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 January 11, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

CAROL OFF: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

JD: Tonight:

CO: Smug advisory. After her story went around the world, Saudi exile Rahaf al-Qunun is coming to Canada. But our former ambassador to Saudi Arabia warns the feds that political showboating could make things worse for her.

JD: Outside chance. After a judge in Myanmar denies their appeal, there is scant hope left for two Reuters journalists imprisoned after exposing a massacre.

CO: He agrees that the U.S. President's plan is ill-defined. But it's not that an Arizona sheriff doesn't believe a border barrier is needed — he just thinks everyone misunderstands what Mr. Trump means by "wall".

JD: A gay rhymer, and a straight talker. Yesterday, rapper Kevin Fret became the 22nd person murdered in Puerto Rico since the year began. And his fans in the LGBTQ community are mourning a fearless artist and advocate.

CO: He's all heart — but the liver's a problem. A 90-year-old cyclist is stripped of a medal after testing positive for doping. But the likely culprit is the organ meat he ate before the race.

JD: And...their bust bet. Scientists now believe the giant heads on Easter Island are placed to indicate sources of fresh water — which means, for thirsty islanders, the answer was set in stone.

JD: "As It Happens", the Friday edition. Radio that guesses they kept their heads above water.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Rahaf al-Qunun: former ambassador, border sheriff, Cyclist stripped of medal.

Rahaf al-Qunun: former ambassador

Guest: Dennis Horak

JD: Rahaf al-Qunun is coming to Canada. It's the latest update in a remarkable journey for the 18-year-old Saudi woman. Her story blew up on social media last weekend — when she told the world she had fled her family, escaped to Thailand, and was seeking asylum in a country that would take her in. And while there were early discussions about Australia, in the end, it was Canada that agreed. Here's what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told reporters today.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Canada has been unequivocal that we will always stand up for human rights and women's rights around the world. This is part of a long tradition of Canada engaging constructively and positively in the world and working with our partners, allies, and with the United Nations. And when the United Nations made a request of us that we grant Ms. al-Qunun asylum, we accepted it.

JD: Dennis Horak was Canada's Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, until the Kingdom expelled him last summer and declared him persona non grata. We reached Ambassador Horak in Toronto.

C: Ambassador Horak, you know this has been an extraordinary five days for this Saudi teenager as she pleaded for some place of refuge in the world. Why do you think Canada stepped up?

DENIS HORAK: I think we stepped up because it was the right thing to do. The story it has some credibility to it I think. I mean certainly it wouldn't be unheard of the situation that she was facing. She went through the UNHCR — that's the right thing to do. And Canada stepped up, and I think it was the right thing to do.

CO: You would know better than the most that we don't have very good relations right now with Saudi Arabia. Do you think there was something to the fact that well Canada doesn't have anything to lose when it comes to diplomatic relations with the Saudis?

DH: We still have something loose — they could break off diplomatic relations with us.

But no, I think it was just it's consistent with what Canada does. It’s consistent with the government's position on women and human rights. And so I think that was probably the main motivator.

CO: Why do you think other countries — particularly Australia — did not accept her?

DH: Well, I'm not sure if they didn't accept her or they dragged their feet? But they do have a relationship that is stronger than ours, and they may have had concerns that there would be some blowback. Everyone saw what happened to us this summer with a tweet.

CO: The tweet you mentioned, of course, it deals with human rights, doesn't it? It was saying that Canada's gravely concerned about the additional arrests of civil society and women's rights activists in Saudi Arabia. That's the position Canada has taken with Saudi Arabia. Again, taking this woman in I guess is a continuation of that. What does that do to our relationship with Saudi Arabia?

DH: It's not going to help for sure. As you mentioned, we're in a not a very good place with our relationship with Saudi Arabia at the moment. This will be seen as probably just another example of our interference in Saudis internal affairs. But it will also I think what will what will be part of the Saudi narrative — and this may resonate across a broad spectrum in Saudi Arabia — is that we're interfering in a family affair. So it's not going to have a positive impact, but we shouldn't let it deter us. What will also I think affect or sort of assess our impacted relationship is how she is received here? Whether this becomes a media and political circus on her arrival or when she's here? But it will be how much we are seen to be — quote/unquote — milking this for whatever political or diplomatic leverage or advantage that we have. And I think that will somehow also condition the Saudi response.

CO: So in that terms of how we might be milking this, what are you watching for?

DH: There will be obviously will be media attention when she arrives. And the question is how much we politically associate with this? How much of a political football she becomes. If we have the prime minister greeting her, and the minister greeting her, and press conferences and all of that. And if she down the road if she decides that you know that she would like to become the poster child for guardianship laws in Saudi Arabia and the need for human rights changes, that's up to her. But I don't think it would be in her interests for us to be sort of playing that game with her at this point.

CO: But it’s also we know the United Nations the UNHCR has a responsibility here doesn't it? Because often when they place high risk people, who are high-profile, who have the kinds of threats that we know that she is facing that they often put those people someplace where they don't tell everybody, where they try to protect where they are. Do you think that UNHCR has some responsibility to protect her here?

DH: I'm really not sure. I think they would sort of hand them over to Canada, and then we have refugee and asylum seeker relocation services here in Canada. She would perhaps get some advice and perhaps some other organizations would take her under their wing. But yes, I mean there are some threats against her I gather on the Internet. And whether those are other idle threats or not it remains to be seen.

CO: The network of support women who have been helping her say that they're not only worried about her because her father is around and followed her over to Thailand, and he's a high-ranking government official trying to make contact with her, but because they are also mentioned that she renounced Islam, which is a crime punishable by death in Saudi Arabia. How can she be protected because, according to many, she has violated the laws of Saudi Arabia?

DH: No, that's right. That's right. And we'll have offended a number of very sort of extremist elements if you will that are even here in Canada. So it she's in a risky situation — particularly because of the profile. Which is why I think it's even doubly important that we not try and use her as a poster child. Try not to plausibly exploit her as governments or as Canadian organizations. I think the best thing for her, as I said earlier, I think it's in her it's in her best interest to be able to sort of escape the limelight as quickly as possible, settled in, and then if down the road, she decides she wants to become a political activist that's her choice that she can make taking into account all of the various security considerations that might be involved at that time. But it's best that she come here, she settles in, and gets out of the spotlight both for her own mental health likely and also for her security.

CO: Is it possible that her father could come here?

DH: I would be surprised if he would get a visa to come here, to be perfectly honest. But you never know. I think because of security concerns and others that getting a visa might be challenging.

And how will the Saudi officials here in the embassy will they be watching her closely?

DH: Their narrative insofar as they think anything will be they will try and make this a consular case issue. They will say listen, we have consular rights to access this woman. The narrative may be that Canada's preventing Saudi Arabia from exercising these consular rights and all of those sorts of things. Well, that's sort of a twist of the principle. I mean yes, you know they have consular rights to access their citizens who are in detention, assuming that individual wants to meet with consular officials. It's down to the individual. So if she doesn't want to see them, she doesn't have to see them. And she won't be in detention anyway I wouldn't think at least not for very long.

CO: And why would they want to have access to her?

DH: To be able to relay lists of what you’re doing. You know your father loves you. Your brother loves you. You want to go back it's safe. Why are you doing this? All of those sorts of things.

CO: Just finally on the Canadian question, what will you be watching in the next couple of days over the weekend as she arrives? If you see this press conference as you've described it. If you see her sitting with the prime minister or the minister having this very thing that you're describing, what would you think?

DH: If she's trotted out for a press conference and then a meeting with the prime minister,

I'd be disappointed. Because, as I said, I don't think that's in her best interest. I don’t think either from a mental health perspective or from a security perspective. And I think the best thing to do is to for her is to let her quietly integrate herself into Canadian life. What we've done accepting her is a good thing. Let it speak for itself.

CO: Ambassador Horak, I really appreciate your insights. Thank you.

DH: You're welcome.

JD: Dennis Horak is Canada's former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. We reached Ambassador Horak in Toronto. We have more on the story of Rahaf al-Qunun on the "As It Happens" website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

Ottawa bus crash

JD: In Ottawa, this afternoon, a double-decker transit bus plowed into an outdoor commuter shelter. And when you see the pictures, it is hard to tell what you're looking at. The bus and the shelter look like they are fused together. As we go to air, emergency crews are still on the scene. At least 17 people have been rushed to hospital; many in critical condition. Bilal Gill was on the bus. He spoke to the CBC’s Tom Perry at the scene of the crash.

SOUNDCLIP

BILAL GILL: Yeah, I was in the back on the back on the top, so I didn't really get to see much. The bus was packed. Basically what happened was the bus just started swerving. I guess it hit the curb or hit something, started swerving, and then the driver couldn't get control back, and then it just the Westboro shelter thing. It just crashed right into it. Yeah, and then a lot of people started screaming. The people at the front that got pinned I guess you know under their seats and stuff. Yeah, it was kind of chaos at first and then slowly as people started to get you know get a grip, then called the police, police came pretty fast, and got everything under situation. We kind of just had to wait. And so we sat in the bus for a while until they broke the windows and got us out. And, in the end, we were just kind of just sitting waiting down there well and the police and firemen took care of everything.

TOM PERRY: Did you see Was anybody hurt, Was anybody killed, What did you see?

BG: I Didn't really see much because, again, I was like way at the back. So there was a lot of people who were fine in front of me. But there were definitely people pinned, and there was a bit of blood on the floor. I saw after there were a few people being carried away on stretchers. There were people who were waiting down in the shelter who just had mostly minor injuries. But I guess the people with major injuries went into the ambulance right away.

JD: That was bus passenger Bilal Gill, speaking to the CBC’s Tom Parry at the scene of the rush hour bus crash in Ottawa. For updates on this story, go to: www.cbcnews.ca.

[Music: Horns]

Border sheriff

Guest: Mark Napier

JD: U.S. President Donald Trump won't back down from his border wall. Hundreds of thousands of federal workers missed their paycheque today, as the longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history continues. And the president says he is not ruling out declaring a national emergency to get his long-promised barrier. Mark Napier is the sheriff of Pima County, Arizona, which is on the U.S.-Mexico border. Two years ago, Sheriff opposed Mr. Trump's border security efforts. He's since had a change of heart. We reached Sheriff Napier in Tucson, Arizona.

CO: Sheriff Napier, two years ago, you called President Trump's proposed border wall a medieval solution to a modern problem. So what's changed for you?

MARK NAPIER: Well, two years, ago what the president was saying is that there would be a quote “big, beautiful wall on the border”. Well, I think those of us that are on the border understand that the term the wall is not equal to border security, and what we want is border security. It's also impractical logistically and for a good number of reasons to assume that there will be a wall across all almost 2,000 linear miles of our international border. But that has evolved over the last two years, and I don't believe that that's what the president's referring to anymore.

CO: Well, you heard his primetime speech from the Oval Office on Tuesday night. And I guess that's what kind of change things for you. He described the situation at the border as being a humanitarian and security crisis. Would you agree with him?

MN: One hundred per cent and unequivocally I agree. And this is not a new crisis. This, despite contention, is not a manufactured crisis. I've been in this area for 31 years. For all of that time, my deputies have been recovering bodies in the deserts of my county. For the entirety of that time, we've had problems with the illegal drug trade, problems with the victimization of migrants coming across the desert areas — both criminal victimization and environmental hazards that they face. So this is not new by any stretch of the imagination. So the president was spot on. I was very glad when he led with the humanitarian issue because that's something near and dear to my heart.

CO: But the speech continues in the same way that President Trump has spoken in the past, describing the immigrants crossing the border as being those who are drug dealers, who are criminals, who are killing Americans in large numbers, who are crossing in large numbers illegally, who are bringing drugs over the border, et cetera. Numbers of your media have gone through the entire speech and shown that most of this information is not true. What you're describing is you agree with him on the humanitarian thing. What do you say to him about his describing people crossing the border as drug dealers, rapists, and murderers?

MN: You have to bifurcating those things. There are people coming here for a better life. And much like you and I might make a similar decision faced with similar life circumstance. But to deny that transnational crime organizations exploit the lack of security on our southern border as a way to come into this country to further other criminal enterprise to deny that that's a factor is intellectually dishonest. And I know because I'm here.

CO: But what the Democrats are proposing they don't dispute that this is an issue that there should be better border security that all these things are a problem. They're offering one-point-three billion for border security. They agree that the things have to be strengthened in the area of this kind of enforcement. Where they dispute the value is building a wall or a fence — whatever you want to call it — because of how much it costs. And because they say it's not the kind of symbol that the United States should be sending out to the world. That it's not worth the money I guess that's their bottom line. What do you say to that?

MN: I would say that I can see that border clearer from my office than you can from Washington, D.C. to these political leaders who've never been on the border, have not lived the public safety throughout behind this, or seen a humanitarian crisis associated with this firsthand not reading about it in a briefing paper. In places physical barriers will always be the best tool for stopping unauthorized access of criminals and others into this country. That will always be a part of the equation for full border security. In other places because of topography, land use, watersheds, other things, there will never be physical barriers. So we need technology and human resources there. In most places we need all of those things. It is an undeniable public safety threat. It is an undeniable human rights and humanitarian crisis. And it is also a national security concern because we don't know who is coming through the border. And we know that there are hostile nations with bad actors that wish us harm. So why don't we as political leaders without respect of partisan ideology commit ourselves to completely securing our southern border? And let's move forward. Let's not argue about the semantics of what a wall is.

CO: I guess it's not the semantics of the wall it's the price tag of the wall that they think is not worth it. Then you're describing bad agents getting into the country, most of whom either fly into the country or are already in the country. And so I guess again, how much crime, how many of these bad players could you prevent coming in the country with a wall, when for the most part terrorists who are apprehended have actually come in through airports?

MN: You're right, the ones that we apprehend come through airports because we have security at the airports. We know who is on an airplane. What we don't know — and we cannot know — is who is walking across the One hundred and twenty five miles of the international border that's in my county when there are no barriers there. The term the wall has become a lightning rod. I'm not suggesting that a wall is the silver bullet that fixes everything. Anybody who says that is silly.

CO: So now you've changed your thinking, you do believe that there's a place for this wall or barrier — whatever you want to call it. Do you think it's important enough that you're willing to see the government shut down for a long period of time?

MN: Well, first, I would say that I always thought that physical barriers made sense. What I never supported was the idea that there would be that the entire 2,000 miles of international border, and that would be a 30-foot high concrete wall that somehow we would build and simply walk away from a declared victory. That is a flawed thought. I've never thought for one moment that physical barriers in certain areas don't make sense. Whether or not the federal government remains open or closed is a political decision. What I think we should do is have people of both political stripes lay down the rhetoric, lay down the partisan ideology, and commit to what we sent you to Washington, D.C. to do. And that is to solve difficult problems. That's why you get elected. Let's get that done.

CO: All right, we will leave it there. Sheriff Napier, thank you for speaking with us.

MN: Thank you. It's been a pleasure. Have a great day.

CO: Bye bye.

JD: Mark Napier is the sheriff of Pima County, Arizona. We reached him in Tucson.

[Music: Ambient]

Cyclist striped of medal

Guest: Tim Cusik

JD: "Cyclist busted for doping, stripped of world record." You probably have a mental picture of that disgraced athlete right now. It's probably not a mental picture of a 90-year-old man. But that's who this story is about. Last week, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency stripped American cyclist Carl Grove of his gold medal for testing positive for steroids. Headlines painted him as a drug offender — and made his story seem all the more shocking because of his age. But a lot of that coverage either left out completely or buried one important detail from the anti-doping agency: that the steroid likely came from eating calf's liver for dinner. Tim Cusik is Mr. Grove’s former coach, and a longtime friend. We reached Mr. Cusik in York, Pennsylvania.

CO: Tim, what did you think when you heard that the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency was punishing your friend Mr. Grove for doping?

TIM CUSIK: Well obviously it's always as a coach right you have two sides to that response. One is it hurts. Karl is an amazing person, who really has been a beacon for the senior community, and what you can do if you just kind of take care of your body and exercise and stay active. And he's been a great role model for that. And during that time frame, you know I've known him as a friend and a family friend now for 15 years-10 years, and you don't want to see somebody who's trying to accomplish something great go through that type of an emotion, go through that type of pain.

CO: What are you talking about? I mean he's 90 years old, and, as you say, he's this role model. He's worked so hard for the medals and recognition of his accomplishments, and then this. What were his emotions? What did he tell you about it?

TC: Well, he was crushed because he wanted to be that example, right? I mean Carl is an amazing athlete. He's won a ton of things. So the first response was he was crushed. You know it was really hard for him to think about it in that way. But the other side is right. I think it's important to tell both sides of the story is he also knew he was responsible, right? Here's what you have to think this is Carl Grove a cheater? No, not at all. You know and the end investigation I think plays that out very well of what happened. But if we were going to have a sport that has appropriate anti-doping control, right? What I teach to all my athletes, including preaching to Carl for ten-plus years is you are responsible for what goes into your body. And athletes have to be more and more careful than that than ever before. Now, do we need some adjustment to those rules? Yes, but the reality is you know Carl’s response was one of heartbreak, but he also knew right from the beginning that that was his responsibility as a practicing athlete. He was responsible for what went in his body, and he knew that.

CO: So what happened? Let’s go back to the race in July? First of all, what was he in? What was the competition he was competing in?

TC: Well, he was at the U.S. nationals, which is on the track — it’s a mixed series of different events. It was a two-day event. He was looking to break the world best or the world records in a couple of different events. On day one, he had a good day. You know he was able to accomplish some of his goals, and I think he broke the 500-metre record and the 200-metre record that day. But the reality is when you break a record it doesn't matter right. The policy of USADA and of WADA is when you set a world record you have to have your bike inspected. That's rule number one on the track. And rule number two is you have to be drug tested. So since he set that world record, it was the fact that he had set the world record that triggered the drug test response.

CO: And they found anabolic steroids in his system, is that right?

TC: No, not the first day. Day one, right, he sets records. He does a great job. He drug tests. He goes out and he went out with a small group of his support team and they went to a local diner, and he had calf liver. And liver’s probably one how in today's world and the way our food chains work is one of the worst things you could eat as far as contaminants and other factors. It's literally the way you know anybody's body scrubs all that stuff out of the system. And that was his big celebration dinner was calves liver. So then he wakes up the next morning on the 11^th, sets the pursuit record, then therefore that triggers his bike has to be tested again, and he has to be drug tested again. And he fails that one for a trace amount of anabolic steroid would be the simplest way. It was actually not quite the anabolic steroid itself, but that's the simplest way to think about it.

CO: I just want to ask you we’ll leave that beside for now because it's been resolved and ask you we weren't able to talk to him. He's tired of talking to the media since all this happened, so he declined. But what's his secret? I mean he is so fit. He's so healthy. He's so strong. What does he tell people to do?

TC: You know, it's funny if you ask him, he never wants to grow old. I mean his secret is right one, he's got excellent genes and longevity. If you've been reading this story you know that's part of it. When he found one his first world title at 85, the first person he called was his mother, who at the time I think was 103 or 104. So you know he's got the genes. Two, you know we tend to look at seniors competing today and we think about what they're doing right now. The better answer to some degree is what's he been doing all his life. You know and I think that's a message that people miss in this. He is all his life has taking care of his body. He's stayed active. He's exercised. And as he's gotten older, he's found that to be more important where he literally works hard not to slow down. So he's training under you know a certain regimented schedule. He's challenging himself to new goals. So one of the things we do with Carl in working with him athletically is where are we setting goals kind of like every year or every other year like what are you going to do next, Carl? What's the next big thing? And his 90-year-old goal was to break all those track world records, and to actually set the hour record on the track. So that was very motivational for him coming into this year, you know? And that's kind of what keeps him going. It's the combination that he stays focused on a goal when achieving something, and then he sticks with the regime of taking care of himself and exercising and living healthy and eating healthy in general — even though the story maybe doesn't sound like he's eating healthy. He does. You know and that's what he's doing to kind of fend off the effects of aging.

CO: And he looks terrific. I mean if there's anything else that’s kind of message to people or as he says that there’s so many people in your country and in mind do who are inactive and they give up so early. His motto is do not sit down.

TC: Absolutely. And he's totally that way too. He's a ball of energy if you talk to him, you know? He is that way. Everything is going forward with Carl. He's always moving forward.

CO: What a guy. You're lucky to know him, Tim.

TC: Yeah, absolutely. He's a great man.

CO: Take care. Bye-bye.

TC: Thanks now.

JD: Tim Cusik is a friend, and a coach of American cyclist Carl Grove. We reached Mr. Cusik in York, Pennsylvania. And to learn more about Mr. Carl Grove, check out our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Indie rock]

Part two: Myanmar Reuters journalists, Easter Island study

Myanmar Reuters journalists

Guest: Reg Chua

JD: They got seven years in prison for doing their jobs. And today, a judge in Myanmar said that was a quote, "suitable punishment." Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo are journalists with Reuters. The two had embarrassed the regime by documenting the massacre of ten Rohingya Muslims. But they'd hoped the appeals court would overturn their conviction for allegedly breaking a state secrets law. It did not. Reg Chua is the Chief Operating Officer for Reuters Editorial. We reached him in New York.

CO: Mr. Chua, what is the next move here for these two Reuters journalists now that they've lost this appeal?

REG CHUA: Well, there's another possible appeal we can have to the Supreme Court. We are evaluating our options, obviously. And we haven't made any decision yet. There's also obviously the possibility of a pardon by the government. And the families have certainly written to the government asking for a pardon. You know, we hope that the government would look upon that favourably as well.

CO: I just want to remind people this story, what they were investigating, the story that they hadn’t published it yet when they were arrested. It was published afterwards. Just a really quite extraordinary investigation by the two journalists, and through images and through text about a massacre of these ten Muslim Rohingya men. This was the story they had done. What is it that actually landed them in prison?

RC: Well, I mean I think you have to say that you know when they were working on the story, clearly somebody didn't want them to work on that story. and I think that that was one reason they were taken in. You know it's important too to remind listeners to that that's a story that not only was documented through interviews and photographs and testimony of the people who committed the crimes. But that the Government itself admitted that that massacre did take place and that they've said that they've punished these soldiers involved. So you know there is absolutely no disagreement that what they were working on was true. That all of the facts of that story none of those facts have ever been disputed. So here we have reporters working on a story that is true. That is clearly a public interest. And yet, obviously, someone didn't want them to publish the story.

CO: They were charged with being found in possession of documents that this is something that they allege — and you allege — was a setup. Can you remind us what happened there?

RC: They were invited to meet with two police officers that they had not met before. They were invited to dinner. They showed up. They talked during the dinner. The police officers gave them some rolled up documents and said don't look at it until you leave the restaurant. As they left, they were pounced upon and arrested. And, as I say, there's been testimony from the police that this was an ordered set up of them. So it was very clearly a case where they wanted to find a crime they could pin on Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo.

CO: And, in fact, the people that they exposed in the article that you published after they had been arrested. In Myanmar, police have been arrested for that massacre.

RC: They said they've been jailed for it. Now, obviously, we have no independent verification of that. But that's what the government said. They found the guilty parties, and they sentenced them to jail.

CO: You suggested that it's possible part of the reason why these two journalists are being treated this way is to send a message to other Myanmar journalists who might want to be exposing what's happened to Rohingya and the massacres there. What do you mean by that?

RC: Clearly, there is a chilling effect when you take journalists who are simply doing their job, and digging deep, and you put them in jail. I think that clearly sends a message to a lot of other journalists who will ask themselves you know how important is any story? You know how badly do I want to take the same sorts of risks that they did? And I think it's not just really a question of reporting on the Rohingya. It's all kinds of reporting. And you know we've had journalists go to jail in Myanmar for flying a drone. We've had journalists in jail for working on other kinds of stories as well. So it isn't just the Rohingya as an issue. It's reporting and press freedom more broadly. And the exposing of information that that people in power don't want published.

CO: These two men have already been in jail for more than a year. We get glimpses of them as they make court dates, and they make impassioned pleas for their release, and also say that they were just doing their jobs. How difficult has this been for them?

RC: Well, it is obviously a very difficult and trying time. Kyaw Soe Oo has a now 3-year-old daughter who he has only seen intermittently. I’m sure you've seen the pictures and video of her, she's incredibly adorable. And you know he doesn't have much time with her, and she's just growing up. And her mother says that she is only now starting to understand what's happening to her father — which is, of course, a terrible thing. And Wa Lone has had a daughter born while he was in jail, whom he's only seen glimpses of as well. So it is a terrible time for both of them. They are holding up I think remarkably well. And I think testimony to their strength and their spirit that they can come to these court hearings. Obviously, there aren't any of those going on anymore. But when they were going on that they could come and give these impassioned pleas for press freedom. You know assert their innocence. And really call upon the rest of the press corps in Myanmar to just keep doing their jobs. I think it's extraordinary. It really kind of shows you know what kind of people they are.

CO: We will continue to follow this story closely. Mr. Chua, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

RC: Thank you very much.

JD: Reg Chua is the Chief Operating Officer for Reuters Editorial. We reached Mr. Chua in New York.

[Music: Ambient]

Jayme Closs

JD: Today, the family and friends of Jayme Closs can look forward to a reunion that they have prayed for, for nearly three months. Yesterday, the thirteen-year-old girl from Wisconsin was found in a remote wooded town, more than an hour's drive from her hometown of Barron, Wisconsin. She'd been missing since October 15th, when police discovered that someone had broken into her family home, and shot and killed both her parents. Yesterday afternoon, a woman walking her dog in the northern town of Gordon was stopped by a girl, who said she'd escaped captivity, and identified herself as Jayme Closs. She was taken to the nearby home of Kristin and Peter Kasinskas, to make a 9-1-1 call. In a twist of fate, the man now charged with Ms. Closs's kidnapping, and the murder of Ms. Closs's parents, is a former student of Kristin Kasinskas. Here are Kristin and Peter Kasinskas, speaking to WCCO 4 News about what happened when they heard a knock at the door?

SOUNDCLIP

PETER KASINSKAS: When the door opened up, and Jeannie walked in and said this is Jayme Closs, and

Call 9-1-1. I was in absolute shock. I mean to see her in front of me. As I'm cleaning fish from a fishing trip, she's in my in my kitchen. And it was kind of like a dream. It's still kind of is. Like I don't know how to wrap my head around this? And we talked to her a little bit when we called 9-1-1. Kristin… we got the name of the suspect in the colour of the car. Also we're able to get that to the police right away. And then we just made her feel safe until the police arrived.

REPORTER: Did you know right away that it was Jayme, and what did she look like?

KRISTIN KASINSKAS: Absolutely knew it was her. We've seen her picture a million times around here. She looked exactly the same as she did her picture — a little bit thinner, I would say. And then she looked really tired, and like she'd been fighting a battle for weeks.

REPORTER: Did she tell you anything about her time?

PK: She didn't say give us any details, and we didn't ask because there was so much going on in her head that we didn't want to get anything that we didn't need — just to get to the police where they needed to be at the time.

REPORTER: And you teach at the nearby school, Northwood. And this is also where the suspect went to school, Jake Patterson. What can you tell me about him?

KK: I don't really remember a whole lot about Jake. I had him as a middle school student in science class. Very quiet kid — smart. I didn't really keep up with him after he left Northwood. So I'm not really sure what happened after. But seemed like a nice kid overall.

JD: Kristin and Peter Kasinskas, talking to WCCO 4 News about the discovery of missing Wisconsin teen, Jayme Closs.

[Music: World music]

Easter Island study

Guest: Carl Lipo

JD: Since European explorers first landed on Easter Island in 1722, people have been trying to figure out the meaning behind the hundreds of towering stone Moai statues lining the island's shores. You know the ones I mean: the giant, solemn heads sprouting out of the ground. The at-least-you-have-a-nose heads. They are called Moai, and the platforms the stand on are called ahu. Now, even if they could talk, the Moai’s expressions suggest they likely wouldn't say much. But researchers still believe they've been able to figure out why those massive heads are placed where they are. Professor Carl Lipo co-authored the new study. He's an archaeologist at the State University of New York. We reached him in Binghamton.

CO: Professor, Lipo, as you know, these mysterious stone statues have provoked so many questions over the years. Why were you interested in wanting to know why they were placed where they are — where these Easter Island statues are actually erected? What was so important about that?

CARL LIPO: Well, the statues themselves and the ahu have gained a lot of attention you know in terms of their magnitude, the numbers of them. They’re are enormous in size — up to three-storey buildings; weighing as much as 70 tons, which is the weight of a 747. These ahu reflect you know an immense amount of labour moving multi-ton blocks at foundations to these. And a lot of the attention has been on you know how could they have done this? and sort of generally why would anyone do this? And what sort of struck us is that we really haven't explored why did they did it where they did it? Because we thought we could understand the context in which people were placing these monuments, we might learn a little bit about the logic about why they were doing this?

CO: Give us some of the theories that existed before you reached the conclusions you came to?

CL: A lot of this is speculation that, in fact, the statues and ahu represent just ritual activity that is really beyond sort of daily understanding. And again, from a European perspective, wou look at that and say well why would anybody do this? And it just must be a mania of making statues that we can't ever understand. No one can understand. And that certainly has been sort of the prevalent theme about them. They also have been talked about as being you know representations of chiefs, and sort of placed on the landscape as a dominant feature to honour a specific individual. But you know we really haven't generated any evidence to sort of test those hypotheses. And so part of this was to look at well what can we really learn by looking at the archaeological record that would give us an indication of one way or another why they did this where they did it?

CO: Now, so what have you concluded? What is it you think is the reason why they're placed where they are?

CL: First off, is we notice that they're not everywhere. And they're certainly not places where you would think you might put a giant monument. We don't see them on tops of hills, where they might be prominent showcasing those features. We don't see them you know systematically across the landscape at every possible spot. We see them clustered in certain areas and then not in others. And so that suggests that there's some factor — natural factor — that is driving them to a place where they were. Part of our additional study we were working on looking at the location of drinking water — where did people on this island got their drinking water? That led us to sort of think well maybe there's a connection between these two things? Drinking water sort of interestingly is notably not present on the island in the form of streams and rivers. In fact, there's just simply none of those. There's no sort of moving water on the island. There's a couple of lakes, but they're fairly remote and away from where everybody is living. So the question is well, where did you get your daily drinking water? And in our studies sort of fieldwork, we sort of mapped the location of freshwater, and found that it mostly occurred at the coast. In doing that, we realized that every place we saw massive amounts of freshwater coming out at the coast right at the interface between the land and sea, we would see a statue and an ahu. And that happened over and over, and over again. And we realized there was a pattern here. And we thought well maybe this is the constraint. This is the resource that people are marking. Not necessarily like this is the place of freshwater, but the place that the community was living around in which they made statues and ahu. That's why the positioning was there. So this paper that we've we just recently published does a statistical analysis saying is there really a relationship between freshwater? And has that best explained that position better than say farming or marine resources or other kinds of possibilities? And indeed it does. And that’s what we found.

CO: But I mean seems like an awful lot to do just to say there's water here. I mean they're huge three-storey stone statues carved… beautiful, magnificent things. Why not just put up a stick or a sign or just some other kind of like a cairn or something? Why would they go to all this trouble just to mark where the water is?

CL: It isn't really about marking where the water is. In other words, people knew where the water was. But this really tells us that the community and the community activities on a daily basis were surrounding the resources that were necessary to them, one of which was freshwater. And that the statues and the ahu that were being constructed are the centre of that community activity that are located right next to water sources. So it's telling us actually that the statues themselves were embedded into daily life of communities on the island. And that were key to their survival, rather than being some kind of extra ritual activity that was unrelated to daily life. And part of our research is showing that these ahun and these statues are connected to keeping communities cooperatives, sharing resources, and making them more successful — which really explains how people were able to live on this island for 500 years despite its relatively limited resources.

CO: You know that there are those who are disputing your conclusions. One particular, Jo Anne Val Tilburg from the University of California, she says basically that the existence of freshwater near coastal communities was well-known. It would be a minor resource she says, and highly unlikely in her view that those resources were of major importance in locating ahu during prehistory. What do you say to her?

CL: I mean is I don't know if she's been in a place where water hasn't been immediately available to you? But you know if you use a landscape and you have to walk miles and miles to get water, you're going to quickly not do that. People live — and we can see this prehistorically around the world — water matters on a daily basis. You have to either find technology to transport it, or live your life around those water source because you need it in a continuous basis. Water on an island was a particularly important resource. You can't survive without it, and you need to find those solutions to getting it on a reliable basis during times when there could be drought where water is less available. You need to figure out those solutions out. If you don't have that, you can't survive on the island.

CO: We were saying at the beginning that these statues provoke so many questions. If there's one other question you could answer what would it be?

CL: Since we sort of understand the context in which the statues were placed, the next question is well, why did some places invest so much into making even bigger ahu with up to 15 statues? And while other places were actually investing less, and there’s just one or two Moai there. That's sort of the next step to the question sort of building a bigger understanding of why did people invest so much at different places in these statues and in these ahu? So we're getting close to being able to answer those questions, which is really exciting.

CO: All right. We'll be watching for that. Professor Lipo, thank you.

CL: You're welcome. Thank you.

CO: Bye-bye

JD: Professor Carl Lipo is an archeaologist and professor at Binghamton University: State University of New York. He coauthored the Easter Island study, which was recently published in the journal P-L-O-S One. We reached Professor Lip in Binghamton, New York. And we have more on this story on our website, that being: www.cbc.ca/aih

[Music: Orchestral]

Road sign numbers

JD: When it comes to hilarious home decor, there is little more gut-bustlingly hilarious than a comical stolen road sign. "What?!" your guests gasp between fits of convulsive laughter. "There's a 'No Parking' sign above your toilet!!" Gosh, it's so much fun. The only thing is — and it's a minor issue — it's not quite as much fun for the agencies who have to produce those signs, and then replace them, over and over again. Not really the best for drivers, either, come to think of it. Or, if it's a road sign, for residents who want to be located. Or really for taxpayers. But then, I'm sure all those people understand just how humorous that "John Street" sign on your bathroom door really is. Well, the Washington State Department of Transportation has recently taken steps to prevent further theft of highway mile markers. Apparently, some very funny people are in the habit of taking two common markers: the one indicating "Mile 420" — and the one indicating "Mile 69". I'll give you a minute to stop laughing. Just imagine the merriment of such numbers on official signs, hanging in your living room! Oh, dear. And still, that sheer hilarity comes at a cost. The sign cost. And the cost of knowing how far you've driven on a Washington highway. And so the Department of Transportation has joined various other states in creating new signs. So between Miles 419 and 421, you'll see one reading..."419-point-9". Just as, earlier in your drive, you'll have passed mile-maker 68-point-9. So in Washington, you'll have to try a little harder, sign-thief comedians — because the sign-makers have got your number.

[Music: Ambient]

Part three: Puerto Rican rapper killed, Encore: Ellen Gabriel on Oka Crisis

Puerto Rican Rapper killed

Guest: Eduardo Alegria

JD: He was defiant in the face of homophobia and violence. And he hoped his fellow Puerto Ricans would see him as a role model. But yesterday, the 24-year-old rapper Kevin Fret was shot dead while riding his motorbike in San Juan.

[Soy Asi by Kevin Fret]

JD: Kevin Fret was known as the first openly gay Latin trap musician. Trap is the style of hip-hop music you're listening to now. Police say they're still investigating. But his death highlights the rising violence in Puerto Rico: his murder is the 22nd since 2019 began. For those in Puerto Rico's LGBTQ community, the loss of Kevin Fret has hit particularly hard. Eduardo Alegria is an openly gay singer-songwriter on the island. We reached him in San Juan.

CO: Eduardo, how did you learn that Kevin Fret had been killed?

EDUARDO ALEGRIA: I learned I think I mean most of us found out through Facebook.

CO: And what was it like for you to get that news?

EA: It was chilling. But at the same time, it was kind of I don't want to say that it was expected, but Kevin was so controversial and so in your face that since he appeared in the scene, my first thought was like oh my god, this kid is going to need protection. The kind of confrontation that he was doing was very hardcore. So in a way, it was kind of like painful in that sense because I felt that he as an artist was somebody that was in danger.

CO: Why did you think that? Tell us a bit about his music videos, his performances. What was it that made you worry for him?

EA: What was interesting about him was that he was kind of using the same macho language that is very typical the trap movement, right? But apart from just sort of presenting it in a very sort of a flamboyant way, I thought there was something also very powerful and kind of intense sexually where I feel like in a way he was taunting heterosexuality. Not only by presenting himself in this outlandish way that could be scandalous, but also in his open sort of a seduction of heterosexual males, which is something that is in his songs.

CO: This is not something that you often see then in Puerto Rican music or in the music scene there, is that right? I guess that's an understatement.

EA: No! oh my God, yes. I mean it's something that we've probably all done. like I'm sure like me, when I'm with all my my friends, we go into like comedic skits about being sort of like a gay trapper or a rapper. But that's the real thing. This kid was hardcore. He wasn't joking. He was out there. I mean he really put himself out there.

CO: And so what did people in the LGBTQ community feel about that?

EA: Well, first of all, I think we still don't know what happened. So I hope everybody is being kind of a hopefully cautious because we still don't understand what happened, and how do they get there?

CO: We don't know if he was targeted, right?

EA: Right. I mean we still don’t know exactly what happened there. We don't know if it was something business underworld related, or if he was a homophobic attack, a hate crime type of thing, etc, right? But I'm sure everybody's very angry and everybody's very concerned because you know we are living in very tense times. And there was something spooky about the news of Kevin’s assassination in the sense that we're all living, especially post hurricane, in a very sort of uptight way where we feel like a sense of like violence increasing and abuse, et cetera. There's a major concern with safety.

CO: And there's also been since Hurricane Maria, there's been a lot of violence, hasn't there? The FBI says there’s a crisis of violence on the island.

EA: Definitely. Things feel a little more precarious. Also, because the infrastructure is still in some ways very much damaged. This sort of increases the feeling of unease, right? The streets are still in the dark a lot. So there's a sense of also like that infrastructure being damaged sort of creates more space for crime.

CO: Are you feeling less safe yes?

EA: Yeah, oh yes. Yes. I think we probably all you know they feel like this — every group in this little bubble. We all feel a sense of nervousness, yes.

CO: Eduardo, I really appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

EA: OK. Thank you guys.

CO: Take care.

EA: Be well,

CO: Bye-bye, you too.

JD: Eduardo Alegria is a Puerto Rican singer-songwriter. We reached him in San Juan.

[Music: Sombre]

CFS baby

JD: Yesterday, police arrived at a Winnipeg hospital to help Child and Family Services workers take a newborn child from the mother, and into care. The baby's uncle live-streamed what happened on social media: the mother's cries, the family's pleas, and, finally, a uniformed officer carrying the newborn down the hall. This morning, the mother, and members of her family, were joined by Indigenous leaders at a press conference. Their message was that the apprehension didn't have to happen at all. Cora Morgan is the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs' First Nations Family Advocate.

SOUNDCLIP

CORA MORGAN: So the baby was apprehended by Winnipeg CFS. And yesterday, when we learned of this, we quickly we're trying to call the Island Lake CFS because the auntie who is prepared to take baby formerly worked at that agency. She was fully capable of providing care for the baby. She also had opened up her home to also mentor mom and baby. So we tried to communicate that with the agency yesterday. The family was very proactive. They went to Winnipeg CFS, and they asked for that arrangement. It was ignored. Yesterday, we facilitated a guardianship agreement that the mom agreed that her aunt Nancy would take the baby. And so that was a legal document to provide to Winnipeg CFS to say we have arrangements, you don't need to take this baby. And so all of those things were ignored. They came and took the baby. And you met the mother. She's well-rounded, she's smart, she's intelligent, she went for help, she was being proactive in this situation, and she thought that the agency might have concerns with her. And so she went to the agency and said well you know if you don't think that I can provide for my child or parent my child at this time, I would like for you to agree to place my baby with the great aunt. She looked for different programming for parenting for addiction for those types of things. But you know in this system, as a mother, as a father, as a grandparent, they're always deemed guilty of something. And there's no mechanism to ever prove you're innocent. Well, the ideal situation was mom going home with baby. And then auntie was prepared to bring mom and baby into her home, and help support and mentor the family. That was the ideal plan. All of these apparent changes to the system or tweaks or game changers as the province calls them. They're not even honourable. They're just window dressing. And they are not even following the things that they're claiming they're supposed to do.

JD: Cora Morgan is the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs' First Nations Family Advocate. She was speaking at a press conference in Winnipeg alongside the baby’s mother — whom we aren't naming, because her child is still in care. The CEO of Manitoba's Child and Family Services Authority has issued a statement. It says, quote, "As CEO of the General Authority, I have personally reviewed this file in detail and met with the agency staff involved, including the director of the agency. I am confident in the decisions made. We will continue to work with this family, and engage with any collateral or partner agencies the family wishes to involve." Unquote.

[Music: Sombre}

Encore: Ellen Gabriel on the Oka Crisis

JD: A group of B.C. chiefs have now agreed to let pipeline workers into their traditional territory. But five days ago, it was anyone's guess where the standoff would lead. On Monday, RCMP officers arrested fourteen people near Smithers, B.C. Members of the Wet-suwet'en First Nation had been blocking Coastal GasLink pipeline workers from accessing the land. But after three days of talks, Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs and the pipeline company have struck a deal — for now. The impasse in B.C. brought back memories of a story "As It Happens" covered nearly thirty years ago, in Quebec. The Oka Crisis wasn't about a pipeline — it was about a proposal to expand a golf course. But the 78-day stand-off between the Mohawk people and a small Quebec town set off a national powder keg. In that summer of 1990, "As It Happens" called up Ellen Gabriel. She was the spokesperson for the Mohawk people of Kahnesatake. In this interview from July 1990, a Quebec police officer had been shot and killed just days earlier. Here's Ms. Gabriel, speaking to former host Michael Enright.

SOUNDCLIP

ELLEN GABRIEL: We’re asking that the government of Canada meet with us here because we can't leave. And it concerns the land issue, which is what basically started all this. It has to be a nation-to-nation negotiation.

ME: Ms. Gabriel, you're asking for immunity from prosecution. But I'm wondering how you can get that? How that can be realized as long as the question of the death of the police officer is still a mystery — is still unresolved?

EG: What happened that morning that we were raided was illegal. Surete du Quebec went on their own decision. It was an illegal raid. The whole injunction itself is illegal. Women and children were shot at with tear gas, with bullets, and concussion grenades. Whereas the justice in that?

ME: But if the officer died as a result of one of the Mohawk warriors, it'd be hard to grant immunity, wouldn't it?

EG: This is our territory. We have a right to defend our territory. We are a nation like defending its nation against any other foreign governments. Our lives here are at stake, and it doesn't seem to matter that much to them.

ME: You’ve use the word nation many times. Can you just give us an explanation as to what you mean by that precisely? Just how do you view that, and how do you want the rest of the world to view it?

EG We are part of the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. We never sold, and we never ceded any of our land. We shared it with the Europeans who first came here. We are still sharing it with the European descendants and other nations of the world. We're still sharing as a nation with our own laws, our own traditions, our own customs. We want the world to recognize that voice — our right to our territory and to defend it.

JD: That's Ellen Gabriel, speaking to former As It Happens host Michael Enright in the summer of 1990. In November, Carol sat down with Ellen Gabriel to revisit the Oka Crisis. Here's an extended version of that interview.

SOUNDCLIP

CO: Ellen Gabriel, welcome back to “As It Happens”.

EG: It’s my pleasure. Thank you for inviting me.

CO: When you hear your voice on this show nearly 30 years ago, you come across as tough-as-nails. You say our lives are at stake, and it doesn't seem to matter. What was your state of mind? When you listen to that, what does that take you back to?

EG: Well, it takes me back to a place of feeling very angry, very indignant at being shot at, having our lives and so put at risk, and people not understanding that this was a problem created by the government of Canada not listening to the voices over 300 years ago. It takes me back to that point. I can feel my heart pounding just thinking about it.

CO: Did you think that you would be killed?

EG: I did at one point — I did. When the army moved in on September first, after the Mercier Bridge had been dismantled — the barricade — people said you know you really should go into hiding because they're gonna torture you because that was what was going on. I was really, really wary of what should I do? Should I leave? Where is a safe place? And I really didn't know.

CO: This was something for us in this country to see thousands of soldiers going into a civilian area of our country. They had tanks, they had grizzlies, they had helicopters, trucks, artillery pieces, they had their personal weapons with bayonets affixed to them into this protest that was in Kanesatake. To see this was shocking for Canadians, and it must have been terrifying.

EG: When you have post-traumatic stress, you're running on adrenaline. The situation has not changed. You don't have that kind of fear of will I get hurt, or will I get killed? It's like I'm going to stand here. I'm going to stake my ground. And you can either go around me or through me. And I think that's the way a lot of people who were on the frontlines felt. And I don't care if there's a tank. I don't care if you're going to have your bayonets on. We are going to stake our ground. We are going home on our terms. And I think that's the crux of what we want to do. If we're talking about reconciliation nation-to-nation, it has to be on our terms as well. We should be the ones leading those things. Back then, it was a new concept. Today, I think people are trying to flesh out what exactly does nation-to-nation mean in 2018? But in other ways, the status quo remains, which is unfortunate.

CO: At the time, there was as you know an intense backlash from Quebeckers. There were these horrible scenes of Indians, as they called them then, Indians being hanged in effigy — these effigies of Indigenous people — setting them on fire. The people on the Mercier Bridge, I remember hearing people yelling at Mohawks go back where you came from, which always struck me as truly interesting. But, at the same time, throwing rocks at cars when they were trying to get out of Kanesatake, fearing that there was going to be a bloodbath there. Why do you think that was the case? What made Quebeckers turn against you so completely?

EG: Well, first, I'd like to say that an elder was killed. There was a big rock that landed on his chest, and he was killed. But you know it was ripe for it because you know there's inconvenienced motorists, they're looking at us, and we're still the savages that they have learned about in the history textbooks. There's all kinds of reasons for the racism. A radio commentator here in Quebec was provoking that. We know that the KKK was up here recruiting. And so you know we as Indigenous people who have been in the invisible so-called minority in Canada were good targets. And you know they were Quebec sovereignists who were supporting us and protesting in front of Hydro Quebec. So we knew that not all Quebecers felt the same. It was only those who were ignorant of Canada and Quebec's colonial history that were doing that. But the media has a really large responsibility. You know, they are the conscience of society. And they should be the one reminding government. But you have all these obligations, why are you not respecting it? And that didn't happen because back then, people thought that we were just assimilated. And you know we were just a footnote in history. You know, go see us in the museums. And then I think that's what's happened in the last 28 years is that has started to change. But you know I can tell you honestly that there's still so much work that needs to be done.

CO: It seems unlikely that any city council would approve a plan to build an 18 hole golf course on disputed Indian land where there is a graveyard, where there is sacred pines, where all those things are. It seems unlikely that anyone would be that stupid today. But there are things happening that we've talked to a lot of First Nations, a lot of Indigenous people, across the country who are saying they vow to block the pipelines through their land. And they vow to stop the developments that are planned for their territory. What do you expect that we're going to see over the next months and years?

EG: Well, hopefully, this is my ideal situation is that there will be citizens of Canada who will put pressure on their government to uphold the honour of the crown to enact the principles of free, prior, and informed consent, so that we can avoid situations of what happened 28 years ago. You know, these problems are not problems that we've created. These are problems that have gone under the status quo of imperialism of we don't matter. That we stand in the way of Canada's prosperity, we're dispensable. And I think people need to understand you know we care about the earth. We care about the legacy that we leave behind. And when government doesn't listen, and only listens to the corporations, not only our Indigenous people in trouble, but the society as a whole is in trouble because we are all experiencing climate change. And I think that's where we need to meet. Is you know we are all going to have to face and be impacted by climate change. So let's work together. Why are we still trying fighting this challenge of being eliminated from history as just a footnote?

CO: Ellen, Iit's just wonderful speak to you. Thank you so much.

EG: Thank you so much, Carol.

CO: Bye bye.

EG: Bye.

JD: That was Mohawk activist Ellen Gabriel, speaking to Carol last November. For more on this story, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

January 11, 2019 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode