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 2019

The AIH Transcript for December 9, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

CAROL OFF: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

CHRIS HOWDEN: Good evening, I'm Chris Howden. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

CH: Tonight:

CO: Dubious distinction. An Austrian writer is set to receive a Nobel Prize for Literature in Stockholm. But many invitees will boycott the ceremony due to the author's denial of the Bosnian genocide.

CH: Cass action. The Ontario government is trying to get several class-action lawsuits against it thrown out by using its own new law retroactively. A lawyer says that's unprecedented and unfair.

CO: Face the dragon. A Canadian senator says China's threats of retaliation should not stop Ottawa from punishing Chinese officials for abusing the rights of Chinese Muslims and pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong.

CH: He played larger than life trashy characters on TV — but his performances were Oscar-worthy. We remember Caroll Spinney, the man behind Big Bird and Sesame Street's Oscar the Grouch.

CO: Trust me, he's as good as his words. You name it, he's pun-d it. And now, As It Happens writer Chris Howden will take the seat beside me — as he is right now — as my new co-host

CH: And… cold comforts. It promised bells and whistles unheard of in an ice box, but hope melted for backers of a campaign called “The Coolest Cooler”. Now the biggest failure in Kickstarter history.

CH: As It Happens, the Monday edition. Radio that thinks outside its box

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Nobel ceremony boycott, Senator Magnitsky motion, As It Happens host Chris Howden

Nobel ceremony boycott

Guest: Peter Maass

KG: The podium will be covered in signature Nobel-blue carpeting. The Stockholm Philharmonic will be performing. And Sweden's Royal Family will be front and centre. The 2019 Nobel ceremony for prizes in physics, chemistry, medicine, economics and literature takes place tomorrow and there are many laureates to be lauded. But a growing number of dignitaries and diplomats are promising to boycott the evening because of one of this year's winners: Peter Handke. Mr. Handke won the 2019 Nobel Prize for Literature in October — despite effectively denying that a genocide took place in Bosnia in the nineties. Peter Maass reported on that conflict. And in recent weeks, he has been doggedly reporting on Mr. Handke's Nobel Prize win. We reached him today in Stockholm.

CO: Peter, in what ways has Peter Handke denied the facts of the Bosnian genocide?

PETER MAASS: So he denies it in one of the most effective ways of denying a genocide — which is to not directly say — which would be ridiculous — it did not happen, nobody was killed. He says, how could it have happened really? Maybe there was something that preceded this that caused the violence that the victims did to invite it in some way. He asked questions about the media coverage. Well, maybe the journalists exaggerated it? I mean, can we really believe everything they say? It sounds so incredible. And what he does is he raises doubt. And it's kind of the most effective way of trying to deny genocide. Because you cannot prove it didn't happen — because it did — but what you can do is you can make people maybe doubt a little bit about it.

CO: So how is it that these Nobel Prize jurors, how could they have chosen Peter Handke? Were they not aware of what he had written? This was not just a few things or a few remarks off the side. He wrote books in which he described some of the things you're describing. He gave the eulogy at the funeral for Slobodan Milosevic, the mastermind of the Bosnian genocide. So did the jurors not know this?

PM: Well, the mystery isn't whether the jurors knew this, of course, they knew it — because there had been several previous controversies with literary prizes. But my feeling is that they were very particularly an older generation of the Swedish Academy. They grew up reading Handke. I mean, if you look at his novels and things of that sort, they are classics. And I think that because that was their entrance to Handke, kind of his pre-Yugoslav works, what was in his Yugoslav works to them was minor. And also, there are people who say well, Handke might be right. Maybe it's not so wrong. It's a minority of people, but there are some. And I think it was just enough for these jurors on the Swedish Academy to say well, you know, the Yugoslav work it's very minor. And, you know, maybe it's not so far off anyways. We can get away with this.

CO: You were there during the genocide. You covered it. You wrote a book about it. You were among those who were the first to go and witness the camps where Bosnian men were taken. Interviewed people who read nothing but skin and bones at the time. What is your interest in getting past what Peter Handke is saying? Because he's basically saying that you made it up?

PM: [deep sigh] It's astounding to me — and that's what's driven me for the past two months — that there is somebody who casts doubt on these things that happened, and that I saw happen. And that a lot of other people saw happen, the victims particularly, the journalists who investigated it who were there at the time, the war crimes tribunals which have had lengthy trials — thousands of pages of verdicts — that show this happened. And there's something between being astounded by just how wrong it is and also the audacity of somebody saying these things and then being rewarded with a Nobel Prize. And so my reaction is just to be astounded. But I also realize that this occurs at a particular moment in our history where things that we thought were true or that we knew to be true are being questioned. And there is a regression, and this is just the latest and most disappointing iteration of it because these are people in institutions that are supposed to be above this kind of regressive behaviour.

CO: You were able to put a question to Mr. Handke at the press conference. Can you tell us what question you posed to him, and then tell us how he responded?

PM: I carefully posed a very specific question — because genocide deniers have a very hard time responding to specific facts that are true. And so I presented him with a specific fact. International war crimes tribunals have established, as a fact, that there was a genocide in Srebrenica — that 8,000 Muslim men and boys were killed. That there were concentration camps where massive atrocities occurred. Why does he write the opposite of those facts in his books and elsewhere? And when he's presented with a specific question like that, he can't answer it.

CO: Well, he didn't answer it. But he did tell you about an anonymous letter he received. What was he referring to?

PM: He was referring to an anonymous letter he received that had inside of it, he said, toilet paper that had human feces on it. And what he said is I would rather receive an anonymous letter with feces-smeared toilet paper than answer your questions. For him, this in some way was exonerating of his position [disgusted laugh]. I don't know how. But, to me, it was incredible. I was asking a very simple question, and he said that's a question that is not even worth toilet paper that's been smeared with human feces.

CO: You also tried to get some answers from the Nobel Foundation and the Swedish Academy. Were you able to get them to tell you why they'd chosen this, and how they defend having Mr. Handke get the award?

PM: The quick answer is no. And the slightly less quick answer is absolutely not. I have e-mailed, I have gone to the Swedish Academy, I have kind of pleaded with them can somebody please talk to me about this? And they have said, a, either they didn't respond. Or b, when I actually have gone to the Swedish Academy and tried to ask somebody a question, they said no, there's nobody here. And I say well, when will there be somebody here? And they tell me we can't tell you. And I say well, when can I come back? And they'll say we can't tell you that. And that's happened to me now twice.

CO: Now, it's not just you and others who covered these events in Bosnia. There's been a huge response from others. There is a petition with many names on it. There are those who are boycotting tomorrow's ceremony. Is it possible that by tomorrow, they will roll back this decision on Peter Handke?

PM: Well, the Swedish Academy certainly is not going to change its mind. It's faced two months of fierce criticism and it hasn't budged, nor has it really explained itself. And the question then becomes well, the King of Sweden is the one who actually gives the Nobel medal to Peter Handke and the other Nobel Prize winners. Will he do it? And he can still change his mind I suppose. At this moment — and we're now just — you know less than a day away from the award ceremony. Is it likely that the king will refuse to do so? No it's not. And it's very sad.

CO: Peter, I appreciate speaking with you. And we'll be watching developments tomorrow. Thank you.

PM: Thank you.

CH: Peter Maass is a senior editor at The Intercept, and the author of a book on the Bosnian genocide called Love Thy Neighbour. We reached him in Stockholm.

[Music: Synth music]

Senator Magnitsky motion

Guest: Leo Housakos

CH: Leo Housakos has been warned. But that isn't stopping the Conservative Senator from pushing for sanctions against China. Senator Housakos plans to introduce a motion this week that would call on the Trudeau government to use the Magnitsky Act to punish Chinese officials for abusing the rights of Chinese Muslims and pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong. China's new ambassador to Canada was asked about the motion last week. Cong Peiwu said that, if passed, it would be met with what he called "very firm countermeasures." We reached Senator Housakos in Ottawa.

CO: Senator Housakos, China's ambassador to Canada says your emotion is, quote, dangerous and a violation of Chinese domestic affairs. What do you say to the ambassador?

LEO HOUSAKOS: Well, it's unfortunate that he thinks that way because the only thing that has been a violation and been considered very repugnant by Canadians is the behaviour of the Chinese regime towards the protesters in Hong Kong, who are demanding principles of freedom, more democracy, and things that we as Canadians I think from time to time take for granted. It might come easily to us, but we should never forget there's many people around the world that are fighting for those fundamental principles of freedom, human rights, and the rule of law.

CO: And I want to ask you bit more about that in a moment. But I wanted to, first of all, just clarify what this Magnitsky Act allows the government to do? And it gives Ottawa the power to target individual officials who have been, quote, responsible for gross violations of internationally-recognized human rights. So who are the officials you want Ottawa to target?

LH: Look, I don't want to put parameters to global affairs and to the government of Canada. As parliamentarians, I think it's unfortunate that we've been compelled to put the squeeze on the government with a motion next week, or actually this week, tomorrow. The Magnitsky Act — which passed in 2015 — is exactly an act that was put into place for precisely these particular issues — Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act. That's what it's called, and it's there to protect against violations of the principles of fundamental justice and the rule of law — which has been going on right now in China and in Hong Kong, and has become more egregious over the last year. Now in terms of who, I will leave that up to Global Affairs. They've executed the Magnitsky Act in the past in regards to Russia, in regards to Myanmar, in regards to Saudi Arabia, in regards to Venezuela. They have the capacity to identify all the officials that the head of this brutal regime in Beijing, who should be held accountable for these actions.

CO: But now you say you want to put the squeeze on the Canadian government to act in this way, but is it possible the Canadian government is trying to protect lives? We have two men — Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor — who are having their second year in detention in China. There is another imprisoned Canadian, there is another Canadian on death row. Is it possible that the Canadian government has perfectly good reasons why they're not pushing the Chinese government?

LH: Carol, of course, it's possible. It's been over a year now that the Canadian government is doing nothing. So we've seen clearly that that hasn't worked. If anything, it has emboldened the Chinese administration. And we've seen it by the actual speech that the Chinese ambassador made. So our inaction over the last year has not moved the yardsticks further at all. We have two Canadians in Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, you're absolutely right, who have been detained with no due process. We've had other Canadians that have been charged with drug charges, and you can never know in China are accurate or not or just political reaction to us respecting an extradition treaty with our biggest friend and ally to the south. So the Canadian government will talk about their inaction in terms of not putting Canadians at risk, but we have two Canadians right now that are being tortured. They have no access to lawyers. Can you imagine in Canada or in the United States or in the Western world two citizens being detained by a government with no charges being laid, and the Canadian government being completely inactive and doing nothing?

CO: Woah, woah, how do you know they're doing nothing? Every time we have had an interview with the government, they are saying that they are actively trying to get these men free. What do you know that suggests that they're not doing anything?

LH: Well, what we know is we had an ambassador in Mr. McCallum in Beijing, who actually publicly went against the strategy the Canadian government — had to be fired. There was a period of six, seven months we were left without a spokesperson in Beijing. Now, they've named an ambassador in Mr. Barton, who has more pro connections with China in terms of promoting the Chinese agenda rather than defending Canadian values and interests. So we have questioned time and time again — both in the House of Commons and in the Senate — government leadership. And there hasn't been anything except soft dialogue. Clearly, it hasn't worked.

CO: Is it possible that they're not sharing the strategy with you because they need to play their cards close to the vest? Is it not possible that there is a strategy?

LH: Well, what is possible, it's been over a year, and it hasn't worked. So whatever that strategy is, they might as well just put it in the wastepaper basket and start moving forward with legislation and tools at their disposal given to them by Parliament in order to make sure that China understands that Canada is a G7 country. We're an important economic partner that they have. And they should have some respect for the values and principles that Canadians hold very dear.

CO: We interviewed a number of times the stories about this Uyghur Canadian who has been in prison for many years, and was there during the time of the Stephen Harper government. It's not possible as a Conservative that it's difficult to get people sprung from these prisons — given that the Harper government failed to get him free?

LH: Look, the appeasement towards China is not a political partisan issue for me, Carol. This has been going on now for five successive governments dating back to Pierre Elliot Trudeau in the 1970s, and has continued through to the Mulroney government, the Chretien government, the Harper government, and now we've seen it more so than ever before of appeasement under the Trudeau government. So absolutely it's very difficult. Keep in mind that the Magnitsky Act only passed Parliament in the end of May of 2015. So this particular tool happens to be very much available to the Trudeau government — the current Trudeau government — and was not available to previous governments in the past. So what Parliament, I hope, will be doing through the Senate is calling upon the government to exercise this tool.

CO: We will leave it there. Senator Housakos, thank you.

LH: Thank you so much.

CH: Leo Housakos is a Conservative Senator. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music: Instrumental]

As It Happens host Chris Howden

Guest: Chris Howden

CH: I miss Jeff Douglas. You miss Jeff Douglas. But Jeff has been at his new job at CBC Nova Scotia for six months now. So today, As It Happens finally hired a new person to permanently replace him as Carol's co-host. And they asked me to introduce him — which is kind of weird. In any case, he joined Carol in, where else, the As It Happens studio.

CO: Mr. Howden, here you are.

CH: Yes, here, here I am. Is this my mic?

CO: [chuckling] How weird is it to introduce [CH laughs] an interview with yourself?

CH: It's the weirdest thing I've ever done. There is nothing that comes close to the level of weirdness, and I produced an interview about frozen poo knives this year.

CO: You did.

CH: I did.

CO: Anyway, huge congratulations.

CH: [chuckling] Thank you.

CO: But I'm not going to let you get off the hook here. I mean, you know there is an off treatment that people get no matter who they are — including you.

CH: Come on. go easy.

CO: Here's the question. Why do you think you belong in that chair?

CH: [laughing] That presupposes that I think I belong in this chair — which admittedly by inference because I applied for this job — I must have thought on some level, but I don't really think I belong in the chair in the sense that I grew up listening to this show. The people who belong in the chair to me are the people who I listened to and the people I worked with when I started it. When I was a kid it was Al Maitland. I worked with Barbara Budd when I got here. I worked with Jeff Douglas, so really — and not just to be diplomatic — it is the listeners who will decide whether I belong in this chair or not. But I'm gonna do my best. I have a real sense of the show's history. I've been here for a pretty long time. I already have this job, why am I interviewing for it? [both laugh]

CO: Things you learn when someone becomes your co-host. You grew up in Niagara-on-the-Lake.

CH: I did. Yeah.

CO: And you were listening to As It Happens as a kid. So when you were listening Alan Maitland, if someone had told you one day, son, you're going to grow up and be Alan Maitland, you're going to sit in… well, it’s kind of his chair. It’s not really.

CH: Yes, precisely.

CO: Not really. Thank goodness. But if someone had told you that, that you were going to be the co-host of As It Happens, what would you have said?

CH: Honestly, and that's the whole aspect of it that seems really the most surreal part. I keep telling people that this is really weird. And it's not a very satisfying thing for me to say or them to hear I don't think. But that is the part that seems so unpredictable to me. First of all, I mean, really that I ended up on this show at all. It was already weird too when I started here as a producer. And then to be the writer — which, you know, this show has this phenomenal history of really good writing. So that already was amazing to me. Yeah, I certainly wouldn't have believed you if you told me that then. But it was a staple of our house. I mean, like a lot of people's homes for the last 50 years, it was on every night during dinner.

CO: We do know that Jeff is dearly missed, And we do recall that we asked him to describe what he thought his job was. And I want to just hear what he had to say when we asked him that on his last day as co-host here.

SOUNDCLIP

JEFF DOUGLAS: Listeners. I have for eight years sat here in this little windowless room in Toronto. [laughing] And I have honestly felt you on the other side of the microphone — if that's even possible. But I've felt the other side of the conversation that Carol and I have had every night. And so I appreciate that. I will miss you, too. And I'm proud. I am proud of my time here.

CO: And that was how Jeff described his relationship with the listeners, who are hearing you right now and wondering how do you see that? How do you see that relationship?

CH: I was on the other side of it for so long. And, you know, I said I listened to it in childhood, but I listened to the show all through university. And so I've been here for 16 years now. I've listened to it all the way through that. So I am a listener. And a friend of mine emailed today to say that it felt like I was going to be a guest in her kitchen. That's what I understand the job to be in a way. We tell people what's happened in a day. You talk to people as close to those stories as we can get. The intimacy of radio is such that you always feel since you have the same people in your house every night at 6:30 that ideally, you kind of have a friend there telling you this stuff. I don't want to be sort of saccharine about it, but that is what the relationship is. Radio's intimate. So that's how I see it, and that's how I hope people hear me.

CO: When I interviewed Jeff before he left, and you tested him, and it was pretty hard. You wrote a script that he was to read. [CH laughs out loud] And it was cruel and unusual punishment. That was the last thing he had to do. And so it's going to be the first thing… and I’m going to pass this is you now.

[Sound: Rustling papers]

CH: First of all, I am no fan of the jerk who wrote this. Oh, not this one [CO laughs]. Oh my God.

CO: All right. Here you go.

CH: [fake throat clear] All right. One Welsh chef is offering some quinoa observations about his culinary perspicacity. The restaurateur has a new piece de resistance — a sort of bouillabaisse — featuring Worcestershire sauce, foie gras from a nearby rural Isthmus, and truffle detritus. It's a true behemoth of a dish, with a soupsaw of bergamot served in a conk shell. It's the epitome of creativity, and it's attracted a slew of luminaries — including six statisticians, a professor emeritus, and several Canadian premiers were there at the premiere of the dish. We're withholding his name because we haven't thought of one. But we reached the chef in the Welsh village of [nope].

CO: Do it again. You’ve got to get it right.

CH: [Again, nope]

CO: [laughing] And since I don’t speak Welsh, that may be right or wrong.

CH: [laughing] my humblest apologies to anyone who does.

CO: Give you a passing grade on that. Anyway, I'm very happy that you're here. Now that you are here, you have to promise me that you can't leave me.

CH: I have no intention of leaving.

CO: Thank you for being here.

CH: Thank you for having me.

CH: I am the new co-host of As It Happens. Carol managed to find me here in the As It Happens studio. And, apparently, you can learn more about me and this on our webpage at: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Indie rock]

The Coolest Cooler

CH: In the summertime, there's nothing like sitting in a lawn chair, and grabbing a cold beer out of your cooler. And it's hard not to take a moment and gaze down at that plastic thing full of ice and whisper, "You're boring." Look, maybe you're happy with an insulated box that has one job, and does it just fine. But at least 62,642 people wanted more. Those people invested in a crowd-funding campaign for something called the "Coolest Cooler". A cooler that answered the question, "Why can't the thing that keeps my Bud Lime cold also have a USB charger and an LED light in the lid and a waterproof Bluetooth speaker and also a blender?" And the answer was, "It can! Just give us 200 bucks!" So all those people did. They sent money to the "Coolest Cooler" people, and waited. And waited. That was five years ago. But even after raising 13-million dollars, the Portland, Oregon company couldn't produce enough of the thing. Then, according to company CEO Ryan Grepper, U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports put the last nail in the high-tech ice coffin. It's the biggest failure in Kickstarter history. And on Friday, he announced that 20,000 backers who hadn't received a Coolest Cooler never will. However, they are eligible to register to get some of their money back — 20 bucks. This is chilling — or non-chilling — news for those backers. They spent a lot of money, and now they get pretty much nothing. And it seems like they have bad management to blame — because the cooler heads did not prevail.

[Music: Rock]

Part two: Ontario government lawsuits, White Island volcano

Ontario government lawsuits

Guest: Kirk Baert

CH: A lawyer representing several groups who are accusing the Ontario government of mistreatment says the province is trying to shut down their lawsuits unfairly. The Ontario government is asking the courts to throw out at least eight class actions against it. One involves an inmate named Adam Capay who was held in solitary confinement for most of his four-and-a-half years in custody. Ontario is arguing that under a new law called the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act the suits should be thrown out. And it is using the law retroactively. Kirk Baert's firm is behind eight of the certified class actions. He's a lawyer at Koskie Minsky. We reached him in Toronto.

CO: Mr. Baert, how unusual is the argument the Ontario government is making to try and shut down these lawsuits?

KIRK BAERT: Well, it's the first time we know of in Canada that either a province or the federal government has passed a law of this type to retroactively dismiss cases that have already been brought in the courts. So it's the first of its kind.

CO: And the province says the purpose of this law is to stop people from suing over government policy or spending decisions. Is that not a valid concern?

KB: It certainly is. And that would be a valid reason to have such a law — although, there's never been one before now. But this law is much, much wider than that in that it reaches mistakes made by government on the ground at the operational level, not just policy decisions about budgets.

CO: But their argument is that it just simply clarifies existing law. The Crown Liability and Proceedings Act is just a clarification of existing law.

KB: Well, I know that's what they say in their press release. But the words of the statute — which are what count — not the press release are much wider. First of all, it attempts to reach non-budgetary decisions that were negligently carried out by the government. Secondly, it's retroactive, so it applies to cases where the government has already lost the case, and is appealing that decision.

CO: And maybe it would useful for our listeners to know of cases. Tell us about the case of Adam Capay, this is a former inmate who was held in solitary confinement in a windowless cell in Thunder Bay for a long period time. Tell us what's at stake with that case?

KB: Certainly. So there are eight cases where we were already certified — which means a judge already found that we met the test in the class Proceedings Act that we actually have a viable legal claim. So there already is a screening mechanism in place to make sure that frivolous cases against the government don't proceed. Mr. Capay is a member of the class in a case called Francis — which is a case we brought on behalf of people who've been solitary confined in jails in Ontario, and whom have mental health issues. So that case was certified last year — on consent, I might add. The government agreed to that. And now they're seeking to have this law used in order to retroactively dismiss the case. Some of the other cases relate to people suffering from bail delays, claims by disabled adults whose funding was cut off, solitary confinement of children, Crown wards who were mistreated. It’s a wide variety of cases — most of which, if not all, don't relate to budgetary questions. They relate to negligent acts by the Ontario government over a period of many years.

CO: And on that, I want ask you about one of your cases — which is the government’s argument will be tested in March on this case involving a 21-year-old, a woman named Briana Leroux. What's that about?

KB: Ms. Leroux’s case is being brought by her litigation guardian — who is her father, Marc Leroux. And in Ontario, those with developmental disabilities have certain types of funding up to their 18th birthday. And then the day after that, that funding is cut off, and they're moved into a very badly run system. And there are numerous wait lists. And our allegation is that the wait lists are run in a negligent fashion. There are no objective criteria. It's sort of a Kafkaesque situation, where people are sent into a system that has no beginning and no end, and changes every day.

CO: The government argues that the core issue is policy and funding. And so you can't sue the government for policy and funding issues. They must protect those decisions. So how do you argue that?

KB: Well, the problem with that argument is that that's what they said in front of the motions judge with respect to us being able to sue them in the first place that it was a policy decision. And our statement of claim — our lawsuit — is expressly framed to not be about the policy of funding adults or not to have disabilities with certain programs. But about the operation of the program once it is funded and passed by the legislature. So the judge already found in the court below that this was not a case about policy, but about the management or mismanagement of this province-wide system. And so it's a complete red herring to raise the policy question because our case was never about policy in the first place.

CO: Is your problem with this law the law itself or that it's retroactive?

KB: Well, it's both. I mean, first of all, this law was passed without any consultation with the public or with the legal profession or the judiciary. It was attached to a very large budget implementation bill. Second, the retroactive laws or retrospective laws should be reserved for exceptional situations like wars or disasters or other things of that nature. I don't have any doubt whatsoever that this law is not going to remain standing in the present form. Because there's just no way this is consistent with our system of justice or the rule of law to retroactively dismiss cases that the government already lost. The province acts like this is normal. I ask them to name a single democratic country which has done what they've done. And they won't be able to name one because there aren't any.

CO: We will leave it there. Mr. Baert, we'll be following your cases and see how this goes. I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

KB: Thank you very much.

CH: Kirk Baert is a class-action lawyer at the firm Koskie Minsky. He was in Toronto. And you'll find more on this story on our website at: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

Impeachment Committee

CH: They're usually the people asking the questions. But today, attorneys for the Democrats and Republicans were the ones being questioned, as part of the impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump. It's part of the House Judiciary Committee's investigation into whether the U.S. President abused his power. And it comes after the Intelligence Committee spent weeks hearing from witnesses — who, Democrats say, painted a damning picture of the President's dealings with Ukraine. Steve Castor disagrees. He's the GOP's counsel. And at the hearing today, he brought up the rough transcript of a July call between President Trump and Ukraininan President Volodymr Zelensky, that is at the heart of this inquiry.

SOUNDCLIP

STEVE CASTOR: The purpose of this hearing, as we understand it is to discuss whether President Donald. J Trump's conduct fits the definition of a high crime and misdemeanour. It does not. Such that the committee should consider articles of impeachment to remove the President from office, and it should not. This case, in many respects, comes down to eight lines in a call transcript. Let me say clearly and unequivocally that the answer to that question is no. The record in the Democrats' impeachment inquiry does not show that President Trump abused the power of his office or obstructed Congress. To impeach a president who 63-million people voted for over eight lines in a call transcript is baloney. Democrats seek to impeach President Trump not because they have evidence of high crimes or misdemeanours, but because they disagree with his policies. This impeachment inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious misconduct. Democrats have been searching for a set of facts on which to impeach President Trump since his inauguration on January 20th, 2017.

CH: That was minority counsel, Steve Castor, speaking today during a hearing on Capitol Hill.

[Music: Horns!]

White Island volcano

Guest: Jamie Morton

CH: There are no signs of life today on White Island in New Zealand. That's according to police today, after rescue helicopters flew over top of the island's volcano — and reported only thick mounds of smoking ash. Five people are officially dead and eight are still missing, after the White Island volcano erupted on Sunday. At least 31 people have been taken to hospital with injuries. They were all passengers from a cruise ship — on a day trip to get a closer look at the active volcano. And after the volcano's eruption, the unstable conditions made it impossible for rescue crews to reach the island. Jamie Morton is a science reporter with the New Zealand Herald. We reached him in New Plymouth, New Zealand.

CO: Jamie, what do you make of the news, at this point, that there are, quote, no signs of life on White Island today?

JAMIE MORTON: I guess it's not surprising given the scale and magnitude of this eruption. It was a large steam-driven eruption that would have given people little to no warning. Scientists expect that the warning time would have been in the order of seconds potentially. As we see from the footage, it was a very, very dramatic and large eruption — shooting ash some three-point-six kilometers into the air. So, no, it is very tragic, and there will be a lot of questions being asked in the aftermath of this disaster.

CO: This is a very small island, isn't it? So where would people have been? I mean, there's actually some have described that people were inside the mouth of the volcano. What proximity did they have to this eruption?

JM: I mean, having traveled to the island myself, you can walk around it, you know, in a matter of a few minutes. So it's a very small, enclosed environment. And if you're on this island, and an event like this happens, you know, there's very little places to run. Or very little places to take shelter.

CO: And how much warning would those people have had?

JM: There's probably two ways to look at it. On one hand, our scientific agency, GeoNet, is in charge of issuing our regular bulletins ascertaining the current threat level or alert level on the island. At the time of the eruption, it was sitting at level 2. So that's from a scale of 0 to 5, level 2 indicated moderate-to-heightened unrest. Tourism operators, it's incumbent upon them to make the decisions, and to relay that risk to the tourists. We know with these types of stratovolcanoes, they’re capable of unleashing steam-driven eruptions within the space of a few minutes. And that's because basically you've got magma sitting quite high towards the surface. And when that reacts with surface and groundwater, you get these potentially catastrophic steam-driven eruptions.

CO: So what would it have been like? You've been there. I mean, obviously, you weren't there when something like this happened. But can you describe what you think it was like for people who were there?

JM: Terrifying is what I'd say, you know? Just in the normal fence, I mean, I've described the island it's sort of like stepping onto the set of an old science fiction movie or some weird kind of alien moonscape. You know, there’s dramatic sulfur yellows and the iron reds and you've got bubbling streams. And a crater lake that usually is about as acidic as battery acid. When this happened, all I can imagine is there would have been this giant wet current of ash, you know, a hurricane basically of wet ash and particles that this would have blew out. And for those people that were near the vent, I'm sure this would have been an instantaneous event. For those people that were further away from it, they would have basically seen this giant column of ash. And they would have heard this bang, and seen this thing radiating quite quickly from the blast zone.

CO: And would there be sound? Would this magma be moving fast? Or what would that be like?

JM: Yeah, you're talking about a very large current of wet ash. The speed that it moves is supersonic. To give you an idea, this sort of liquid can expand 1,700 times its original volume just a matter of seconds. And when the expansion of this energy happens that's enough to shatter solid rock and excavate craters and throw up large fragments of rock in hundreds of metres into the ocean.

CO: So some of the people who are still missing will be underneath that?

JM: I mean, the police are telling us that there are no signs of survivors. And I've seen the helicopters up into the air to look, and it's pretty clear if you see images of what the Island looks like now that there would be no survivors in that vicinity. It's really just strewn and carpeted with very thick gray ash.

CO: What kinds of injuries are those who have been airlifted to hospitals, what kinds of injuries do they have?

JM: Right, well there's a range of injuries. At the most minor end, you know, there’s burns. At the worst, very, very severe burns. As of now, you know, some of those people have burns to 90 per cent of their bodies. And we've had one source saying that some might not survive those injuries. So that death toll — which currently stands at five confirmed, a further eight missing — could continue to rise if some of these patients in hospital die.

CO: So what happens now? What kinds of questions will the government be facing, and tour operators be facing, in the days to come?

JM: There will be questions over whether tours to this island can continue, given that this eruption demonstrated the fact that events can play out in a matter of seconds no matter what indication scientists have had in the weeks leading up to that. And also, just sort of what laws and what rules should apply for these sorts of ventures? Because this isn't the only example of its type in New Zealand where tourists can basically walk around on volcanoes that are capable of producing these sorts of eruptions.

CO: Well, Jamie, we'll be following developments in the days to come. And thank you for giving us this brief tonight.

JM: No problems. Thank you.

CO: Bye-bye

CH: Jamie Morton is a science reporter with the New Zealand Herald. We reached him in New Plymouth.

[Music: Ambient]

FOA: Caroll Spinney obit

CH: For generations, he was a regular presence in the households of millions of television viewers. And yet, in a career spanning nearly 50 years, Carol Spinney never became a household name. Throughout that time, most of his fans — children and adults alike — wouldn't have recognized him if they passed him on the street. Unless, of course, the street was called Sesame, and he was in character — in one of the two beloved Muppets he helped to create. Here's Mr. Spinney voicing a very meta-exchange between Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch.

SOUNDCLIP

BIG BIRD: Oscar, let's trade places. You be nice, and I'll be grouchy.

OSCAR THE GROUCH: Me be nice?!

BB: Well, you won't really be nice. You can just pretend. And I'll pretend to be a grouch. And we'll see if people leave you alone and pay attention to me.

OTG: I will not pretend to be nice. Will you get your feathered brain out of my trash can?

ROSIE: Hi, Big Bird. Hi Rosie. I mean go away, and leave me alone.

CH: Caroll Spinney, the man behind America's favourite giant canary and trash-loving grouch, died yesterday at his home in Woodstock, Connecticut. He was 85. Mr. Spinney said that Muppet creator Jim Henson modelled his vision for Oscar the Grouch on a quote, "magnificently rude" waiter in a restaurant — but that on his first day on the job, Spinney got picked up by a New York cabbie who barked, "Where to, Mac?" before erupting into an unprompted rant against the city's mayor. "Who could be more of a Grouch than a cabdriver from the Bronx? I had my ideal model for my new character," he said. Big Bird, of course, was Oscar's opposite in many ways. In 2013, Mr. Spinney spoke with the CBC's Sook Yin Lee, then the host of "Definitely Not the Opera", about how the giant yellow child-canary came to be.

SOUNDCLIP

CAROLL SPINNEY: Jim Henson saw me doing my show in 1969, and he invited me to join him at The Muppets, and suggested that I play Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch. Jim's concept was that he was a large, silly, goofy bird — that he was going to go for the comedy. And so we started that way. Big Bird had a voice more like, [imitating big bird]. But as we did the show, a few months into it, I felt that Big Bird really should be a child trying to learn the alphabet and all the other things that we were using to start the show. And the producers agreed, and they would just make him a four-and-a-half-year-old bird. [Imitating Big Bird] So I became a child again [CS and SYL laugh]. He feels like he's my little boy. One time, a terrible thing happened. I was down at Georgia Tech in Georgia, and so we did one show for four 6,000 four-year-olds. And they'd been bused in from all over the state of Georgia, and we went to lunch, and they asked the ROTC boys and girls who were training to be U.S. Army soldiers to guard Big Bird, make sure nobody molests the puppet while helplessly sitting there. And a few minutes later, I started seeing all these uniformed ROTC students with a yellow feather in their officer hat. And I’m seeing one, then two, then two, and then dozens. Well, we don't give them away because they cost a-dollar-and-a-half each feather. So I went down, and there's Big Bird. He's been pulled off the support he was on, and he was laying in the dirt, and they had tried to just take one of his eyes. The eye was hanging off the beak. And there were probably at least 100 feathers had been ripped out of his chest. So this big bear area was showing the framework of how it's made. And so I never knew how I felt about Big Bird till I saw this terrible sight, and it felt like I'd seen my own little boy destroyed on the floor. I felt he was my child. I don't feel like I'm Big Bird. I feel I got to bring my child to life. And I burst into tears. I was absolutely flabbergasted. And on that day, I learned what Big Bird was to me — my little boy.

CH: From 2013, Muppeteer Caroll Spinney speaking with the CBC's Sook Yin Lee. Mr. Spinney — who retired from "Sesame Street" last year after nearly fifty years on the show — died yesterday. He was 85.

[Music: Ambient]

Part three: cold case arrest, Milwaukee Bucks ASL

Silent Sam

CH: Silent Sam is causing yet another outcry. The Confederate monument on the University of North Carolina campus was toppled by protestors a year ago. Now, the university has announced it will be handing the bronze figure over to a neo-Confederate organization, along with two-point-five million in trust to preserve it. UNC defends the settlement, saying it avoids a legal battle — and keeps Silent Sam off the school's grounds. But it's not sitting right with many — including historian Kevin Levin, who called the settlement a, quote, "dumpster fire." Here he is, speaking to CBC's Mary Hynes.

SOUNDCLIP

KEVIN LEVIN: Certainly, that money can be used not just to preserve the artifact itself, but we can imagine it being used to promote the SCV’s false history of the Civil War and reconstruction and slavery and everything else that goes with it. And the

MARY HYNES: And the SCV being the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

KL: The Sons of Confederate Veterans — which has been around since 1896. And so I think for many people, I think they're right, it's a huge setback, and a huge victory for the SCV, and a dark day for the UNC system.

MH: Is it oversimplifying it to say this is a university funneling money to a group that's going to spread the lost cause Ideology?

KL: Yes, it's worse than that. Because in the last few decades, the SCV has become much more connected to white supremacist organizations like the League of the South, and others. And so there's a lot of crossover in membership between these organizations. So it's not just that UNC has made a deal with a group of elderly white men who simply want to revere their Confederate ancestors. This is much darker than that, and potentially much more dangerous.

MH: There's a slogan that comes up a lot in this kind of conversation, and when people defend the monuments, when people defend the Confederate battle flag. Something along the lines of well, this is not about hate. This is about heritage. This is about celebrating our heritage.

KL: It's a way of pushing aside aspects of the past that you would rather not directly deal with. And so when SCV members, when other Confederate heritage folks, toss around this slogan of heritage not hate, what they're trying to do is dismantle the history that we all know so well, the history that has become the standard narrative of the Civil War — which is the Confederacy was founded to protect the institution of slavery. Not just protect it, but even expand it, and protect white supremacy. And it fought for four-plus years to achieve that goal. And the heritage not hate slogan is a way to sort of push it away. It's a way to sort of say I'm not a racist. I'm a member of the SCV. I want to identify with the Confederacy. I want to celebrate the Confederacy. But I'm not a racist, and you can't accuse me of being a racist. That language I think has become more and more problematic — especially in recent years.

CH: Kevin Levin is a Civil War historian, educator, and author of Searching for Black Confederates. He spoke with “Tapestry” host Mary Hynes for a future episode of the program.

[Music: Ambient]

Cold Case arrest

Guest: Dave Dickson

KG: For nearly three decades, the murder of 23-year-old Vicki Black was a mystery. She was found in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside in the '90s — at a time when many women were disappearing in the neighbourhood. Now, there has finally been an arrest in the cold case. Recently, Steven Laroche was charged with her murder. At the time of Ms. Black's death, and in the years that followed, it seemed like police weren't doing enough to stop the disappearances — often because the women were Indigenous, drug users or sex workers. That troubled Dave Dickson. He's a retired police constable who spent much of his 28-year career on the Downtown Eastside. He knew Vicki Black. We reached him in Vancouver.

CO: Dave, what does it mean for you that there has finally been an arrest in Vicki Black's murder?

DAVE DICKSON: Well, I guess my first impression, I was overjoyed, you know, that they had solved it. You know, I got a phone call a couple of years ago from the detectives that worked with the homicide squad to inform me that they were working on it. So I was really pleased, you know, when that happened.

CO: So this is 26 years after Vicki Black disappeared. You're sitting in the court with somebody who now has been charged, and is now going to be tried for her murder. That's quite extraordinary, isn't it?

DD: Well, it is. I mean, 26 years later, you think that the person's obviously thought he's got away with it, and he's safe. And then out of the blue. And so I think it's just great. My only question is I guess, you know, could it have been done sooner?

CO: It’d be sooner than 26 years, for sure.

DD: Yeah.

CO: How did you come to know Vicki Black?

DD: Well, I was always an advocate, you know, way before 1993 for the women out there. Because I knew they took the brunt of the violence on the streets from drug dealers and some bad dates and all sorts of stuff. And sometimes, when they called the police, they didn't get the help that they deserved.

CO: You saw a lot of bad things happen to young women down there. So what was it about this case that affected you so much?

DD: Well, I think they all affect me to some degree. But it was more the fact the way she was callously dumped in a trashcan, wrapped in a sheet. You know, that was I think just added the insult to injury. You know, how dare anybody I guess was my reaction to do that to somebody.

CO: You just mentioned a moment ago that this was all way before 1993. And the significance of that was that many women were disappearing in the area. And it came down to you started to compile a list of those who were missing, didn't you?

DD: Yeah, I think I started the list in I think it was the fall of ‘97 or ’98. And I actually had a list of 31 women because I would wake up in the middle of night and think about somebody that I haven't seen for a while, and write the name down. And when I got to work, I would check it on the computers. And then over a three month period, I ended up with a list of 31 missing women. And that I thought were legitimately missing because they had dropped off the face of the earth. There were no checks by the police or anybody. There was warrants out for some of the girls for months — which was really uncommon. The final check was at the welfare office, where most of them were picking up their checks for social assistance. And when I checked there, the answer was the same in just about every girl. And the file was closed because the check was never picked up. So that was when I took my list of 31, and I submitted it to my inspector. And that's where the whole thing started.

CO: The whole thing started. It led to what?

DD: Well, we had a couple of meetings. My inspector was super supportive. And the list of 31 was accompanied with my report with my feelings. And, you know, the first comment that came out I thought that pissed me off was, you know, that there's no crime scenes or no bodies. So we're not devoting any resources towards this, you know? So in between the first meeting and the next meeting, I scoured through the records of both Mounties — RCMP and Vancouver — and I come up with a second list. I waited, and at a second meeting, I figured this comment would come out again, and it did about no crime scenes or bodies. So I pulled out my second list. And I think I had 20-something names on this list. And I said you want crime scenes and bodies, here's 20 women for you. And that wasn't very well-received. I mean, there's a couple of comments around the table about you can't say they're related. But my argument was, I said, you can’t say they're not related. I said these are Vancouver women that were taken from our city, our streets, and taken and murdered and dumped in our areas. So you certainly can't say they're not related.

CO: And four years after you brought your first list to police, serial killer Robert Pickton was arrested. And the remains of 33 women were found on his farm.

DD: Yeah, yeah, I know, it's unfortunate. You know, I still to this day, you know, like, I'm almost sorry that I was right. And that it was downplayed by the department. I mean, after the second meeting, I went to my inspector, and I asked him are they doing anything? Is there another meeting? And he looked at me, and he said I don't think they want to do anything about it. So I took it down to I had a friend working at that time at City News in Vancouver here. And I took the report down with the list, you know, and dropped on her on her desk. And it hit the six o'clock news. So the next morning, I came in, and my inspector called me in. And I thought, I mean, you know, they could have gone out to my job for releasing stuff to the press. But my inspector just said to me, keep your head down. He says people are gunning for you. It got the desired results that it forced the police department to put together a review team to start looking at the list. I'm sure I pissed some people off. But, you know, I can live with that. I didn't join the police department to make friends.

CO: Did your colleagues think that you were too involved in this? Did this matter to you more than it should?

DD: I think I wasn't aware of that until the inquiry six or seven years ago. And my inspector was asked a question about my report by the lawyer for some of the families. He asked my inspector how my report was received by the executive — meaning the chief and his higher ups. And my inspector testified that they thought Dave Dixon, in 1998, when I submitted the report and he put it forward to them, they decided that I developed the Stockholm syndrome and gone to other sites. [laughing] And I was literally floored. I guess the lawyer for the families picked up on my expression, and he said Constable, he says, you look surprised. And I said, no, no, no, I said, surprised doesn’t even begin to describe what I'm feeling. I said, I'm saddened by the fact that police officers — chief of police and on down — thought I was about size. Because when I joined the police department in 1980, same as everybody else, I took an oath to serve and protect. And I don't remember anybody talking about sides.

CO: But what you did led to learning how many women had been murdered and were disappearing. And we've had inquiries since then. But now, what has changed? Did you think that the police in Vancouver or anywhere take it more seriously when women who are on the streets disappear?

DD: No, I don't., unfortunately. You know, not much has changed. I mean, they can say if you check with any police detachment, you'll find oh, we've beefed up our missing persons section. We now have a half-a-dozen people working in there. But the bottom line is, and same with the missing womans investigation, most of the women aren’t reported missing. Because of the lifestyle, they're alienated from the family. The numbers probably aren't, you know, like they were back then, but I think, you know, there's still a possibility women are going missing and not reported.

CO: Dave, I'm glad to speak with you. And thank you for your work.

DD: No, no, no, thanks. I appreciate that.

KG: Dave Dickson is a former police constable on Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. We reached him in Vancouver.

[Music: Sad piano]

Avalanche run

CH: BOOM. Not the sound you want to hear when you're out jogging with your family near Lake Louise, Alberta. Or maybe any time. But that's the sound Byron Howard heard Friday evening. The Calgary man had just taken out his phone to film a video of the beautiful scenery around him when he heard the noise. The video he took instead shows a cloud of snow headed his way. Soon after, Mr. Howard is seen picking up the pace as he tries to run away from an avalanche. Thankfully, Bryon Howard is a fast guy. Here he is telling the tale to CBC Calgary's Eyeopener.

SOUNDCLIP

BRYON HOWARD: I have been having a lot of fun over the years since we got these iPhones that I have had quite a lot of selfie experience. And so there's been a few jokes about you know the Darwinism theory, you know, didn't kill him as I was shooting this. I was worried. I mean, I so the snow came off of Fairview Mountain, as I understand. And it was about 800 metres, like that Fairview Mountain falls right into Lake Louise. And then there's the lake that I was on the north side of the lake. So 800 metres away from the side of the mountain where you know the devastation would have really occurred. And so I pretty aware that, well, probably this can't get me. And but yes, I it was moving towards me fast, and it was a big wall of, you know snow, that looked like a wall of snow. And so I started to run. And, you know, up the trail, so up into higher ground. And yes, I was obviously worried, and running hard as you could see in the video if you had a chance to see it.

ROB BROW: Yeah. And so the bulk of the snow — the volume of that mass — it didn't come quite close to you. You're dealing with more of it like the powder rolling and the mist that's approaching you, okay. Because it does look like much closer than it sounds like it actually got.

BH: Yeah, it is a spectacular video. And, you know how sometimes you can be out there in nature, and shoot photos or video, and you think oh, this really didn't do it justice? Well, I think that this video did the justice.

CH: That was Bryon Howard, speaking to the CBC's Rob Brown. Mr. Howard outran an avalanche while jogging near Lake Louise, Alberta on Friday.

[Music: World music]

Milwaukee Bucks ASL

Guest: Brice Christianson

KG: When Brice Christianson approached the Milwaukee Bucks about becoming a sign language interpreter for the team, he wasn't sure how the idea would go down. As far as he knew, no other NBA team — in fact, no other pro-sports team — had ever had a dedicated sign interpreter at post-game press conferences. But the Bucks said yes. And now — one very successful third-of-a-season later, Mr. Christianson is still standing right there — next to NBA coach of the year, Mike Budenholzer. We reached Brice Christianson in Milwaukee.

CO: Brice, why was it so important to you that the Milwaukee Bucks got themselves a sign language interpreter?

BRICE CHRISTIANSON: It really stemmed from a relationship I've been cultivating with the Milwaukee Bucks for about a year-and-a-half. And I've just looked at different avenues of accessibility. And then I felt a strong connection, and that's when I decided to take that leap of faith, that Hail Mary. Even though it's a different sport [CO laughs] to ask the Milwaukee Bucks what they thought.

CO: Wow! But for you yourself, how did you come to learn sign language. Because I know you're not deaf or hearing-impaired. So what's your connection to American Sign Language?

BC: My connection really started from birth. My first language is American Sign Language. Both of my parents are deaf. My godparents are deaf. I have an uncle who's deaf. Growing up in the deaf community, with deaf parents, my dad has a strong relationship with sports. And I noticed that was a common theme within their community is a lot of topics revolved around sports being visual. And I think in Wisconsin, we're sort of born and bred to be Wisconsin's sports fans. So that's something that I've always noticed. And I've had that strong connection. And then two, it was just trying to be innovative and figure out how to really transform, quote/unquote, the system — what is normally thought of as normal. And really changing that, and shining a spotlight on an area where access doesn't really exist.

CO: What happened when you approached the Milwaukee Bucks about the idea?

BC: It actually happened at lunch with the vice president of arena experience, and we were just discussing how to improve the deaf experience. And as we were wrapping up lunch, I just felt compelled to ask. And so that is when I proposed the question of what do you think it would be possible to be the first professional sports team to provide an interpreter just because?

CO: And this is during the postgame press conferences that you've approached this on, is that right?

BC: Yep, I figured that could be a good way to start. And then we could get test runs, see what the response would be, see how everyone felt, you know, having a sign language interpreter in an environment that normally doesn't have a sign language interpreter [laughing]. And just I knew it was a very unique and maybe bizarre proposal, so I really wanted to tread lightly and respect their environment, but then also propose this idea.

CO: How's it going? I mean, let's go back to just your first night doing this — which was the home opener against the Miami Heat. What was it like? How did it go?

BC: [chuckling] It was very nerve-wracking day. I didn't want it to be a gimmick where it said hey, look, we have an interpreter. I really wanted this to be something that we shined a spotlight on to create change. So as we were watching the game — I was watching with my wife — I really couldn’t concentrate because I felt like this was that day that everything was going to change. The Milwaukee Bucks ended up losing — which added another demand to my whole process. [CO says oh no!] And so far, it's been wonderful. And I feel like we're just scratching the surface.

CO: And you were interpreting for Mike Budenholzer, right? This is the coach of the team.

BC: Correct.

CO: And how did he respond? Were you right beside him? Like, what was the proximity that you had?

BC: Yep. So he's at a table, and I'm probably two arms’ length away on his left. And we did some test runs where we were making sure the lighting and the camera angles were set up. And then not really the final approval was Coach Bud, as he's affectionately known. Just to see how he would feel just because it's not normal and it was not required. But the Milwaukee Bucks were on board, and Coach Bud, he's been fully supportive. And I'm looking forward to seeing what happens more.

CO: Now, are there limits to what you can do. I mean, there are a lot of jargons and idioms and code words and nicknames {BC chuckles]. How do you manage that?

BC: Yeah, that has been a humbling experience. And I'm always striving to improve every single day. And I have a couple of deaf consultants that I work with, that support me on terminology. And so typically, after a postgame interview, I'll re-watch it, I'll jot down phrases that maybe I felt I gave a literal interpretation and I wanted to make it a little bit more idiomatic. So Giannis Antetokounmpo, who was NBA MVP last year, Coach Bud, probably the third or fourth game, called him a monster, and it stopped me in my tracks. I didn't want to sign it monster — which may have conveyed okay, he's maybe a monster in a horror flick. And I really wanted to make it idiomatic. And so I used two or three signs to describe explosive or unstoppable [CO laughs]. and that was when I actually approached some of my deaf friends who are also consultants to try to get a little bit more awareness in sports jargon and terminology.

CO: Wow! You're putting a lot of work in this. What response have you had from deaf people who are watching you?

BC: It's been overwhelmingly positive. My concern was that maybe they felt like I was putting myself on a pedestal and making it a celebrity focus. And that's never been my intent. My intent has always been to provide and find ways to provide access. Communication equity is what I call it. And so far, it's been really positive, supportive, overwhelming. And then my popular word: humbling. It's just it's exciting to see what's happening, and it's exciting to see the community get really behind board.

CO: You mentioned just a moment ago that it's not normal to do this. Why isn't it normal? We think that this would be it's just so helpful, isn't it? So how can you make it normal?

BC: I mean, I just I think this is step one is really shining a spotlight on areas that normally don't get this type of access, and finding a way. It’s just like music interpreting was really not viewed as an avenue to provide access, and you had a few pioneers, that has been my focus. And, hopefully, more exposure, more awareness, and this opens up countless more opportunities where we can provide access. Not just in professional sports, but hopefully, you know, a lot of other avenues that don't have that.

CO: Brice, it's great to talk to you. Thank you.

BC: Yeah, thank you so much, Carol. I appreciate it.

KG: Brice Christianson is the ASL interpreter for Milwaukee Bucks post-game press conferences. It's a position he says is the first of it's kind in the NBA. We reached Mr. Christianson in Milwaukee. And we have more on this story on our website at: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Indie pop]

FOA: Lucky Lee’s closes

CH: The restaurant that promised "clean" Chinese food. And then, the New York City establishment went viral for all the wrong reasons. Lucky Lee's restaurant opened last April. And now, without even reaching its one-year anniversary, it has now permanently closed. The restaurant, which did not have Chinese owners, got lots of backlash — particularly from the Chinese community. While billing itself as a healthy alternative to traditional Chinese food, owner Arielle Haspel posted on Instagram that her restaurant's lo mein wouldn't make customers feel quote "bloated and icky" the next day. Lucky Lee's responded to its critics, saying, quote, "shame on us for not being smarter about cultural sensitivities." unquote. As recently as October, one local newspaper said Lucky Lee's was flourishing despite the controversy. Last April, Carol spoke with food writer MacKenzie Fegan about Lucky Lee's. Ms. Fegan's family runs a Chinese restaurant.

SOUNDCLIP

MACKENZIE FEGAN: So my mother is from China. She was born in China. And her parents opened up a restaurant in the '70s in San Francisco called Henry's Hunan Restaurant. And at the time American Chinese food was dominated by American Cantonese food -- so chow fun, fried rice. My grandparents were from a province called Hunan -- which is where Chairman Mao is from -- and it's peasant country. The food there is very spicy. It's hearty food. So to me, I never thought of that food as unhealthy. Indeed it's not unhealthy. I write in the piece about how my aunts and uncles actually grew up very poor in China. They couldn't afford MSG or sugar or soy sauce or meat really. So essentially they were eating a vegan diet. So the idea that the fresh high quality flavorful food that my family has been cooking forever is in some way unhealthy, didn't gel with me.

CO: Now just to go back to this Lucky Lee's restaurant -- who is Lucky Lee? Because Lee is quite often a Chinese name. Do you know if maybe she is married to or related to someone who is Chinese?

MACKENZIE FEGAN: As far as I know, no. Lee is her husband. But Lee is his first name and he is white. And that is sort of the second part of the issue is that there's nothing that you can point to and say, whoa this is extremely offensive. However, there is an appropriation of these cultural elements like calling it Lucky Lee's, some of the branding -- you know 'Wok In' -- that's W-o-k -- wok in, take out. Lo mein, high mein -- I don't even know what that really means. But there is this sort of appropriation of Chinese cultural elements, bamboo and Jade in service of this food that is not culturally sensitive to Chinese people.

CO: So they are essentially Jewish New Yorkers who grew up eating Chinese food and they wanted -- they say -- a healthier option.

MACKENZIE FEGAN: Right. And you know I do want to say that the connection between American Jews and American Chinese people should be celebrated. My grandparents for years at their restaurant every Christmas had a Jewish Comedy Night -- and that's really something that binds us because we both love Chinese food. So by no way of discounting the American Jewish experience of eating Chinese food, I'm just asking people to think a little bit more sensitively about how they are representing this food.

CH: That was food writer MacKenzie Fegan speaking to Carol in April about Lucky Lee's Restaurant in New York City. Lucky Lee's has now closed. Permanently. We've tweeted a link to our story about Lucky Lee's on our twitter account at: @cbcasithappens.

[Music: Jazz]

Banana art eaten

CH: In the video posted by BBC, a guy peels a banana. The caption reads, quote: "This is the moment a banana worth 120 thousand dollars was eaten." Unquote. Well, sort of. But not really. As we told you last week, at a show in Miami, the artist Maurizio Catellan presented a new work: a banana duct-taped to a wall. Regular banana, regular duct tape, gallery wall. The irregular parts were that he gave it a title — "Comedian" — and a price — 120 thousand dollars U.S. And he sold two "editions" of the "piece" at that price. But on Saturday, performance artist David Datuna walked up, peeled the banana off the wall, peeled the skin off the banana, and ate it. To the shock of everyone present. Hence the BBC video. But I mean, it's not like he ate the "Mona Lisa", or a gold bar. It wasn't actually worth 120 thousand dollars. It was worth less than a dollar. Unless the banana was organic and the duct tape was artisanal. Or was it worth that, because that's what people paid for it? Is the whole thing brilliant satire, slightly funny, or just dumb? Don't bother asking. These questions — like that gallery wall until they taped up another banana — are fruitless.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

December 9, 2019 episode transcript

More Stories Like This