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 2021

The AIH Transcript for May 12, 2021

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello. I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

CO: All the former president's men. After the GOP removes Liz Cheney from her leadership position in the U.S. Congress, a Republican tells us that if her party keeps pandering to Donald Trump, it will consign itself to irrelevance.

CH: Picking your battles. An Israeli who lives near the Gaza border says there's blame on both sides for sparking the current conflict -- but he's sure the Israeli strikes against Gaza are justified.

CO: Fighting for their lives. Anti-government protesters continue in Colombia -- and a professor in Bogota tells us the ongoing demonstrations are an act of desperation by people struggling to survive.

CH: Don't write her off. Carmen Maria Machado wrote a memoir about leaving an abusive same-sex relationship because she didn't see stories like hers being written -- but if a group of parents in Texas have their way, students at the local high school will have a hard time finding it too

CO: in it for the long haul. This year's inductees into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame are all lifers, including a rapper whose hustle voters obviously couldn't knock.

CH: And... rethinking the buddy system. A long standing theory that humans can only keep 150 meaningful relationships is in question after the results of a new study that really has its finger on the pals.

CH: “As It Happens”, the Wednesday edition. Radio that promises this personal information will be kept in the strictest confidants.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Liz Cheney Removal, Columbia Strike, Friends Study

Liz Cheney Removal

Guest: Christine Todd Whitman

CH: It's been a few months since Liz Cheney broke with most of her party and voted to impeach Donald Trump. And now the Wyoming lawmaker has been removed as the Number 3 Republican in the House. Today, her colleagues voted to oust her from her post -- citing the need for party unity. Here's some of what Representative Cheney said, after today's vote against her.

SOUNDCLIP

LIZ CHENEY: We must go forward based on truth. We cannot both embrace the big lie and embrace the Constitution. And going forward, the nation needs it. The nation needs a strong Republican Party. The nation needs a party that... that is based upon fundamental principles of conservatism. And I am committed and dedicated to ensuring that that's how this party goes forward. And I plan to lead the fight to do that.

CH: That was U.S. Representative Liz Cheney speaking this morning, after her colleagues voted to remove her from her leadership role in the House. New York's Elise Stefanik seems poised to replace her, and announced today she was running for House Republican Chair. Christine Todd Whitman is the former Republican governor of New Jersey, and an outspoken critic of Donald Trump. We reached her in Oldwick.

CO: Governor Whitman, you have been on this show several times, calling for the Republican Party to dump Trump. Has today's vote against Liz Cheney only moved you further away from that goal?

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: I don't think it has. Frankly, it is... what she has done is made people face up to what the party has become. That it is no longer a matter of principle. It's no longer a matter of holding our Constitution and the peaceful transfer of power. It's about one person. It's about loyalty to one person. And to replace her with someone who had a far less conservative voting record than Liz Cheney. I mean, I don't agree with Liz Cheney on a lot of the issues, but I certainly respect her for what she's been doing now. And the fact that she is being replaced by Elise Stefanik, who is someone who, as I said before, a far less conservative voting record, should make me happy, except the reason that she is stepping into that position is because she has embraced the big lie. And the trouble with what this lie is doing is it's undermining the public's confidence in our sanctity of our vote.

CO: But I wonder what Liz Cheney represents? I mean, there are those who say that this is more of a dynastic clash. It’s more personal politics between the Trumps and the Cheney being that her father is former Vice President Dick Cheney. Is there some truth to that?

CTW: No, this is about the fact that she refused to embrace the big lie. She called the president out. She rightfully, I believe, blamed him for the riots that we saw in January, on January 6th, which were clear attempt. I mean, what they were trying to do is overthrow the ballot. That's what they were doing. They wanted to stop the count of the Electoral College votes in order to change the outcome of the election when they couldn't do it through the courts. This was about one man. It's about Donald Trump. It's about you have to be a thousand per cent loyal to him. And she stepped out of line.

CO: Do you think there are other sitting Republicans who support her but are not speaking out?

CTW: Yes, I know there are. And that's unfortunate. I mean, there comes a time where you put your... your country ahead of your politics. People have to realize how serious this was and what happened on January 6th, how very serious it was. And the president hasn't stopped. He continues to perpetuate this drumbeat that somehow the election was stolen from him. And that just going to encourage further... it could encourage further outbreaks and riots.

CO: And do you think that they would more likely speak up now? I mean, is anything opening up for them to be more outspoken?

CTW: Well, there is a group of us, there are about 100 of us who have signed on to an op-ed that will be released tomorrow that calls for a reassertion of the basic principles that used to define the Republican Party. We basically say we're all Republicans still. We're not... we haven't left the party, but the party has left us. And we will put up with it for a while. We're trying to... we will reach out to all those who feel that they're homeless now, and we will try to get the party back. But if we can't, then a third party is not outside, not out of the question.

CO: I want to ask you about that in a moment, but you're referring to a release tomorrow that's called “Call for American Renewal”. The people who are part of that, it seems, are mostly former officeholders, these are not people who are currently holding office. Is that the case?

CTW: Yes, that is. But what we can do is give cover to those who are in office. And we intend to support those like Liz Cheney, who will stand up and say this is wrong. And there have been others. You know, we have... there are other members who have come forward who are sitting members, and they're being harassed and attacked and will be there to try to support them in any way that we can.

CO: There are those, though, who are quietly saying or some cautiously saying that what this is about, this vote to remove Liz Cheney is about just bringing down the temperature, just this is a distraction. This is noise that doesn't allow the party to evolve or to renew. And that this feud needed to stop. Is that possible that this gives space to actually have this discussion?

CTW: No, because Donald Trump hasn't stopped talking about it. It wasn't Liz Cheney... it hasn't been Liz Cheney that's kept this going. It's Donald Trump. It keeps repeating the lie. He can't get over this. He is so focused on himself that he just can't see beyond that. And he refuses to admit that he has lost the election. And as long as he keeps that up. I mean, the Republicans may win back the House in 2022 because that is typical of the way that things change in the first congressional election after the presidential, when you have a party... we have a switch of the parties. But it's not a long-term winning strategy. I mean, the party is going to consign itself to irrelevance if it continues to be this fealty to one person who will define what you stand for it. And that can change from one moment to the next. And you see it now in registration. The party, the Republican Party, is a third. Unaffiliated voters nationwide are number one, Democrats number two and Republicans number three in registration.

CO: You mentioned the possibility of a third party. The schism within the Republican Party. A third party… [chuckle] you mentioned already that the GOP is... is third. I mean, wouldn't another party in this schism be fourth? I mean, is it really a successful strategy?

CTW: Well, first of all, it's not the optimum strategy, and it's not what we're hoping for. We're hoping to be able to gather the strength within the Republican Party, particularly at the local level, to start taking it back and fielding candidates who will stand up for principle and will stand up for what the party used to represent. But don't forget, the Republican Party started as a third party. And this is a very different dynamic. There are literally millions of voters who are feeling homeless right now. They were Republicans. They are not. They can't abide by the way the party has gone, but they don't want to be Democrats. And there are Democrats who are centrist and are worried about where the Democrat Party is going. And those are the ones to whom we appeal… we're going to appeal. This country functions best, we believe, with two major parties, a centre-left and a centre-right. But we've lost it to the right on the Republicans. And the Democrats are moving quite far to the left. So they're just…. there are literally now millions of people in the centre who are feeling lost.

CO: There are polls that show that the hold that Donald Trump has on the GOP is diminishing, that Republicans are moving on, and that he is... he's not the voice, he doesn't have a hold that he once had. Is it possible just if you ignore him and if you just move on, that this... this will dissolve and diminish of its own accord?

CTW: Well, it would be nice, but unfortunately, he still has a large megaphone. And because he says such outrageous things, the media likes to follow him. And the problem also is you have over 70 million people who voted for him who have been fed this constant stream of drumbeat of the election was stolen. The election was stolen. That is a dangerous thing for the country to have that many people honestly believe it because their leaders, the people they respect, are telling them that. It's not healthy. We're trying to talk about it in a sensible way that will help people understand that they can move back to the centre and that we have lost something very basic when we have started to ignore what used to be what all politicians when they saw the oath of office to uphold the Constitution would do, which was uphold the Constitution and respect the outcome of an election.

CO: We will leave it there, and we will be watching. Governor Whitman, thank you.

CTW: My pleasure. Good to talk to you again.

CH: Christine Todd Whitman is the former Republican governor of New Jersey. We reached her in Oldwick.

[music: world music]

Colombia Strike

Guest: Sandra Borda

[honking, whistles, cheering and drumming]

CH: Today, protesters gathered in Bolívar Square in Bogota, Colombia, to mark the third week of anti-government demonstrations. The demonstrations began at the end of April. And across the country, protesters have been met with violence: dozens of people have been killed by security forces, hundreds more have been injured or are missing. Sandra Borda is a political science professor at Los Andes University. We reached her in Bogota.

CO: Sandra, can you describe the protests today in Bogota?

SANDRA BORDA: Today, the different social organizations have called a strike. This is 16 days of a strike in Colombia. Unions, student organizations, indigenous organizations participate in this in order to demand a social and economic policy from the government to address the economic distress that resulted from the confinement during the pandemic.

CO: Can you tell us how are these security forces responding? Because earlier protests have been met with... with quite... quite a heavy hand on the part of police. Numbers of people have died. How are the authorities responding to the demonstrations today?

SB: We had a very strong response a couple of weeks ago. The result is not very clear at this point. We're talking between 25 and 35 people killed by police. It's very bad because we don't have state organizations or official sources that confirm the amount of people that have died during these demonstrations. Today, we’re expecting police to be a little bit more restrained to the extent that the international community has put some pressure on the government, especially the U.S. government and the United Nations. The big problem is at night when it's a little bit more difficult to monitor the situation. Media is not out. And then this is precisely the time where violence tend to take place.

CO: I guess the only official number we have at this point, Colombia's Human Rights Ombudsman said 42 people died during these protests, but another 168 people have been reported missing during the protests. And so what does that tell you?

SB: Yeah, it's a big problem because the police is using a lot of illegal detentions in order to deal with the protests. And people are not very clear the whereabouts of many young people who have participated precisely at night during the protest. Human rights NGOs are helping a lot, trying to, you know, monitor the situation and trying to follow people wherever they think they are. But we don't have an official report by police. And families are continuously demanding from police and from the... the state where their sons and daughters are at this point. But it's been very confusing, and we don't have an official report of the whereabouts of these people.

CO: There's also reports of there are armed civilians, weapons-wielding civilians who have gone into some parts of Colombia's protests and taken matters into their own hands. Who are these people?

SB: That's another thing that we don't know yet. And these took place in two different cities, in Pereira and in Cali. During the weekend in Cali, what we saw was the Indigenous community blocking some streets in the city and people from those neighbourhoods reacting by using weapons and shooting. I think that the result was basically 16 people injured. And they are right now in the hospital. We don't have an official report about who these people are. Apparently, they are civilians, people who live in these neighbourhoods, and they say that they are trying to protect their own property and their... their neighbourhoods.

CO: The protests began in April in response, at the beginning, to a tax reform bill. That bill has been withdrawn, and the finance minister has resigned since then. So what are the... what are the protesters demanding from the government of President Iván Duque?

SB: Yeah, the real problem is that the very difficult economic and social situation in which people who were already in a difficult situation before the pandemic, they are even worse now. They are asking for subsidies from the government, what they call like a basic mandatory salary. They are asking for a free tuition for their sons and daughters in public universities. They are just asking the government for help in this very difficult time. The confinement was very hard on poor people, especially poor people in big cities. They are just asking for, you know, governmental help in this scenario. The tax reform was sort of an excuse that they used to react to what they think is indifference by the government. But, you know, even though the government, as you said, withdrawed the reform, they still haven't seen any sort of social policy in response to their demands,

CO: And I understand the economy of Colombia has contracted considerably during this pandemic, lots of people without work. And so that burden of extra taxes and the cost of health care is, I guess, what has pushed people over the edge, do you think?

SB: Yeah, that's part of the problem. The other problem is that the government itself announced that our level of poverty increased by seven points. You know, we were already a poor country. We were already a very unequal country. And with the confinement, it was basically worsen that situation. So, you know, at this point, we're talking about desperation, basically. Families that don't have any means to survive right now are the ones that we have on the street asking for help from the government. And the problem is that, you know, state capacity is... is not that salient now anymore because the state doesn't have that much money. This is the reason why they wanted to put forward this tax reform because they need to collect resources in order to help people. But they didn't present this in the right way. They didn’t form a political coalition in order to, you know, support this tax reform. And we're seeing the consequences now.

CO: How has the president been responding, I guess, this week? He has met the demonstrators and strike leaders. Is he... is he... is he changing? Is he starting to come around to say that he needs to do something here?

SB: Yeah, little by little. I think that they have realized that they are in a very weak political situation right now and that they need to respond somehow to the demands. So they had a meeting with the strike committee yesterday. They didn't come to any agreement. But today, the government announced that they are implementing the free tuition program for a semester for the poorest people in cities. So this is going to be in advance, not a very substantial one. I mean, this is not going to resolve the difficult economic situation in the long term, but I think that it's a start. We'll see how much they advance in the coming weeks and how much they advance, especially after today.

CO: All right, Sandra, we'll be watching to see what happens in that strike. And I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

SB: Thank you so much.

CH: Sandra Borda is a political science professor at Los Andes University. She's in Bogota, Colombia. You can find more on this story on our webpage at: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[music: tense instrumental]

Mixing Vaccines Upcoming

CH: With AstraZeneca shots increasingly on pause in Canada, and mRNA vaccines pouring into the country, a lot of people are wondering whether it's okay to mix doses. Tonight, the medical journal The Lancet will release a letter with some of the earliest research into side effects and adverse reactions in patients who received both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines. And coming up later on "As it Happens", Dr. Allison McGeer weighs in on the questions raised by the idea of mixing doses...and what the newest research says about that.

[music: tense instrumental]

Friends study

Guest: Louise Barrett

CH: A team of researchers at Stockholm University might lose at least one friend because of their new study. But they think they've got Robin Dunbar's "number". In 1993, the British anthropologist claimed that humans can only keep a maximum of 150 meaningful relationships. That became known as "Dunbar's Number". But that Swedish team just published new research in "Biology Letters" that suggests he's wrong -- and his number should be much higher. A claim Mr. Dunbar himself has dismissed as, quote: "absolutely bonkers." Louise Barrett is a psychologist at the University of Lethbridge. She's worked with both Mr. Dunbar and the researchers behind the new study. We reached her in Lethbridge, Alberta.

CO: Louise, do you think that the average human being is able to have more than 150 meaningful relationships?

LOUISE BAREETT: Oh, well, that's what it all hinges on is the word meaningful. Clearly, I think in the modern day we can have large numbers of relationships, and we can manage them pretty well. It's whether they're meaningful to us? And I think that's where a lot of this discussion and debate is situated. The idea that... that there's a sort of limit on the number of relationships we can manage, which sits at 150, according to Robin Dunbar, is that after that point, it becomes very difficult to cope with them cognitively because it's our brain size that limits that.

CO: You mentioned the... this study. 1993, Robin Dunbar, he's the British anthropologist who theorized that humans could not have more than 150 meaningful relationships. I don't know if you have a meaningful relationship with them, but do you have a working one. [chuckle] So what was it... what was it based on? What was Robin Dunbar basing that analysis on?

LB: Right. Yes, Robin Dunbar with my supervisor from my PhD. So that was quite a meaningful relationship. [both chuckling]

CO: All right, check! [both chuckling]

LB: So what he based it on is the original analysis took data on non-human primates, the monkeys and apes, and correlate and looked at their group sizes, the group sizes they lived in, and correlated that against their brain size and found that there was a positive relationship between brain size and group size. And then what he did was sort of extend that and say, OK, if we take the human brain, the size of a human brain, which is about three times larger than that of a chimpanzee, and we sort of go backwards, we say, OK, given a brain of this size, what size groups should... should humans be living in? He calculated that we had an upper limit of 150, i.e. that's as many relationships we can cope with given our brain size. So his idea was that 150 was like a natural social grouping for humans based on our cognitive capacities.

CO: He defined meaningful relationships, if I've got this right, as those people that you know well enough to greet without feeling awkward if you ran into them in an airport lounge.

LB: Yes. Yes, that's exactly what he said. I find that's quite a jet set definition. [laughing] I don't know why he picked airport lounge, but there we go. But yes, [both chuckling] it's people you would... it's people you would feel you could... you could greet and ask how they were and wouldn't feel awkward about doing that.

CO: Because he's also talked about the meaningful relationships in an old village of 150 people. So I guess either an airport lounge or [chuckling] an old village?

LB: Yeah, yeah, yeah. So he did, he found a lot of you know, he sort of said in the doomsday book, you know, in the Middle Ages, you know, the average size of a village with 150 and, you know, Hutterites colonies, the average size was 150. So he found lots of examples in... in human life across different cultures and times to sort of say, yes, there seems to be this grouping that comes out that is about 150.

CO: All right. You also have a relationship of some kind with the people in Stockholm, Stockholm University, who published this new study that… that contradicts much of this. What do you make of their analysis?

LB: Well, what they did was... so the original analysis is done in 1993. And obviously, since then, more work has been done on primates, and we have a larger and better database on brain size. So they took all this updated information, and they also reran…. and they reran the original analysis. And they also used more sophisticated statistical techniques, which require more computing power. And, you know, you weren't even able to use these in 1993 because we just didn't have the computing power to do so. So they just ran updated analysis with a larger dataset. And what they show is that this so-called, you know, natural grouping of 150, it doesn't come out of their analyses. So with more and better data, we don't find this 150 group size coming out. The... the range in their study is something like, you know, it goes from up to sort of 292, you know, at the top. And I think the largest estimate they got was something like 500 possible relationships.

CO: And that original analysis that by... by Professor Dunbar was known as Dunbar's "number".

LB: Yes.

CO: Yes, and now he has said this new analysis that refutes or calls into question Dunbar's "number". He has called that absolutely bonkers.

LB: [laughing] I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm laughing because it's just not a very… it's just not a very scientific assessment. [both laughing]

CO: He says... he says, I marvel at the researchers apparent failure to understand relationships. [both chuckling] What do you think he's referring to there?

LB: Well, I think, you know, I mean, this is... this is, you know, I'd be interested to see if he's actually really read the paper in detail because, in fact, they don't they don't deal with the notion of what a relationship is and isn't. They really just repeat his original analysis, which looked at brain size and group size. And from which he then predicted that 150 was the... the group size that you should expect to find humans in based on their brain size. And they've just repeated that. So they've done exactly what he did. They just don't find the same results. And I think that's what you should expect to find. You know, if you have more data if you have more precise measurements of things, and you run the analysis again, you should expect the answers to change. And, you know, because there's new evidence and, you know, it could have come out the same, and that would have been proof that it was a robust finding. But now, now that we know more, we don't find the same results. And so we have to... we have to sort of reconsider a hypothesis in the light of this new evidence. So I think that's, you know, to me, it's what science is supposed to do. You need to kind of get new evidence and revise your opinions of what's going on in the light of that. So what they've done is exactly what you should do if you're a good scientist.

CO: Right. Do you have any idea how many meaningful relationships you have?

LB: [laughing] I don't think I've got very many, to be honest.

CO: Honestly, I can't... I couldn't name 150 people by their first and last names. I don't think.

LB: No, I don't think I could either. I don't think I could either.

CO: [chuckling] Everyone listening to this is --

LB: More like five!

CO: Counting on their fingers to see what they can come up with. Anyway, [both chuckling] We'll have to think this through. I'll have to go to an airport lounge and hang out long enough to find out how many people… [both chuckling] we can't do it now under COVID. So I guess we're stuck.

LB: No, no.

CO: Louise, it's great to talk to you. Thanks.

LB: You're welcome. Thank you very much, Carol.

CO: Bye.

LB: Bye.

CH: Louise Barrett is a psychologist at the University of Lethbridge. And we reached her in Lethbridge, Alberta.

[music: bright, poppy instrumental]

Part 2: Israel Folo, Texas Banned Books

Israel Folo

Guest: Daniel Rahamim

CH: The U.N. is warning that Israelis and Palestinians are heading toward full-scale war. Israeli airstrikes on Gaza have continued, leveling two apartment towers. According to health officials, 56 Palestinians have now been killed, including 14 children. The barrage of rocket fire from Gaza has killed six Israelis. Daniel Rahamim lives on a Kibbutz a few hundred meters from the Gaza border. We reached him in Nahal Oz, Israel.

CO: Daniel, what is the security situation for people at your Kibbutz right now?

DANIEL RAHAMIN: Look, in every apartment in the Kibbutz, every house, there is a bomb shelter. Out of the people of the Kibbutz, they stay all the time in the bomb shelters. Out of the people stays near the bomb shelter. But no one is outside of the house because it's very, very tough. And many rockets. All the time, we hear the sirens. It's something else.

CO: The rockets that are coming out of Gaza. Have any of them landed in or near your Kibbutz?

DR: We are very lucky, even though we had many, many sirens, all of them the but, you know, the kippat barzel… you know what that is? The kippat barzel?

CO: part of the security... a missile defence system. It's called the Iron Dome, I think, isn't it?

DR: Iron Dome, yes. The Iron Dome held part of them, most of them, and the rest fell in an open area in our fields there.

CO: There have been casualties in Israel, right? From the rockets.

DR: Yes. And now we're just a few minutes ago there was attack on the city [down the road]. It's 10 minutes from the Kibbutz. And a child, six years old, was wounded, very, very severe.

CO: I'm sorry to hear that. At the same time, we know that the... the Israeli strikes on Gaza have killed at this point at least 56 people, many of them women and children. Do you think those strikes are justified?

DR: I don't know if it's many of them. I don't know why you said many of them. I think that most of them was terrorist, Hamas terrorist or jihad Islamic terrorist. I know that the citizens in Gaza has been hurt, but it was just a mistake. That's what I believe. I believe that our army don't attack citizens. And if citizens... citizens were wounded or killed, it was by mistake.

CO: Well, there are a lot... it's a very densely populated area, isn't it? So if you fire rockets into Gaza --

DR: Yes, yeah.

CO: The likelihood of hitting people... they've... they've knocked down entire buildings, entire apartment buildings and... and complexes. So there is a report, though, that at least ten children were killed Tuesday night, and another 230 other people were wounded, according to health officials there.

DR: I believe it's true. I believe it's true. But I can... I can assure you, yes, that our army does everything to prevent hitting the citizens of Gaza.

CO: This rocket exchange that you are witnessing, this is in response to what has been happening in Jerusalem and the situation on the weekend, during the holy days of Ramadan, when the police in Jerusalem went into the Al-Aqsa Mosque and used a great deal of force in there, wounded many people. Are you aware of what happened in Jerusalem on the weekend?

DR: Yes. And I can tell you that I'm not agree about the things that the police did. It hurt the relationship between the Israelis, the Jews Israelis and the Israelis Arabs. And I hope it can be fixed.

CO: What would you say to Palestinians who were in Al-Aqsa Mosque as worshippers at prayer when that happened, when the police went in there? What would you say to the Palestinians who were in Al-Aqsa Mosque on the weekend if you could speak to them?

DR: I think that if... if they are the real believers, yes. And if they believe in God, they shouldn't do what they did in their holy place. They shouldn't do what they did, to throw stones on the policemen.

CO: And what do you think of the police using rubber bullets and... and shock grenades on the people there? And showing the force they used against the people who are worshipping?

DR: In general, I'm against violence. I believe that if you want to solve a problem, you have to talk. Not to be violent.

CO: but if you're being shot at, is it not a natural response to resist, to throw rocks back?

DR: OK, but, you know, but there is... they have their leaders now. They are Muslim. They have their leaders. We have our leaders. They could… before all this happened, they could sit together to make the prayers go well without problems.

CO: The protests were in response to, as you know, you mentioned in East Jerusalem, the the plan to evict Palestinian families from Sheikh Jarrah, that neighbourhood, and to allow settlers, Jewish settlers, to take over those properties. What do you think of that?

DR: Look, I... I am against these things. I think that the right-wing in Israel, the right parties, the extreme-right parties, they does very, very bad things to Israel, to the image of Israel and... and I don't support these activities.

CO: Do you think that you're very well served by your government right now in Israel?

DR: To tell you the truth, no. No.

CO: Who do you blame for the situation right now?

DR: Just one person, the prime minister of Israel --

CO: Benjamin Netanyahu.

DR: Yes, it's hard to say, but that's at least my private opinion.

CO: Do you think at this point it's too late that things are escalating very, very quickly in Israel. Do you think it's too late to try and avert what many people believe will be a major upheaval in your country in the coming days and weeks?

DR: It's never too late. I hope there will be a new government that will change the situation. And I say again, maybe it won't succeed, but at least we have to for our children, we have to do this state. Because when they will ask us what we did to change the situation, we said to them, look, we did everything, but they don't want peace. If the Hamas will agree in this conference, they will give them money. They will build for them airport. They will… they will build food for them hospitals. Gaza Strip can be the Hong Kong of the Middle East if they just want it.

CO: And who's they? When you say that you mean politicians on both sides?

DR: Yes, of course. You know, I believe that when there is a leader in their side and a leader in our side that really, really wants peace, it can happen then.

CO: Daniel, I hope it's possible what you're describing, that there can be peace. It seems far off at this point. I appreciate speaking with you tonight. Thank you.

DR: Thank you very much. Thank you.

CH: Daniel Rahamim lives on a Kibbutz a few hundred meters from the Gaza border. We reached him in Nahal Oz, Israel.

[music: sombre instrumental]

Hockey All-Black Line

CH: Percy Paris says it's a great day for hockey -- and long overdue. On Monday night, the Tampa Bay Lightning started an all-Black forward line against the Florida Panthers. It was a historic moment for the NHL, and one that stirred up memories for Mr. Paris. Before he became a NDP member of the Nova Scotia Legislature, Percy Paris played for the Saint Mary's University Huskies. In the early 1970s, he and two of his teammates formed the first all-Black line in Canadian university hockey. Yesterday, he spoke with the CBC about the historic moment.

SOUNDCLIP

PERCY PARIS: When we went out there, I must say, I thought about it. But I didn't… I didn't get the deep thought because I'm in the heat of a hockey game.

JEFF DOUGLAS: Yeah.

PP: and the... the number one reason that you... that we were out there was to win the game. So that was first and uppermost in my mind. But certainly, I made a mental note, but I couldn't dwell on the fact and... and how exciting and how much adrenaline this added to me [JD chuckles] that they were... that the three of us were out there together in one line. But it... it was one of those things that you sat later on and think about and reflect upon after the game is over. It wasn't common back in that day for a lot of Blacks to be playing the sport. The... the economics of playing hockey, it was cheaper to play basketball or baseball or soccer.

JD: Oh yeah.

PP: Certainly, I know even today, I know families that have children playing hockey, and they live from…. they live on their credit cards. It's so expensive today. And so, I considered money is a huge barrier when it comes to playing hockey today. We grew up in an era where it was old-school. Where you get your skates, you get up early in the morning. If it was a weekend, you went to the pond.

JD: Oh yeah?

PP: Along with 25, 30 other kids. You had one puck. And you learnt the game of hockey on the pond, especially in Windsor.

JD: Yeah.

PP: As far as I'm concerned, the mecca of hockey in eastern Canada. It was a given, one, that you were going to win. It was also a given that when you learnt to walk, at the same time, you were going to learn how to skate. [JD chuckles] So those things came hand-in-hand, walking in skating. So it was a natural progression. You fall in love with the game early in life, and it stays with you forever.

CH: Percy Paris speaking with "Mainstreet" host, and former "As It Happens" co-host, Jeff Douglas. Mr. Paris made history in the 1970s when he and two of his teammates formed the first all-Black line in Canadian university hockey.

[music: elevator music]

Texas Banned Books

Guest: Carmen Maria Machado

CH: Carmen Maria Machado wrote her memoir “In the Dream House” specifically because books like it were hard to find. But some parents in Leander, Texas are hoping to keep it that way. Ms. Machado says she recently learned a group of parents there were targeting her book and others for removal from a series of recommended reading lists for highschoolers. And in an op-ed in today's New York Times, she writes that banning work like hers won't do anything to protect kids. We reached Carmen Maria Machado in Philadelphia.

CO: Carmen, how did you come to discover that your book, "In the Dream House", was being targeted by parents in Leander, Texas?

CARMEN MARIA MACHADO: I got a message from a fan who I believe was like a local resident who had heard the story. And I got this message one morning, and I…. and they were like, there's this video online of, you know, this parent like you talking about your book and waving a dildo around. And I was like, oh! [chuckling] And I went and hunted it down and watched it. So that was when.... that was a few months ago, so.

CO: OK, so waving a dildo around?

CMM: [chuckling] Yeah. So she's objecting to my book. And there is a scene in my book in which a dildo is mentioned. And I guess to illustrate her point, she brought a dildo to this school board meeting, threw it out of her purse and sort of brandished it.

CO: [awkward chuckle] Oh dear!

CMM: While reading from my... from my book.

CO: And there's a... while reading from the part of your book where it describes the dildo. Is the dildo used in your book? Is there a description?

CMM: Yeah, it is. I mean, she read... she basically picked sort of the most, I think, salacious excerpt you could possibly pick out of the book and read from that. And then, of course, immediately afterwards, like there was obviously, like, parents who supported the woman and also a lot of educators and citizens of the community and other parents and students who disagreed.

CO: Can you tell us a bit about what "In The Dreamhouse" is about?

CMM: Yes, it is a memoir about a lot of things, but primarily about an abusive relationship I was in when I was in my early 20s with another woman. And it's me sort of talking about the invisibility of domestic violence and domestic abuse and queer relationships, and sort of why, like how we talk about domestic violence. It's sort of my life as it sort of led into and led out of part of this moment in my early 20s.

CO: And this book "In The Dream House" is on high school class recommended reading lists in Texas. Is that right?

CMM: At this one particular school, it was on a list of books that seniors... there were 15 books seniors could choose from in a certain unit. And one of the 15 books that they could have chosen from was my memoir for senior... senior students, which for us is about 17 or 18 years old. So it isn't... it isn't being taught to every student. It's just a book that students have the option of reading.

CO: After this particular meeting, there was a spokesperson for the Leander school district who said our goal is to explore what the community feels are age-appropriate materials for classroom reading. Is there a valid argument? Do you think that "In The Dream House" is a book that is age-appropriate for that group?

CMM: Well, so the thing is that I mean, I am a teacher, I am a professor, but I don't teach high school students. But professional educators chose the book for their students. And I think what's really weird, I mean, like, certainly there are like books that are appropriate for certain ages. But I think saying that students 17, 18, can't read anything with sex in it. And there's... there's no value in a book like that for those students when your teachers have said otherwise, the people who you pay to educate your kids. That strikes me as very odd and very disingenuous. And the community also is not, you know, it's not a monolith. Like there are gay teens at that school. Like, there are gay people in Texas. You know, it's not as if this is like the only represented sort of group. And it feels a little, I think, strange that this very conservative religious group can sort of make the agenda for all the other students. Because the parents who want this, their kids did not have to read the book. Like they could have chosen a different book. They're trying to remove the book from the list for all the students.

CO: Right. And so scenes with dildos notwithstanding, what do you think that the young people could get from this? Why do you think it would be useful for... for someone to read your book and from that age group?

CMM: So the book, you know, talks a lot about how you know, when I was a teen in the early aughts, I did not understand that I was queer. And I, you know, had a lot of gay feelings and experiences, but I didn't have, like, language to put to what I was experiencing. And that created a real risk for me that took a long time to fix. And I felt like the same thing sort of happened with this question of domestic violence where, like, you know, I thought of domestic abuse is a thing that you see it's very specific. It's a very heterosexual. There's a very specific sort of dynamic that you see represented. And so, you know, literature, I mean, the literature does a lot of things. But one of the things it does is it gives students opportunities to access narratives that they are not super familiar with. I mean, I think that, you know, I wish I had had a book like my book when I was in my teens or my early 20s, and I didn't.

CO: You mentioned that you do have support. There are parents and teachers in Leander, Texas, who... who share your concerns. What have you heard from them?

CMM: I get messages from them all the time. I mean, a lot of them are sort of working in, you know, sort of in front of the cameras and also behind the scenes trying to make this right. Students as well, which is really heartening to hear. You know, and I'm writing for those people [laughing], you know, that's really important to me.

CO: Yours is not the only book that is up for this... it's been challenged for review and reconsideration, that's the language. Among them are Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery". There's a graphic novel version of Margaret Atwood, "The Handmaid's Tale", Alan Moore and David Loyd's "V for Vendetta". Is... is there a consistent theme amongst the books? Is there... are there things that they have in common that seems to be run through the group of books that is being challenged?

CMM: It's a mix of things like sex and nudity and also gay themes. In the op-ed for The New York Times, I talked about how when books are challenged on this level, it's almost always involve things like sex and gay themes, which is…. so it's not an accident I think that this book, my book, has been targeted.

CO: And now, but is there not, I mean, in some level, a kind of cachet that comes from having your book challenged or banned? I mean, do you think that that's like they become celebs, don't they?

CMM: Yeah, I suppose that's true. I mean, I you know, I do remember when I was a kid, I was very involved in my local library, and I remember Banned Books Week, you know, back when I was a young person. And always like being really excited to read the books that people told me I wasn't allowed to read and finding that a really exciting prospect. But also, I wish that students could just read it. [laughing] And there were people fighting to get rid of it. And that would vastly prefer that.

CO: Speaker 1: OK, Carmen, it's good to have you on the show. Thank you.

CMM: Thank you so much. Bye.

CO: Bye.

CH: Carmen Maria Machado is the author of the short story collection “Her Body and Other Parties” and the memoir “In The Dream House”. For more on this story, visit our webpage.

[music: electronic]

Jay-Z In The Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame

CH: John Sykes, chairman of the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame, says the diversity of this year's inductees "really represents the Hall's ongoing commitment to honor the artists that have created not only rock and roll, but the sound of youth culture." Well, it will always be sort of weird that some music industry bigwigs decided to celebrate the sound of youth culture by building a big pyramid-shaped museum... in Cleveland. Given that museums don't really have rock 'n' roll energy, and they also aren't frequented by youths. What also seems weird is that Tina Turner is just making the Hall in 2021. But she's not. This year, she's being inducted as a solo artist. But she was already inducted in 1991, as the non-abusive half of Ike and Tina Turner. That's so long ago that they were inducted by Phil Spector. But Mr. Sykes is right that most of this year's inductees were the sound of youth culture, at one point anyway. Along with Tina Turner, there's Carole King, Todd Rundgren, Foo Fighters, and the Go-Go's. None of whom are a surprise. Except to today's youth, who have heard of maybe two of them. The fifth inductee, though, they know -- even if only as a rap godfather. Jay-Z made it in on the first ballot. Which is impressive, period, but especially because he once compared music industry people to vultures.

[music: indie rock]

Part 3: Mixing Vaccines Research, Calgary Mayor's Voting List

FOA: Graeme Ferguson Obit

CH: It's not like starring in a movie -- but it is like being in a movie. Canadian filmmaker Graeme Ferguson gave a whole new meaning to watching something on the big screen. More than 50 years ago, he along with two friends and fellow filmmaker Roman Kroitor dreamed up the idea for an immersive cinematic experience. It required high-resolution cameras, large format film, special projectors, steeply raked theaters - and screens that were six storeys tall. That concept was brought to life at Expo '67 in Montreal, when the experimental film "Polar Life" made its debut. And with that, IMAX was born. Graeme Ferguson was the president of IMAX for more than two decades, and continued to make films into his late 80s. He died last week in Lake Of Bays, Ontario. He was 91. In 1987, Mr. Ferguson spoke with Stan Carew on Prime Time about the 20th anniversary of IMAX. Here is part of that conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

STAN CAREW: Graeme, what makes IMAX so special?

GRAEME FERGUSON: Mostly, the... the characteristic of the medium is that it takes you someplace that you'd like to go or dream of going or maybe you might be afraid of going, but that is very difficult for you to go. It's very difficult for you to... to go into space. It's very difficult for many people to go underwater, to become divers. It's very difficult for people to fly along at treetop level in a helicopter. It's difficult to be in a forest fire as we were in north of Superior. And so we're... in a way, I guess, in cinema we do... what... what Life magazine did when it first came out. It really takes you into the world through the direct experience of your eyes.

SC: What's special about this is it's not only the big format, it's a special kind of camera. It has to be shown in a special kind of theatre. There are only a certain number of theatres around the world, obviously. Is part of your success because of it's a package deal because it's theatre and hardware and films? You're running the whole thing together?

GF: Well, we don't run at all. But basically, the answer is yes, that the concept that we came out of Expo with was to build a new kind of a theatre and do a really widescreen, a large screen, not... not wide, but a very large screen, high-fidelity picture in that theatre. And the characteristic of the theatre is it puts the audience right up close to the screen and basically puts them in the picture. You can easily... anybody can do that with a poor quality picture. That's a cinch! What we did was we then developed the technology, which included a new film format, a new camera and a new projector that produced a high-fidelity, a high-quality picture, so the experience was really believable. So the audience would come out and say, boy, I thought I was in that place.

CH: Canadian filmmaker and IMAX co-creator Graeme Ferguson speaking with CBC Radio host Stan Carew in 1987. Mr. Ferguson died last week. He was 91.

[music: bright piano]

Mixing Vaccines Research

Guest: Dr. Allison McGeer

CH: After months of mixed messaging, a growing number of Canadian jurisdictions are pausing or limiting their use of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Some say they'll avoid giving new, first doses. Some are pivoting away from using the shot for second-dose boosters. And partially-vaccinated residents in all regions have questions about whether that means they'll be allowed to mix vaccines for the first and second booster shots. Now, new research published this evening in the Lancet gives some indication of what that might look like.

CO: Dr. McGeer, what were the authors of this new letter in the Lancet? What were they looking at exactly?

DR. ALLISON MCGEER: So this is a study in the U.K. asking primarily and most importantly, whether the immune response to mixed vaccines is the same or better or worse than the immune response to two vaccines of the same dose? But they've just started the study. And so what they're reporting here is the immediate adverse events, so the things that you can sometimes get after vaccines like sore arm and swollen glands and headache and fever to see if there were differences when they mixed vaccines.

CO: Right. And so they weren't looking at whether... how effective it would be to mix these vaccines. But just what sort of immediate reaction your body might have to having a mix of the vaccines, is that right?

AM: That's right. They... they... the study is actually looking at the immune response. But I think everybody's so interested in knowing what's going on with this mixing that they... they, you know, you you can... you can get the side effects of the vaccine immediately after vaccination, but you have to wait to do the testing for immunogenicity. So they released the initial findings first. And then, in a few weeks, hopefully, the... the studies of immune response will be out.

CO: And so and so we will find out at some point in the future whether or not it's actually effective for preventing getting bad cases of COVID. We know one dose is pretty good, but we don't know what two doses of two different vaccines would actually produce, right?

AM: No, we don’t for sure. We... it's... it's almost for sure that two doses of different vaccines will be fine and produce a good, solid immune response. It's possible that mixing doses might actually be better than two doses of the same vaccine. It's... it's unlikely that it's going to be worse.

CO: OK, how would it be better?

AM: Well, you... you do get a somewhat different response in terms, particularly of your cellular immune response to viral vector vaccines as compared to mRNA vaccines. And it's theoretically possible that if you get a viral vector vaccine first, that you'll actually get a better boost with the mRNA vaccine than you would if it's the same vaccine you're using. That's hypothetical at the moment, OK? But not impossible.

CO: And just to clarify, so viral vector vaccine is something like AstraZeneca, which many people have had, and the Pfizer and Modernas are mRNA vaccines?

AM: Yes, that's right.

CO: What were the side effects that people got or are getting from the mixing of the doses as they... according to the Lancet study?

AM: Well, if you look at it, you know, the... the interesting thing about these vaccines is that the AstraZeneca vaccine, you get more of a response to with the first dose. And the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, you get more of the side effects after the second dose. So when you mix them, you end up with it looks like a little bit of the worst of both worlds. Still really important to remember. But this is a minority of people. The majority of people who get these vaccines don't have any significant side effects other than sore arm. But still, it's a significant minority. What we're probably talking about here is a first dose of AstraZeneca, followed by a second dose of an mRNA vaccine. And that combination in this study looked just a touch worse than the adverse events you get with the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine.

CO: And what kind of symptoms are we talking about here? What kind of reaction?

AM: People just feel unwell for a day or two. Some, you know, feverish, tired, achy. You just don't feel well for a day or two.

CO: All of this is backdrop to how confused people are, if not even panicked, about what's going to happen now that they... if they have taken in AstraZeneca vaccine, will they get a second one? Will they have to go and get a Pfizer or Moderna? All kinds of concerns. What... what would you say to those people?

AM: I think, you know, we knew when we started vaccinating people, you know, we knew when vaccines came that it was going to be a bumpy road, right? In this setting, however, I... first of all, people who got the AstraZeneca vaccine made absolutely the right decision at the time. The issue now is we're almost certainly going to give people an mRNA vaccine for their second dose if they got AstraZeneca first. But there's an almost before that certainty because we're going to have data from this study, for instance, about what the immune response to vaccines look like. And the only thing worse than not telling you now what the plan is for your second dose is giving you the best advice we have at the moment and then having to change it three weeks from now when we get more data. But there's going to be more data coming. And much of that data is going to be available before people are booked for their second dose.

CO: Right.

AM: So it... it... I know it requires the patience of Job, but it will get fixed.

CO: Well, I guess that more than patients, it is distressing for people when they... the possibility of getting seriously sick and maybe even dying of Covid is larger than the chances of getting one of these very, very rare blood clots. And so what do you say to people who say, well, I want a vaccine. If all I can get is AstraZeneca, or my second dose is to be AstraZeneca, and it's available, then why can't I make that decision myself?

AM: So… so the reason the recommendation has changed is because the risk of COVID is declining almost everywhere in the country except Alberta and Manitoba. So as the risk of COVID goes down, then the balance changes. We're getting more mRNA vaccines. So the time you'd have to wait is shorter than it used to be. And our appreciation for the... the risks associated with these blood clots has changed in two ways. First of all, it's clear that the original estimates from around the world of how frequent these blood clots were was a low estimate. And it's also true that it is quite difficult to make the diagnosis. And so the consequences of having those blood clots are more than we were hoping they were going to be. So that balance has now changed sufficiently far in Ontario that it no longer makes sense for people to be getting an AstraZeneca vaccine.

CO: All right. We'll leave it there. Dr. McGeer, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

AM: Pleasure to talk to you, Carol. Take care.

CO: Bye-bye.

CH: Dr. Allison McGeer is a microbiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, and a Professor of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology at the University of Toronto. That's where we reached her.

[music: ambient]

Theodore Fontaine Obit

CH: Theodore Fontaine spent his whole life trying to get back to the person he was before the age of seven. That's when he was stolen from his home, and sent to a government-run residential school in Manitoba. He spent the next 12 years there -- and experienced horrific abuses. He wrote about that time in his memoir "Broken Circle: The Dark Legacy of Indian Residential Schools." And Mr. Fontaine spent the rest of his life healing, and helping others heal, from that dark legacy. The highly respected chief of Sagkeeng First Nation has died. He was 79. The week that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report was released in 2015, Theodore Fontaine spoke with CBC Winnipeg about his journey -- and his hopes for the future.

SOUNDCLIP

THEODORE FONTAINE: I want to be as happy as I was and how loving I was and non-judgemental. I… [scoff] I was pure. And through my years of… actually, of having gone... gone through my incarceration period of almost 12 years, it has damaged me a lot. And I'm lucky that I'm alive. And the Creator has allowed me to be alive, to be able to correct and address what happened to me was that was bad.

MARCY MARKUSA: Your incarceration period.

TF: Oh my... I wasn't in jail. [chuckling]

MM: Yeah.

TF: I was… incarceration, I mean by my, you know, being locked up in residential school.

MM: Is that what you call it?

TF: Well, that's how I feel it was, yeah.

MM: Yeah.

TF: You know, I lost my mom and dad, my whole family.

MM: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission started its public work in 2010. So how do you think it's done now in the past five years when you look at the work that it's... it's attempted to achieve?

TF: Well, the attempts it... it had on helping people heal, I think, has been tremendous. It has helped, I believe, bring back... bring back the attributes we had as Indian people. One of the biggest things I had when in my early part after leaving residential school was revenge. I wanted to wring that neck of that perpetrator.

MM: So you knew you knew right away what was taken? What was lost?

TF: Exactly. But what TRC has done is allowed us to realize that it wasn't just us. You know, the system was not only directed at me to get rid of my Indianness. It was all our people. It took a while. You could see it developing into a process that... that had hope. And it still has a lot of hope. And I'm thinking that this is not enough. I've done over 300 presentations across Canada based on, you know, not just what happened to me physically and sexually and mentally and spiritually, but what it tried to do and what it did to us as a people.

MM: How much do you fear that you'll never be able to return to being Theodore, the seven-year-old boy who has joys and freedoms of mind that were stripped from you?

TF: [clears throat] Oh, I'm getting there. I think I… [scoff] before I leave Moth Earth, I'm going to be that little guy.

CH: That was Theodore Fontaine speaking with Marcy Markusa, host of "Information Radio" in Winnipeg. The former chief of Sagkeeng First Nation has died. He was 79.

[music: horns!!!]

Ideas promo

CH: Anton Chekhov's play "The Seagull" explores the dreams and illusions of a family, their friends. and their lovers, gathered on an estate in Russia in 1895. And, like any great work of art, it still speaks to us today. Coming up on "Ideas", a documentary about the Soulpepper Theatre audio production of "The Seagull". Here's director Daniel Brooks.

SOUNDCLIP

DANIEL BROOKS: Checkoff was as tender and compassionate a writer as has ever... has put pen to paper, I think. But detached in a way in his observation of what we do to make ourselves miserable. And what was, I think, so wonderful about Chekhov is that I think one of his only beliefs was that belief is deleterious to a good life. And what that belief, I think, liberated him to was being able to feel in his playwriting the relationship between human beings and how they were affected by the world in which they lived. So that could be anywhere between the environment of a family and how that family was impacted by social changes that were ongoing in Russia. Of course, hugely transitional time in Russia. Nobody knew where the society was going. And he wrote of... often of a class that was under a lot of pressure, was changing radically.

CH: Director Daniel Brooks, talking about Anton Chekhov's play "The Seagull". A documentary about the play and his production is coming up on "Ideas", after "As It Happens".

[music: folk]

Calgary Mayor's Voting List

Guest: Jyoti Gondek

CH: If he shouldn't get it, no one should. That's the argument a mayoral candidate in Calgary made this week, about the voters list. It's information that candidates use for campaigning -- and it includes home addresses, full names, phone numbers, and birth dates. That information might be useful to more than a dozen mayoral hopefuls in that city this year, including Jyoti Gondek, a Calgary city councillor running to replace Mayor Naheed Nenshi. But she's worried one of her fellow candidates, Kevin J. Johnston, will abuse that list -- and threaten voters at their homes, or worse. We reached Councillor Jyoti Gondek in Calgary.

CO: Ms. Gondek, can you just lay out the case that you're making as to why none of the candidates for mayor in Calgary should get access to this voters list?

JOYTI GONDEK: Well, we've got an incredibly difficult situation before us where a candidate has uttered threats against Alberta Health Services employees, and that situation becomes compounded by knowing that this individual could have access to a voter's list that could have names and addresses of Calgarians on it. So it's worrisome, and we're looking into how we can limit the spread of that information, either to that individual or to all candidates.

CO: Can you give us a sense of what this candidate, mayoral candidate Kevin J. Johnston, is saying that has made people quite concerned?

JG: Well, I have received personal messages from individuals who are trying to speak up on matters of anti-racism, matters of Black Lives Matter, and they have personally been targeted by this individual. They're scared for their lives, frankly.

CO: On the issue of Alberta Health Services employees, can you give us a sense of what the... the largest concern is there?

JG: When it comes to Alberta Health Services, this individual feels that they're violating the freedom of Calgarians. And therefore, I believe the threats that he uttered included arming himself and going to their homes. He talked about handcuffing them and taking their property.

CO: There’s one quote I'll give, “I'm coming for you all. The day I'm mayor in Calgary, I'll arm myself and come right to your doors. And I will come to get you because you're not going to get away with any of this.

JG: Yes, that's disturbing, to say the least.

CO: He is... he has been at rallies. He is against all COVID restrictions. He calls COVID a hoax, against masks. And so who is he targeting in that particular campaign?

JG: I'm not exactly sure what this individual is hoping to accomplish. He seems to be against many things. My job at the moment as a sitting member of council is to ensure the safety of Calgarians and that's what's at risk here. So that's what I'm focussed on. I don't tend to follow him on any of his platforms.

CO: The only way to have him not have access to the voters list is for none of you to have it. Is that what you're saying?

JG: when it comes to the jurisdiction of the city, that's the only thing we could do, is withhold the list of electors from everyone so that he doesn't get it. It is possible for the province to intervene, although it's quite fuzzy in the local authority’s Election Act how much discretion the minister has to disqualify a candidate. So this is a very tricky situation.

CO: And how useful... how important are those... those... those voters lists for a candidate like yourself?

JG: Well, it depends on the candidate and how they use it. But I know that for myself, when I consider that the population of Calgary is one-point-three-million and only 800-thousand of those folks are actual voters, by the time we get that list with only four weeks to go, it’s very useful to make sure that I have reached out to those households that are going to be voting. For me, it's about building a relationship with the voters in Calgary, and I respect the information that's shared with me, and I treat it with a great deal of confidentiality.

CO: You are already a city councillor and I'm wondering if that's not an advantage you might have over other of the 14-plus candidates for mayor in Calgary who perhaps are less well-known, who have less connections with their... with constituents. Is this something that would be of detriment to them, even larger... larger detriment to them than to you?

JG: The argument has been made that if we withhold the list of electors, it gives an advantage to incumbents who will have their old lists. Now, there's no incumbent in the mayor's position, obviously, but we would have to think about that on a ward basis. So, yes, we have to make sure we're treating everyone with fairness.

CO: This man, Kevin Johnston, he is facing an assault charge in British Columbia because he's allegedly punched a grocery store employee after he was asked to wear a mask. He has hate crime charges in Ontario that are still pending. He was told by a judge during a 2019 libel suit that his behaviour was, quote, “loathsome example of hate speech at its worst, targeting people solely because of their religion.” And he has said that he was... that... that he has made numerous posts attempting to get the addresses of these employees with threats to show up at their homes armed. Isn't that... isn’t that altogether enough to question whether this person should be running, whether he should have access to this? I mean, is there any recourse to... to challenge his candidacy?

JG: I believe the only way to challenge candidacy of an individual like this would lie with the ministry, either the minister of municipal affairs, to deem that this person is unfit to run, or perhaps intervention by the solicitor general to say that this person is unfit to run. But, unfortunately, the municipality simply does not have that power. We are incredibly dependent upon our provincial government partners to help us make this a safe election for Calgarians.

CO: And what have you heard from say… let’s say from Municipal Affairs Minister Ric McIver about that? He has the authority to intervene. Any noises from that office as to how they might proceed with this?

JG: I can only assume that they are weighing the situation very carefully and digging deeper into it. It would be a precedent-setting decision. So I imagine they're taking it very seriously. But I have not heard what's happening. I have seen the leader of the opposition call for action to be taken, but I don't know what that's going to look like.

CO: Is it possible just to you think maybe just ignore this, not give him oxygen or attention because this is going to end with the election?

JG: Well, I do my best to not give oxygen to candidates that probably shouldn't be running. However, the democratic process does allow them to run. For me to ignore the threats to the lives of Calgarians would be incredibly irresponsible. So it's not my goal to raise the profile of such a candidate, but it's absolutely my obligation to take care of the citizens of this city.

CO: All right. We'll leave it there. Ms. Gondek, thank you.

JG: Thank you for having me.

CH: Jyoti Gondek is a Calgary city councillor running to be mayor. We reached her in Calgary.

[music: Spanish guitar]

BoJo Hugs

CH: If there's one quality that leaps to mind when you think of UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, it's caution. Every move he makes is carefully, even exhaustively, considered. It's why Brexit has gone so smoothly. Why Britain was so admired in the early days of the pandemic. Why his personal life is so blissfully uncomplicated. And now, it's why Prime Minister Johnson is set to mindfully embrace the "cautious hug". The UK is doing pretty OK in terms of COVID-19 at the moment. By next week the British will be able to go to a movie theatre or a pub or have people over for some limited "indoor household mixing". And they will yearn to embrace each other. But Mr. Johnson is there to prudently remind those humans now is not the time to go the whole hug. And there is no better example of that good advice than the prime minister himself. As he put it at a news conference yesterday, quote, "Whoever I hug, I can assure you, it will be done with caution and restraint." Will it involve a screening form and temperature check? A vaccine passport? Maybe just one of those sideways half-hugs? I don't know. But I do know, the whole thing is touching. Cautiously touching -- in the hands of a master of measured judgement, who handles everything, and everyone, with the greatest of squeeze.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

May 12, 2021 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This