say they expect more charges to come.

[Music: Ambient]

San Francisco private street

Guest: Michael Cheng

JD: You'd be hard-pressed to find a more exclusive street in San Francisco than Presidio Terrace. It is a cul-de-sac. It is lined with mega-mansions and palm trees. And it's closed to the public. So it came as a shock to the wealthy homeowners there to learn the private street they lived upon had quietly gone up for auction. Not only that, it had sold for a song, to a married couple of out-of-towners. It also came as a shock to the City of San Francisco, which scrambled to reverse said sale. But now, the people who bought the private street are fighting back. They're suing the city. Michael Cheng lives in San Jose, California. That's where we reached him.

CO: Mr. Cheng, you don't own a home on Presidio Terrace; you don't even live in San Francisco. So why are you fighting for the ownership of that street?

MICHAEL CHENG: I’m fighting to keep what is rightfully ours because we purchased a street, which came to us at an auction and was a legal purchase. I don't see why we shouldn't be able to keep what we purchased.

CO: How did you come to purchase the street? Not a house on it, but purchase the street, the sidewalks, and I understand even a bit of shrubbery and park area?

MC: Well, we were looking around at different ways to purchase property because is so expensive, and we just couldn't get in with most traditional ways. So we looked at auctions, and one of the things the county does is auctioning off tax income properties. And when the city of S.F. had a tax auction, they listed about 600 properties that were mostly vacant parcels. We just took a chance on those properties.

CO: Did you know that you were buying this street?

MC: No, we didn't know quite what we're buying. We just knew it was a vacant parcel that's zoned for a residential project. So in theory, it looks like you could build a home, and that's all we knew about it. And we figured in S.F., if it’s a land that looks buildable, we should take a chance on it.

CO: And this is one of the most exclusive streets in San Francisco. It's in a gated community; some very wealthy and very prominent people live in this neighborhood. How is it that it came that not their houses, but the street itself had gone up for back taxes?

MC: Well, apparently, they just have a very long history of not paying their property taxes. So when the street was created in 1905, everybody knew this was a separate parcel for the HOA to pay the property taxes on it, which back then was a dollar. Starting in 1978, they just stopped paying for it. Their accountant discovered that the state took the street after they stopped paying for it, so they got it back in 1985. Then, they paid on time for a while — for maybe ten years — before, again, they stopped paying for their property taxes.

CO: How much back taxes did they owe?

MC: At the time of the auction, it something like 300 dollars for 17 years of taxes.

CO: These houses they sell for millions of dollars. How is it that they couldn't pay the taxes?

MC: It’s just I think a very negligent attitude toward their street. They didn't care, and they figured nobody's going to ever bother them about it. So in 2009, the city was trying to auction off the street. And back then, nobody bought it. So they were just taking a chance I guess, or maybe they just didn't care.

CO: Until you in 2015. So how much did you pay for it?

MC: I paid $90,100 to win.

CO: You paid 90,100 dollars to buy the street that all these houses were on?

MC: To buy a vacant lot in a decent area that we took a chance on that we later found out what the actual street was like. And I was like well, that's an interesting buy. And, at that point, we knew OK, it's not buildable as a home-site. So oh well. It’s just a street then.

CO: Have you visited your property?

MC: Yeah, we visited a couple of times during the time that the news broke last year with reporters. But otherwise, it's a gated street, and we haven't been there since.

CO: Why not?

MC: Well, we just hadn't been in the mood to go because it’s gotten unpleasant.

CO: Let's hear about that unpleasantness. What happened?

MC: We didn't want to disrupt their lives. We showed them that we hadn’t done anything for two-and-a half-years before they found out about it. And we said you know how about you continue to run the street however you want to. And they just said we don't see ourselves working with people from out of the city, or people like us.

CO: What do you mean people like us? What do you think they meant?

MC: I imagine they meant were not in the super wealthy class like them. Some people interpret it as we’re not Caucasian.

CO: There is, as I'm sure you know, there's the history of discrimination in that community. Up until into the 1990s, it was a “whites only” community.

MC: Yeah, that was part of the original 1905 deed. It was only since 1948 when the restrictions were banned. But racial discrimination wasn't actually taken off the beat until ’92.

CO: And I understand it finally changed because one of the residents in that community, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who she was the one who actually got it changed so that it stopped being a whites only community.

MC: That's how she got her senatorial career started was when she did that.

CO: Is she one of the people who doesn't want you to own the street?

MC: Well, even though she's not a resident now and hasn’t been for ten years, she did write a personal letter to pressure the board to tell them to take back the streets. We were very shocked by that for many reasons. For us, the top Democrat in our country — one that I voted for many times — would come and make a personal appeal or to pressure on a local matter where she has no jurisdiction on and that really felt very disappointing to us.

CO: Well, what do they want you to do? What are they the owners of the houses on your street what are they asking you to do, or demanding that you do?

MC: Well, they weren’t demanding anything. They just said they want us to go away.

CO: What do you want to do with their street?

MC: Right now, I’d just like to enjoy it as a street.

CO: But if you’re saying it’s kind of hostile even to visit, will you get much pleasure out of it?

MC: Well, I think if we work this out over the long run I think it’ll be OK. But I think for us the main goal is to clarify our legal ownership in the next year or two.

CO: I understand the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to overturn the sale, is that correct?

MC: Right. And so they may vote in that split decision to return the street back to the prior owners.

CO: I understand this is not something they've done before; there's no precedent. So why do you think they would do it for this particular community?

MC: This community, as everybody can see, it's a very wealthy and politically-connected community — if they can call Dianne Feinstein in their back pockets to generate a direct threat that's pretty powerful. We're just trying to deal with that.

CO: All right, we'll leave it there. Mr. Cheng, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

MC: Sure.

CO: Bye bye.

MC: Bye bye.

JD: Michael Cheng is a real estate investor. We reached him in San Jose, California.

[Music: Bluegrass]

Olympic eggs

JD: Sometimes, someone makes a mistake, and others… well, someone makes a mistake. And they order far too much of something and people think it's funny, but it's a disaster. Like this, for example: chefs for the Norwegian Winter Olympic team apparently goofed up an order for eggs — and now they're struggling to cope with an completely unmanageable number of egg puns. I mean, the eggs themselves were also a problem. The Norwegian chefs figured they'd need 1,500 for the Games. Except, as Norway's chef de mission, Tore Ovrebo, told Reuters, quote, "It was an extra zero on the order — so 1,500 to 15,000." So yes, somehow, the Olympic cooks accidentally ordered ten times more eggs than they needed. Which meant, according to Reuters, that, quote, "each person in the 121-member delegation would have to eat 124 eggs during the 17-day event." Unquote. Mr. Ovrebo insists it's not a big issue. But he's wrong. It is a big issue, and it's hurting us all. Because the press has scrambled at the opportunity to deploy a series of damaging egg puns. "Eggs-treme sports," chortled the Daily Mail. "Norway Team Ends with Egg on Its Face" guffawed the Hindustan Times. "Someone has some eggs-plaining to do!" giggled Newsweek. And The Independent exploded, "Officials left in shell-shock by an egg-streme turn of events which left their culinary plans scrambled." It's exhausting; E-X-hausting. And it's also redundant, because the Norwegian chefs were able to return the eggs, no problem. So, headline writers, please, please knock it off, because thanks to you, that one simple misunderstanding is still creating shock huevos.

Back To Top »

Part three: Miguna Miguna, Lagos flight, cell phone concert

Miguna Miguna

Guest: Miguna Miguna

JD: A week ago, Miguna Miguna did not expect to be deported from the country he was born in. But a lot has happened in a week. Last Friday, the well-known Kenyan opposition activist and lawyer was arrested and accused of treason. He's a staunch supporter of opposition leader Raila Odinga, who last week held an unofficial "swearing-in ceremony," calling himself "the People's President." That support did not go over well with Kenyan authorities. They ended up detaining Mr. Miguna for five days, and then put him on a plane — to Canada, which is where he landed last night. We reached Mr. Miguna at his home in Richmond Hill, Ontario.

CO: Mr. Miguna, how does it feel to be in Canada?

MIGUNA MIGUNA: Oh, what a relief you know given the horrible one week I have had. It's been one of the worst weeks in my life. Only comparable to another two you know two weeks I had in Kenya in 1987.

CO: I'm going to ask you about that moment, but just go back to what happened during that week and where it begins, which is a very dramatic scene at your home in Kenya. And what happened? How did this begin? Who came to arrest you? And how did they do that?

MM: It is even difficult for me to see who came to arrest me because what I hear was a huge explosion at the entrance of my residence. So I almost ran out. But then as I listened, I had people running around the house, so I had been expecting attacks because of the nature of my involvement in politics. I'm a well-known critic of the current administration. They call me a general in Kenya because there is a movement we started to oppose the illegitimacy of the last electoral process, and the blatant rigging of the election.

CO: So where did they take you?

MM: A police station is the first place where they put me into a cell you know about five-by-five, cold floor. They kept me there waiting for the full day. I had no access to counsel, even though I demanded so. I had no access to my family, even though I demanded so.

CO: Did they take you to court?

MM: They only took me to court on Tuesday — the same day they deported me. And the judge there refused to listen to them, and told them they have to take me back to Nairobi. And instead of taking me back to Nairobi, they deported me.

CO: To Canada.

MM: Yeah.

CO: It seems though that there were no judges who would accept the charges against you. What was it they were trying to get you charged with?

MM: They say they that I have assisted Raila Odinga to commit treason because I'm the one who commissioned the oath. But really they have not arrested Raila Odinga.

CO: Raila Odinga, you are referring to the opposition leader — the opposition — to the president. You had kind of a ceremony, you had kind of a swearing in ceremony of the People's President in order to raise awareness of what you and the Opposition believes was a stolen election or false election. So this is the swearing in ceremony that they are now accusing you of an act of treason for having been part of, is that right?

MM: Correct.

CO: And why was Mr. Odinga not arrested if he was the one at the center of this controversy? why was it you and not him?

MM: Because the state knows that if you touch Mr. Odinga that would be the end of the administration immediately because he commands support from more than 70 per cent of the Kenyan population. They believe that I'm the head of Mr. Odinga, so to speak. So they think that the top of the head, the body will die.

CO: For people who don't know what's been going on in Kenya with the presidential elections, tell us what is the problem with how you see the last election of Mr. Kenyatta as president last fall? What was wrong with that?

MM: Well, first of all, on August 8^th, when the elections took place, as the results were streaming in it was clear that Mr. Odinga had won the election. But when the results were announced, they declared Mr. Kenyatta President-elect. Mr. Odinga challenged that declaration at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Odinga.

CO: Right, the Supreme Court said the election had not been transparent, so that meant there was a rerun. Mr. Odinga declined to enter the race, which Mr. Kenyatta proceeded to win by a landslide because there was no opposition.

MM: The court made orders against the electoral body to do certain things that would have made the subsequent rerun credible and transparent and verifiable. But they failed to do that. So who could accept that?

CO: All right, so in all respects what you're describing, and what others have documented, that there were serious problems with how that election was conducted, which leads us to what happened last week, which was this swearing in ceremony of the People's President being the Opposition Leader Raila Odinga. For that, you were arrested

MM: Correct.

CO: How did you come to be deported?

MM: Obviously, they could not charge me because I had not committed any crime. They had no material facts; they had no evidence with which to prosecute me. So getting rid of me is all they wanted. You could either kill me that is getting rid of me. But I’d alerted the entire world, so the only thing is to deport me. That way you get rid of me physically.

CO: Did you have much support from Canadian authorities while you were in custody? While you had, apparently, disappeared? Were you getting consular support?

MM: I never got consular support, and even up to now, nobody has called me.

CO: Global Affairs in Ottawa says that they were working in the background trying to help you. Numerous officials were making efforts to seek access to you and confirm your well-being. So that's their statement.

MM: But you see, the distance between my Nairobi home and the Canadian embassy is less than two kilometres. So they know where I was abducted from. I'm one of the better-known Kenyans, so getting my number is not difficult. Communicating with my wife would not have been difficult because she contacted the embassy by calling them repeatedly.

CO: Just that time when you were detained, what was going on while you were in custody? How were you treated?

MM: The worst of it was psychological torture. I only eat two meals in five days. I did not sleep even one day. I was kept standing the majority of the time. Imagine that it is the middle of winter and I came to Canada wearing slippers — pink slippers — that were brought to me by a police officer in Nairobi who took pity on me because my feet had swollen and I couldn't wear my shoes.

CO: Being in custody and the way you were treated this past week, did that bring back memories of what happened to you in the 1980s that led you to seek asylum in Canada?

MM: It did, and it made me feel worse than in 1987. Because in 1987, there was one-party state. But this time, we have a constitutional multi-party state with the Bill of Rights almost equivalent to the Charter of Rights and Freedom in Canada. So if the current regime can perpetrate these atrocities, it's worse than a dictatorship.

CO: A judge has now ordered that you return or you be returned — that you never should have been deported. Will you go back?

MM: Any time, yes. I'm ready. But you know sacrifices would have to be made. Change would have to resolve by people taking bold courageous steps and risking their lives. If that is the price I have to pay, of course, I'm ready for it.

CO: Mr. Miguna, we will be following what happens with you and your story. I appreciate you speaking with. Thank you.

MM: Thank you.

JD: Miguna Miguna is a Kenyan opposition activist and a lawyer. He was deported from Kenya to Canada. We reached him in Richmond Hill, Ontario. We’ve posted more on the story on our website.

[Music: Guitar]

Lagos flight

Guest: Dapo Sanwo

JD: Air travel can be uncomfortable and stuffy. You spend hours breathing stale, recirculated air, essentially other people’s breath. You yearn for some fresh air. And then that yearning abruptly stops when the fresh air arrives as a result of the emergency exit door popping off, on its own, while the plane is still in motion. That happened yesterday on a Dana Air flight from Lagos, Nigeria to Abuja. Dapo Sanwo was on that flight. We reached him in Lagos now.

CO: Dapo, when did you first start to notice that something might be wrong with the emergency exit on your plane?

DAPO SANWO: OK, so we were at 29,000 feet, so we had gotten to Abuja, so we were descending into the airport — to the runway — when we noticed the latch had come off. During the flight, It didn't look too bad. And then when we started descending, that's when we noticed that the latch suddenly became a bit free. And then it moved towards a 5:00 angle. So we all started pointing to each other can you see that? Can you see that?

CO: So people were aware of it. Was anyone sitting beside the door?

DS: The closest person to the door was two seats away. So we had noticed the latch, but, obviously, we had no clue that meant that door was open. But we had noticed it.

CO: How were people responding when they could see this loose emergency door handle?

DS: I mean we just lead to little chatters. We had no clue the latch was open. We just thought maybe it was a loose-fitting, and probably an old plane. You know nobody took it too seriously, you know? We were trying to get the attention of the cabin crew or somebody to just come take a look at that. But the pilot had turned on the fasten your seat belt sign, so everybody was pretty much latched on.

CO: Just before we move on to the more serious part of this, this is a jumbo jet. Was it a fairly big plane — lots of people?

DS: Yeah, it was a very big plane — over 150 passengers I would imagine. And I would say was almost full.

CO: And so at what point did things get even more serious? When did the door actually open?

DS: OK, so what had happened was that we landed. Just as we're taxiing, nobody was really paying attention. All of a sudden, poof! So, obviously, in the front, you had no idea what has happened; the fear was that we lost an engine or a tire or something. But at the back, apart from seeing the door literally just yanked out into the plane, you'd also get the sort of breeze from outside, and then the surge of sunshine and all that lighting coming from outside plane, and the noise of the runway. You just realize Oh my goodness, did this door just burst open right now? It was hysterical. It was scary. It wasn't very pleasant. But I think for the first 15 seconds-20 seconds, we're all super worried. And then we all started wondering was this door actually loose all flight long? I mean were we at 29,000 feet with an open door? I mean there were so many questions we started asking. People say yanking on their phone to take pictures and take video recordings. And, of course, immediately, that’s when I realized that it was the door that had burst open.

CO: And did you think about — talk about — what might have happened if that door had popped open when you were up in the air?

DS: Oh man, I don't want imagine; there are so many scenarios. Of course, a lot of engineers have come to say to us that’s it's very difficult for it to have come open mid-flight. In any case, it would have been disastrous. You’d have lost cabin pressure, oxygen will have gone out because we’re at 29,000 feet, everybody would’ve been breathing through gas masks. I mean it now comes down to the skill of the pilots to be able to bring down the plane. There are so many challenges. What if the engines start to feel the pressure of the excess air inside the cabin? What if the plane bursts open or breaks or worse, even explodes? And this is not the first time a Dana airplane has gone belly-up in the sky. A couple of years back, Diana Airlines, this particular air-operator, had a plane that blew up in the middle of the sky, and everybody died. It was the worst aviation crisis of the time.

CO: That was a very famous — very infamous — incident, and everyone was killed on that plane about the same size that you were on. Once you were on the ground, how did the flight crew respond to this? What did they say about it?

DS: That's the thing that got us really upset. You see, traditionally, when you make a mistake, the natural thing to do is to say oh, we're sorry about that. That's the minimum we did expect from anybody that any sense of decency. But when we shared our experience on our personal social media feed we're not even going out to insult or to try and drag the company. But even on the flight, they were like take off your phones; don’t take pictures. Don't record this. Just calm down, calm down. And we’re like are you trying to cover this up? Everybody seeing what's up, and everybody's head was up. So after we released the social media feed that this is what happened on the plane, Dana came out to say a passenger tampered with it, and that was what triggered the wave of anger and upset, certainly among the in-flight passengers because nobody tampered with it. I mean three things come to mind: first of all, if somebody had put his had put his hand towards the emergency door to open it mid-flight, somebody in the plane will have seen the person, and told the person don’t do that. Number two, is that there was nobody sitting close enough to be able to physically yank open the door. And, of course, the third part is if somebody actually opened the emergency door, the person would have to pay for the damages, or even have gotten arrested — and maybe charged with trying to sabotage the flight, terrorism, and all that. So I promise you the passengers had no way to open the latch, and that was purely mechanical. And it was very disappointing for Dana Air to cushion the blow.

CO: And to clarify, this is what happened, right? They said someone — one passenger — must have opened the door — they was tampered with it. That was that was the explanation; they wouldn't take responsibility for it.

DS: Yes, that's what they said. And that was ridiculous. I mean I know in some other places that would be totally unacceptable. But in Nigeria, I think they're going to get away with it. In any case, it is absolutely disappointing. And I'm sure the investigation will show that.

CO: Dapo, I'm glad that you and the others are safe. And I appreciate you telling us this story. It's quite alarming. But thank you.

DS: Thank you very much.

We reached Dapo Sanwo in Lagos, Nigeria. To see photographs of the plane, go to the As It Happens website.

[Music: Country]

Crosbie’s wedges

JD: Ches Crosbie is running for the leadership of the PC Party in Newfoundland and Labrador. On his campaign website, he lists the three priorities of his policy platform: "rebuilding our economy"; "restoring confidence in government", and "revitalizing the PC Party". That's boilerplate stuff. He has omitted one unusual policy item: "reviving your interest in easy, home-baked snacks". In a recent mass email to supporters, Mr. Crosbie — a prominent lawyer in St. John's — provided more details about why those supporters should continue to support him. But between campaign promises, criticism of overspending by the province's Liberal government, and his bio, the candidate briefly paused from offering food for thought to offer thoughts of food. Ches Crosbie's approach is less "a chicken in every pot" than "a root vegetable in every oven". And, like the candidate himself, the attached recipe for baked sweet potato wedges is straightforward, and features a hint of paprika. But this act of generosity was met with some confusion and a hint of snark from recipients. And in a tweet that brilliantly turned Mr. Crosbie's snack suggestion against him, Mr. Crosbie's opponent for the PC leadership, Tony Wakeham, wrote, quote, "The only recipe we should be interested in right now is one that gets Newfoundland & Labrador back on track." Uh… boom? Well, Ches Crosbie is clearly suggesting it's not zero-sum: that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can eat an economical snack and participate in politics. And whether people like it or not, he's proven he's not afraid to address the wedge issues.

[Music: Jazz]

Cellphone concert

Guest: Alex Pauk

JD: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Before we begin tonight's performance, we'd like to remind audience members to take out their cell phones, and to please ensure that they're left on throughout the performance. Oh, and crank up the volume. Thank you. This Sunday, at Koerner Hall in Toronto, the audience at a classical music performance will hear the opposite of the usual cellphone warning. And the one delivering that pro-mobile message is the music director of Esprit Orchestra, Alex Pauk. We reached Mr. Pauk in Toronto.

CO: Alex, what is going to happen after you walk onstage to conduct this piece on Sunday?

ALEX PAUK: Well, instead of facing the orchestra, I'm going to turn and face the audience. And by that point in the program, hopefully, they will all have downloaded some birdcalls onto their cell phones. And I will give them cues as to when they should start playing the material on their cell phones.

CO: And does the orchestra have any role in this?

AP: Well, they do. But the audience actually begins the piece. And as they build a kind of digital forest of bird call sounds, then I bring in the harpist. And the harp gradually… well, it doesn't overtake the bird sounds. But the bird calls fade out, I'll fade the audience out, and then the harp takes over, and then begins the work. It's kind of a very magical, textural sense of sound as though you were in a large glade with tropical birds.

CO: And so will you do a rehearsal with the audience before?

AP: Well, I will talk to them at a certain point in the first half of the program, when there are some changes being made on stage. And I'll make sure that they'll know what to do. And I'll explain a little bit about what my arm movements mean. And you know how and when they should start or stop.

CO: Well, you're being very trusting. I mean how do you know if they're going to be able to cooperate you?

AP: Well, they better.

CO: Let’s just play, actually, we have a bit of sound that you've asked them to — and you will be asking them — to download. Let’s just hear what a single cell phone sound would be like.

AP: And I should add that these birdcalls on the recording are made by the composer using ancient Chinese instruments. So they're not actual birds calling; he's imitating birds and on Chinese instruments, which in itself, is a really interesting and kind of quirky thing.

CO: All right, let’s hear it.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: This is a nice Friday afternoon soundtrack. For reference: this is an excerpt from Passacaglia: Secret of Wind and Birds by Tan Dun]

CO: If you're listening to that and earphones, it's quite penetrating. And, as you point, out these aren't real bird sounds. What is the instrument that's being used there?

AP: Well, it’s several instruments; it's not just one. It’s a variety of ancient instruments, and they would not normally be found in the symphony orchestra.

CO: You mentioned Tan Dun, who is the composer, this isn't just something you made. This is actually a composition. And tell us about that, and a bit about him?

AP: Well, he's a man who is involved with creating pieces that very often have theatrical interest. Aside from being a fine composer of just regular orchestral music, he loves to involve musicians and audiences in something extra-musical. And here, he's thinking about not just music, but also about communicating with nature. And he's trying to find a way to communicate with nature, and also link it to the technologies that we’ve involved ourselves with.

CO: And the piece is called?

AP: Passacaglia: Secret of Wind and Birds.

CO: Just now, when you have the audience all doing this, and as you as you know better than I, that how annoying it is when people actually have their cell phones on during concerts. What happens if somebody really doesn't cooperate and they have their own thing going — they're getting a text alert, or taking a phone call during all this?

AP: Well, I'm hoping that if there are any accidental sounds like that, they will be birdcalls. You know it's interesting we've never really experienced that problem at our concerts. People have been very good, and we've never had cell phones going off. And we never asked people to shut off their phones, and have not had that problem. So, hopefully, everybody's going to just go along with exactly what we have to do in this piece.

CO: We've actually had a story of a major performance that someone's cell phone went off in sort of the front row area, and it went on, and on, and on, and was never answered. And finally, the orchestra just stopped playing.

AP: Yeah, well that's unfortunate. I haven't had that happen yet.

CO: And now, you’re going to really have it happen because we're going to have everybody's phones going.

AP: Yes. Well, I just hope that it is manageable on everybody's part. That only the sounds of the birds will emanate from their phones. The piece itself is very light-hearted as well. I mean it's got its own I wouldn't say comedic aspects, but just the musical phrases and the attitude of the piece is very light-hearted, as well as having these kind of environmental sounds blended in with it.

CO: It sounds like a lot of fun. I know you're in the middle of rehearsals right now, so I’m going to let you go. But it's good to talk to you, Alex. Thanks.

AP: Thank you very much.

CO: Bye.

AP: Bye now.

JD: Alex Pauk is the music director of Esprit Orchestra. We reached him in Toronto. And if you'd like to see some photographs of the Esprit Orchestra, and to hear those concert-worthy sounds again, or maybe share them, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Indie rock]

From Our Archives: John Perry Barlow obit

JD: When John Perry Barlow died this week at the age of 70, he had already lived enough for several lifetimes. He was a cattle rancher, a political activist, he was an internet pioneer, and he wrote songs for the Grateful Dead. An encounter with the FBI in 1990 convinced Mr. Barlow that governments and police forces had absolutely no idea how to handle the growing online community. That pushed him to co-found the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The E-F-F pushes for freedom of speech and privacy online. In July of 1995, John Perry Barlow spoke to CBC Radio's "Cross Country Checkup" about the future of this relatively new-fangled thing called the internet. Here is part of that interview with host Augusta La Paix.

SOUNDCLIP

JOHN PERRY BARLOW: I think the potential of the Internet is so profound that I can't talk about it without sounding like an idiot. I mean I really honestly think that we are creating a new evolutionary jump here — that this is the biggest thing to happen as the result of technology since the capture of fire.

AUGUSTA LA PAIX: Now, I noticed I was reading the article in Harper's magazine that you took part in where you said you used to compare this technology to the invention of the printing press.

JPB: Right.

ALP: And now, you think it's even more important than that?

JPB: I do because I think that what we're doing here is creating the great collective organism of mind on this planet. Evolution proceeding to a point where it suddenly becomes aware of itself, and I think that's what we're doing, you know? We're going through a serious evolutionary jump. I think it's not out of the question that that sometime in the next hundred years every synapse on this planet will be continuously connected to every other Synapse.

JD: From our archives, John Perry Barlow, speaking with the CBC's Augusta La Paix in 1995.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

February 08, 2018 episode transcript

More Stories Like This