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 June 21, 2019

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]

CH: Tonight...

CO: Present tense. President Donald Trump has warned Iran that the U.S. military is "ready to go" -- and a former Obama advisor says a lot could go wrong if both sides continue using such high-stakes negotiating tactics.

CH: The grim reaping. An independent tribunal alleges that Chinese authorities have been murdering members of Falun Gong for years -- specifically to harvest their organs.

CO: Rights of non-passage. The bill she sponsored would have mandated sexual assault training for judges -- but this week it died, and former Conservative MP Rona Ambrose is blaming politics.

CH: Judgment recall. A black man convicted of a 1996 multiple murder in Mississippi maybe going to trial for a seventh time after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the prosecutor in his case excused jurors based on race.

CO: Their lips are seals. After careful training, Scottish scientists have trained three grey seals to mimic human music -- although as singers they're more diver than diva.

CH: And bonehead move. After a study suggests a correlation between skull horns and phone use in young people -- a physical therapist says the science isn't there, and he makes no bones about it. As It Happens. The Friday Edition. Radio that has more questions than antlers.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: No, staring at your phone won't give you 'horns,' says physical therapist

US Iran Tensions

Guest: Vali Nasr

CH: "Cocked and loaded." That was the tweet this morning from Donald Trump about his readiness to attack Iran last night. The US president says he called off strikes with just 10 minutes to go because of the likely human casualties. As we go to air the situation around the Strait of Hormuz remains volatile with gunships continuing to arrive, and no shortage of unpredictable players on all sides. Vali Nasr was an Iranian-American advisor to the Obama Administration. He's now the Dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. We reached Dean Nasr in Washington D.C..

CO: Mr. Nasr how did you react when you heard President Trump say that he was "cocked and loaded" and ready to launch airstrikes last night?

VALI NASR: Well I think he was sending a signal to Iran to say that he had the capability, he is tough, but he's not looking for war. He actually wants a way out -- and the ball is now in Iran's court.

CO: And how do you think it was interpreted in Tehran? What do you think the talk was there?

VN: I think the Iranians understand that he is capable of hitting them. And I think they are probably prepared to have some kind of a conversation with him. But I think the Iranians want some form of sanctions relief. I think for them the chokehold on Iran's economy is equivalent to war. And if Trump doesn't want economic warfare to become military warfare -- I think they want to see whether he is willing to relieve some of the economic pressure on them as a precondition for talks. If not, I think they're prepared to keep escalating and challenge Trump to go to war.

CO: But at the same time they know that there are members of the White House who are hawks. They know that John Bolton seems to be spoiling for a fight. That Mike Pompeo has threatened some kind of military action. So are they escalating it themselves? Are they spoiling for a fight themselves?

VN: No -- I don't think they're spoiling for a fight. They want to change their calculus in Washington. I think they think that the administration has been fairly comfortable just applying economic pressure without having to fear or debate the risks of military confrontation. So by escalating they basically changed the game plan on Trump -- they put Trump on the defense. It's Trump that had to think: does he want to go to war or does he not want to go to war. And if he doesn't want to go to war then therefore he has to deal with Iran. I think Iranians concluded that suffering under economic sanctions indefinitely was not an option for them so they had to force the issue in Washington and the only way to force it was by calling Trump's bluff and saying, Are you really prepared to go to war? If not, you need to be ready to be engaged on economic sanctions.

CO: But if the sanctions are so crippling -- if that's what Iran is seeking to do -- then why make an announcement that it is going to increase its uranium enrichment that might lead to the last members who are supporting the Iran nuclear deal -- the UK, France, and Germany -- that they may withdraw from that?

VN: Well I don't think Iran thinks that they are supporting. I think Iran thinks that everybody is very comfortable -- Iran is the only one that's complying with the deal. The Europeans, Chinese, Russians are not actually fulfilling their part of the deal which is to do business with Iran. So Iranians threatening to do more enrichment than break the deal is another way in which Iran is putting pressure on both Washington and the Europeans to say, well look don't think that you could just do two years of sanctions and you can still have the nuclear deal in place and essentially have your cake and eat it too -- if you really want Iran not to enrich then Iran better see some economic benefits out of this.

CO: But the talk is -- both in Washington and in Europe -- about more sanctions. I mean is this a miscalculation on the part of Iran?

VN: But I don't think there are any more sanctions to be applied. I mean the president has said in May that he wants to take Iran's oil to zero which means what else can he put on the table. So I think the sanctions card has been played. I think the only leverage sanctions have is that what are you going to get from the Iranians if you lift a few things.

CO: Well how nervous making is that -- that Iran seems to think they've got nothing left to lose?

VN: I think it's very dangerous. And I think this really goes to -- I think -- at some level the bankruptcy of President Trump's policy. He took out what was a relatively stable situation with Iran. Yes a lot of things that were problems but we were not on a near war situation with Iran, and has now put the United States and international community on a war path with Iran.

CO: So what is your sense of what is the end game for Donald Trump?

VN: Well I think for him the whole scenario is fairly simple: you come out of the nuclear deal, you apply tremendous amount of pressure on Iran, and the Iranians will throw in the towel -- capitulate and come to the table and negotiate a more stringent deal, and also agree to withdraw from their assets in the Middle East and scuttle their missile program. But it didn't work quite that way. And in fact what has got President Trump is the prospect of a war that he had said he didn't want in the Middle East.

CO: You are describing a very sophisticated game that's being played. How dangerous is it right now? How is it possible that one false step could actually lead to what we didn't have last night which is a military conflict?

VN: Absolutely -- I think we're very close to an accidental war on one side or the other over overplaying its hand and underestimating the response that it's going to get. And we could end up in a war. And then that will be catastrophic because you can hit Iran -- maybe Iran will retaliate and it gets hit again. And then it's going to take its nuclear program underground. And then you're going to have an Iran develop in a very bad direction unless the United States is prepared to do a land invasion of Iran which would be a catastrophic situation. The only possibility now is that if there is a pathway that United States and Iran could see to engage in. And it might require intermediaries from Europe or Japan again to get the two sides to agree to some terms that would bring them to the table. I know that again today President Trump offered talks -- and I think the Iranians line is very clear that you know the pathway to anything other than war is some sanctions relief.

CO: All right we'll be following this story obviously. Mr. Nasr I appreciate speaking with you tonight. Thank you.

VN: Thank you.

CH: Vali Nasr is the Dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, and a former advisor to the Obama Administration. We reached him in Washington D.C.. And later in the show we'll have the story of a British man on hunger strike outside the Iranian embassy in London. He wants Iran to release his wife -- a British-Iranian dual citizen -- from prison in Tehran.

[Music]

Rona Ambrose Judges

Guest: Rona Ambrose

CH: It is the start of summer. But for any bills left before the House or Senate -- it's the end. Such was the fate of Bill C-337, which would have mandated sexual assault training for federally appointed judges. It passed unanimously in the House of Commons more than two years ago. But it was held up this week by members of the Senate, including a contingent of Conservative senators. That was despite a lobbying campaign led by the bill's sponsor -- former Conservative MP, and former interim party leader, Rona Ambrose. We reached Ms. Ambrose in Calgary.

CO: Ms. Ambrose I know this bill was very important to you. What was it like for you to see it die on the Senate floor today?

RONA AMBROSE: Well it was pretty frustrating I must say. And particularly in light of the fact that I've worked with so many sexual assault survivors, and women's groups, and men and women who care about this issue -- it was obviously frustrating and heartbreaking.

CO: You had unanimous support -- all parties supported the bill in the House of Commons. It went to the Senate. Was it because the senators opposed the idea of mandatory training on sexual assault or was it politics?

RA: It was politics. I mean to put it into perspective, it didn't even get to a committee for 18 months. And it was only through a huge campaign of pressure by a lot of volunteers did we finally get it to committee 18 months later. It was amended. It actually ended up being made stronger. And then again it went back and just sat there until it was killed. So yes it was politics because 13 other private members bills passed in the meantime. It was very frustrating. And I think unfortunately what it did was really I think increase the cynicism people have about the institution of the Senate -- and you know people ask the question you know why is an unelected chamber making these kind of decisions when the elected chamber has unanimously asked them to pass this bill -- and yet they refuse to. So it was unfortunate. But today -- you know the good news today is that the leaders, the elected leaders, stepped in and they've all come forward -- every party member including Elizabeth May of the Green Party -- to say that they are going to make this part of their election platform. So no matter who wins government in October, this will be a government law, a government bill. And so we can feel confident that it will happen -- which is good news.

CO: Right -- no matter who becomes the government. But I guess what's complicated about this -- about the politics of this -- is that you are a Conservative, you were part of the federal Conservative party, you were the interim leader. And it appears that the senators who would not let this go through are Conservative senators. What are we to make of that?

RA: Well I can tell you there was blame to go around. The majority of senators supported this and were extremely frustrated that they were not able to help get this through and they did their best. But a couple of very powerful senators refused to let it through. I'll never understand why. And I guess I have to look forward and not look back and feel good that while my bill died the issue has not. And that the elected leaders have stepped in to actually make sure that this is carried forward.

CO: Okay. But those few senators were Conservatives, were they not?

RA: Some of them were yes...

CO: But the ones you were saying -- the key ones who opposed it -- that would not let this...because you had support in the Senate. Why could you not get the Conservative senators to support you in this and to see this through?

RA: I can't answer that. I mean I guess they didn't support the bill. But to be clear there was blame all around. You know this bill was held up in a number of different ways for a number of different reasons for 18 months.

CO: But why couldn't this have happened -- if the leaders were supportive, I know you wanted to see Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, talk to the Conservative senators, and tell them this was an important bill and it had to go through. Did he do that?

RA: Yes -- my understanding is that he did. I know that Justin Trudeau did the same thing --speaking to his senators or senators that are affiliated with him. There was a lot of support. But there were a couple of people that just decided they wanted to play politics with this so it's...

CO: But why? What was the political game here? What was the brinksmanship here?

RA: Well at the final end of this session the Conservatives didn't want the Indigenous rights bill to pass. And if it didn't pass then neither would any other bills including mine. So mine got caught up in that. So you know I guess it's...

CO: Before we go on -- just for people to understand what you're referring to. This was a private member's bill that would implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people. And this was another bill that there were Conservative senators who were opposed to the legislation because they feared that Indigenous communities would have a veto over natural resource development and that's what that's about. So if what you're saying is that they said okay both of these bills are going to die -- how are they related?

RA: They're not related. It's just that anything else became expendable including my own -- my bill on sexual assault training for judges. And of course that's very frustrating because they had two years to try and help get this through. And you know every step of the way my bill was blocked for some reason -- procedural tactics, opposition to the bill, you know some people said it's an overreach of the "Me Too" movement. But at the end of the day I just have to put that behind me and be at least glad to see the elected leader stepped in.

CO: But just finally what I want to ask you, remind people what it is that inspired this? And why you felt you needed to put this bill into law?

RA: Well I mean I go back to the numbers that only 1 in 10 Canadians that experienced sexual assault will report it, and they say when asked that they have no confidence in the system. And we have a number of examples starting from probably the most high profile one of a judge in Alberta who said to a young rape victim, why didn't you just keep your knees together? Just recently, the Supreme Court has overturned two cases of sexual assault where the judges made massive errors. We shouldn't have to have that happen. These are extremely complex traumatic cases. And when a victim has to go back to court and be re-victimized and go through this whole process again because a judge who should have the experience and training in the law -- in the basic law -- makes a basic mistake about something like consent is unacceptable. And sexual assault law today is not a mandatory training for judges that actually preside over these cases. And that has to change.

CO: All right. And we will be watching for that in the fall. Ms. Ambrose thank you so much.

RA: Thank you Carol.

CH: Rona Ambrose is a former MP and the former interim leader of the federal Conservative Party. We reached her in Calgary.

[Music]

Phone Bone Update

Guest: Evan Johnson

CH: The news like snappy, bizarre stories. So when a study started making the rounds suggesting phones are causing young people to grow horns, the headlines went crazy. Things like: "Welp, Kids Who Use Phones Are Growing Horns on their Heads." Now of course on this show snappy and bizarre are part of the mission statement. Or they would be, if we had one. So last night we also told you about the 2018 study published in Scientific Reports by Australian researchers. But for some reason, some experts aren't so convinced. Dr. Evan Johnson is the physical therapy director at the New York-Presbyterian Och Spine Hospital. We reached him in New York City.

CO: Dr. Johnson should young people everywhere be worried that horns are starting to grow out of the backs of their skulls?

EVAN JOHNSON: It's too soon to worry about that Carol. While we all have little bumps on the back of our heads and it may be that young people's bumps might be a millimeter or two larger than than previous generations -- they are still okay. Their heads are intact.

CO: [Laughs] Now of course we -- as others did that -- thought this was a fascinating study and we put it on our show last night. When you saw this study what questions did you immediately have?

EJ: You know we tend to look right away for scientific rigor. So we take a look and we say what exactly are we saying by "horns." I mean horns is a kind of appealing, eye catching, word, right. And we're familiar with the fact that there is a bump -- as in this external occipital protuberance which is a bump in the back of your head. You could feel it or your audience could certainly feel it if you put your hand in the back of your head kind of right down towards where it meets the neck in the center. There's a little bump there that we all have. So my first question was you know how remarkable is the difference that we see in this next generation from what we've seen in previous generations? And what was the scientific rigor of the actual study itself?

CO: In journalism we call this "facts too good to check." [Laughter]

EJ: Indeed indeed.

CO: So what did they actually look at in this study as far as you can figure out?

EJ: So what they did is they took 1200 X-rays that were lying around -- and by lying around a kind of this image of film lying around. More than likely it was sitting in a computer, database, and they looked at 1200 X-rays. And they broke up the groups by age and the earliest group was 18 to 30 -- the youngest group -- and then 31 to 40 and so forth. And they looked at these 1200 X-rays and they looked at what the neck looked like and the head looked like and they looked to see if this projection -- this protuberance on the back of the skull -- was larger depending on the age group.

CO: And what did they find?

EJ: So what they found is that A) That 33 percent of the population overall of everybody they looked at had a protuberance that they qualified as larger than normal which was greater than 10 millimeters. Amongst the group that was 18 to 30, they found that that was 40 percent.

CO: And the conclusion was is that posture -- the way that young people of this age are looking at their phones all time their heads are down and hunched over. And that had created what appears to be these bones -- bone spurs -- I guess, is that right?

EJ: That's exactly right. And they also looked at how far the head was forward of the neck. Right? So if you sit up and you're in good posture, your ear will be over your shoulder, as you slouch more, the chin tends to stick out and the head is forward. And we all do that --whether it's at the computer or looking at an iPhone or Android or whatever. We all tend to do that in society. So they also took a measurement of that and they tried to correlate or relate how much forward head an individual had to whether they had a greater protuberance or bigger bump on the back of their head. And that's a thought process you hit on -- if your head is forward then the ligaments and the muscles that are attached to that point in the back of the head will start pulling on the bones slightly. And what happens for all of us is when you have a pull of a heavy ligament or tendon on the bone over time that bone starts to form a bump, right, and that bump can enlarge if there's more pressure and more pulling. So the thought is head forward then there's more pulling and that explains a greater bump. And then they made a big jump to say oh that's specifically because they're using mobile devices more.

CO: Now you can see why people would believe this or want to believe it because we are worried about ourselves and our young people especially from a very young age hunched over their phones, looking down at these devices, walking with them like that, in bed, every place they are they're in the same this sort of aberrant posture. So is there I mean any truth to this study that there's something wrong with the way we're looking at our phones?

EJ: Oh I think that's unquestionable. The way we're looking and the time we spend looking at it, there's all kinds of repercussions for that and some of them are musculoskeletal, right? Strain on muscles and tension headaches. And eventually with time you would think you'd be more likely to develop arthritis a little bit younger or develop other changes. If you think about if I take a door and I pull it three degrees off the hinge and I open and close it a million times like you turn your neck a million times in a year and you look at the wear pattern, you see this uneven wear pattern. And over time that wear pattern gets worse and worse. And there's some reason to think that that applies to our bodies as well. A good reason.

CO: And so is the data in this study is it useful in any way to make that case?

EJ: They don't make the link well. There is a correlative link that they make but there's no causal. So the answer is yes it's good to know that there may be this musculoskeletal change -- you need more studies and more data on that where this bony promise is getting greater. Not so much because it matters that you're growing the horns so to speak right. More because it tells us that hey the way we're living has negative impacts and the negative impacts of cardiovascular fitness and general health those negative impacts are probably greater than that you developed a bump. But this study does illustrate that your body's changing in response to how we are living.

CO: So if nothing else this is the start of the conversation or generated one?

EJ: Importantly. And I think if there's one take-home-message it's you know should you sit in good posture? Of course you should. Be upright. But we're designed actually to change our posture -- and it's okay to slouch for a minute or two or 30 seconds. The problem is we slouch for eight (or) eight and a half hours. If you look at the screen time of kids in the study done in England recently -- you know it is the difference between eating you know half a bowl of ice cream and eating two pints of ice cream every day.

CO: I think people are going to believe that kids are growing horns because they are watching their screens too much. [Laughter] Anyway, Dr. Johnson thank you so much.

EJ: Thank you Carol.

CH: Dr. Evan Johnson is the physical therapy director at the New York Presbyterian Och Spine Hospital. We reached him in New York City. We have more on this story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Singing Seals

CH: Turns out grey seals can't carry a tune in a bucket. I mean, they can't carry buckets at all. But you take my point: they can't sing. Now that is not what the scientists from Scotland are telling us mind you. Their news release says research has found that, quote," Grey seals can copy human speech and songs using the same sound production mechanisms as humans." The researchers worked with three young grey seals. First, learning the sounds they made naturally. And then training the seals to mimic the sounds humans make. In their video you hear the researchers playing melodies on instruments that sound like seals and then you'll hear the seals trying to replicate those melodies. And they're pretty good. But in the words of former American Idol judge Randy Jackson: "I don't know -- it's a little pitchy dawg."

SOUNDCLIP

[Music being played]

[Seal trying to replicate the music]

CH: Three grey seals trained to "sing." Now maybe some of you are saying, "considering they don't even understand the human concept of music, these grey seals are actually the marine mammal equivalent of the Three Tenors." And I take your point. But you're wrong. Because we know seals can achieve the highest level of singing excellence.

[Music]

Part 2: Organ Harvesting

Organ Harvesting

Guest: David Kilgour

CH: They were imprisoned for their beliefs and killed for their organs. This week an independent tribunal determined that China has been participating in forced organ harvesting for years. And the practitioners of Falun Gong have been one -- and probably the main source -- of organ supply. The China tribunal stopped short of categorizing the crime as genocide but called on those with the power to investigate those charges to do so. David Kilgour is a former Canadian MP who has co-written several investigative reports into allegations of live organ harvesting in China. He also testified before the China tribunal. We reached Mr. Kilgour in Ottawa.

CO: Mr. Kilgour the China tribunal found that forced organ harvesting has been happening on a significant scale in China for years. Something that you have spoken of a number of times. What effect do you think that this report will have?

DAVID KILGOUR: Oh Carol I think this will have a lot of effect. I think certainly the mood among Canadians has changed and I think people are now prepared to believe what we've been saying basically for 10 years.

CO: Do you think that China will yield to this kind of a report? It hasn't in the past.

DK: But I think they're getting -- now -- getting so much bad publicity and along with everything else the combination of this, and the Uyghurs, and Hong Kong, and everything else is probably going to give them an idea that they have to change the way they're doing things in one way they can behave like a responsible member in communities to stop killing their own prisoners of conscience and selling their organs.

CO: How do we know that's happening? I mean this investigation was limited in what access it had. What is the evidence that says that the Chinese are actually using the organs of prisoners for organ transplants?

DK: Well we have actually got a firsthand observer -- Enver Tohti -- who is an Uyghur from Xingjiang province who in 1995 was basically forced as a young surgeon to go out to an execution and the person was still alive when he was ordered to take out his organs. So that was in 1995. And we've got something like 35 kinds of evidence.

CO: Right. But we're talking about your example was from 1995 -- a very compelling witness, but the Chinese have said they've stopped removing the organs for transplantation from executed prisoners and they deny that it's going on. So give us a bit more of the reasons why you and the others are so convinced that this is what's going on?

DK: I mean the most recent example: a woman who managed to get out of Xinjiang province within the last year or two mentioned that all of the women in her camp -- in Xinjiang -- were taken out and blood tested -- I'm sure you know the only reason you blood test people is to see if they're suitable for organ transplants. And she said that she came back and some of the women had orange bands on their arms. And those women rapidly disappeared from the camp. So given what's gone on to the Falun Gong community there's a pretty strong inference to be made that they became organ donors too. But we actually concentrated on Falun Gong -- and we've studied it since 2006 (and) really up until the present -- and we have documented I think very carefully that in about 700 hospitals these transplants are going on. And looking at hospital records and all kinds of indications, we estimate that it's a million of sixty thousand transplants a year going on in China. The government claims it's about 10-14,000. We know it's not one death for every organ because you can take more than one organ from a person -- and they do, they take all the organs from the victims or so-called donors.

CO: But I mean as far as the numbers of transplants -- it's a very populated country, it has a transplant program, it has organ donation. So again how do you know that that's not just an organ transplantation program that is like that of other countries?

DK: Well yes. It's almost laughable because the culture in China is very much against giving organs. And at one point after they started their voluntary donation system I think we counted something like 400 donations for a population of 1.3-billion. So they're certainly not coming through donations we know that. The way the system works Carol is that if you want to get a kidney or a liver and you have enough money, you fly to Shanghai, they check you in at number one people's hospital in Shanghai, then they test your blood and tissue type, then they go on their computer and they find somebody who is a match for you, and they go to one of these work camps where the poor -- unlucky person -- is and they're taken out of the dormitory, given some potassium, and all of their organs are taken and the organs are flown to you in Shanghai and you come home with a new kidney or liver to Toronto.

CO: Who is profiting from that? If that's the case -- if those are the allegations -- who is at the behest of...

DK: Well we know who is profiting. In fact we talked to the wife of one surgeon. Her husband during a two year period removed the corneas from 2000 Falun Gong practitioners. And he was paid the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars.

CO: And what is the waiting time? Because this is one of the significant parts -- the waiting time for getting an organ transplant is what?

DK: It varies. But it's extremely short. And statistically you just don't have somebody who's dying that often that you can say -- and I'll give you the example because it is a real one -- one of Dr. Jacob Lavee -- a heart transplant surgeon in Israel. One of his patients told him he needed a heart, he was going to China to get one. And then he said, I'm going in two weeks. The operation will be in two weeks. A heart just doesn't arrive in two weeks unless the person is killed in the manner -- hideous manner -- that I described to you. And that's what happened. And when the person came back with a new heart, Dr. Lavee got the transplant immunity and the [inaudible] and they passed a law banning organ tourism by Israelis to China. And a number of other countries, thank goodness, have done the same and were very much hoping that Canada will do the same.

CO: Canada has not banned organ tourism?

DK: No most unfortunately -- but I think we're finally at the point now where the third reading in the Senate of a bill, it has been through the House, so we just need one small step for humanity to pass this bill and then it would be similarly illegal for Canadians to go abroad to get organs.

CO: If there is enough evidence do you think that there is some recourse that the international community can and will take?

DK: Either is in theory but in practice there isn't going to be anything done because China is not going to listen to a resolution passed by our parliament or anybody else. But we're hoping that they're getting so much bad publicity and now they're going to say maybe we better up [inaudible] frankly we're looking like Nazis under Hitler.

CO: All right we'll leave it there. Mr. Kilgour thank you.

DK: Thanks. Bye bye.

CH: David Kilgour is a former Canadian MP who has co-written several investigative reports into allegations of live organ harvesting in China. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music]

Marial Shayok

CH: Canada's budding basketball empire gained some new recruits last night. A record six Canadian players were selected in the NBA draft, including third-overall pick RJ Barrett, who will go to the New York Knicks. And then, with just six picks left to go in the draft, the Philadelphia 76ers named Ottawa-born Marial Shayok to the team.

SOUNDCLIP

[People cheering]

CH: That's how the moment sounded back home. And those celebrations went late into the night. And early in the morning, the CBC came calling. Here's Marial's older brother, Shayok Shayok, speaking with Ottawa Morning today.

SOUNDCLIP

SHAYOK SHAYOK: Good morning. Good morning.

ROBYN BRESNAHAN: I know we woke you up -- I'm sorry, but how could we not. This is very exciting news! Tell us about that moment last night in the second round when Marial's name was called out.

SHAYOK SHAYOK: A lot of emotions. We had his close family and friends watching the game with him. Got a nice spot -- nice Airbnb -- invited his high school coaches, and his family, his cousins in Ottawa, his close friends he grew up with. And so it was quite a energy when his name was called.

ROBYN BRESNAHAN: I mean what does this mean for your family -- as a whole -- this whole story?

SHAYOK SHAYOK: You know it's been quite the journey. You know my dad he immigrated from Sudan to a school in Texas -- from there to get a scholarship to play for University of Dayton, brought my mom and the three daughters that he had with her in Sudan with him to America. And I was born in United States. And then we moved to Canada when I was a baby -- and Marial was born in Ottawa. So out of all the children, Marial was the only one actually born in Ottawa. So he's the Ottawa kid -- first NBA Ottawa kid so it's an amazing story. You know how far my dad has traveled and to have a son who actually from Ottawa and born in Ottawa and the first Ottawa basketball player to make it to the NBA...so I think it's a great story.

ROBYN BRESNAHAN: Well it is a great story. And Marial is still sleeping somewhere in the house. We could not rouse him so we're happy we were able to rouse you. But pass on our congratulations from us and all of our listeners. Congratulations. And we'll hopefully speak with Marial very soon. Thank you Shayok.

SHAYOK SHAYOK: For sure. And thank you for having me and have a great day. I'll let Marial know I was on the radio this morning. [Laughter]

CH: There was Shayok Shayok, the older brother of newly-drafted NBA basketball player Marial Shayok, speaking with Ottawa Morning host Robyn Bresnahan. Marial Shayok was drafted into the NBA last night alongside five fellow Canadians.

[Music]

Pastafarian Teacher

CH: With the passage of Bill 21, many teachers in Quebec will not be allowed to wear religious symbols at school. That means no hijabs, kippahs, turbans -- or pasta strainers. The colander is the religious symbol of Pastafarianism -- which centres on a deity called the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Depending who you ask, it's either a real religion or a parody. In Laval, one newly-converted pastafarian teacher has been proudly wearing his colander to work every day since April in protest of Bill 21. CBC Montreal's Shawn Apel spoke with Michael Fitch about his religion and his unique protest.

SOUNDCLIP

MICHAEL FITCH: So if I were to sport an overt religious symbol of a religion I don't believe in, I don't feel that would be a genuine gesture. So I did want to protest Bill 21. I don't think that the government has any right to tell people what they can and can't wear.

SHAWN APEL: So you sort of had this objective in your head -- what led to the thing on your head? Walk me through this process that ended up with the colander on your head.

MICHAEL FITCH: I was thinking, you know what? I can do this and it will in no way impede my ability to teach and perform my professional duties. And if I can do that surely someone can wear something that's generally regarded as a less ridiculous overt religious symbol, and they can also perform their professional duties without having any issues.

SHAWN APEL: So day one, you walk into school, you've got the colander on your head...what happens?

MICHAEL FITCH: Lots of questions...so that was the first thing. And that was one of my main motivations in doing this. It was that it enabled me to have about 500 conversations individually with people. I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice a little bit of my dignity. I think that's a very small price to pay to make my students aware of this.

CH: That's Grade 8 teacher -- and convert to Pastafarianism -- Michael Fitch speaking with the CBC's Shawn Apel. Mr. Fitch has been wearing a colander on his head to work every day since April in protest of Bill 21.

[Music]

Curtis Flowers

Guest: Sheri Johnson

CH: Curtis Flowers is a 49-year-old black man from Mississippi. He has gone to trial six times for the same quadruple murder in a furniture store in that state in 1996. And now there could be a seventh court case. Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that his latest conviction should be overturned. The court said that the prosecutor had violated the Constitution by excusing jurors based on race in that most recent trial. Throughout his endless legal battles, Curtis Flowers has maintained his innocence. Sheri Johnson is one of Mr. Flowers' attorneys. We reached her in Austin, Texas.

CO: Ms. Johnson I know you have spoken with your client -- Curtis Flowers -- how did he respond to the Supreme Court decision?

SHERI JOHNSON: He's very happy as you would expect. He's very happy and he expressed his gratitude toward his lawyers and towards the Supreme Court.

CO: Let's just talk about what has been decided. This was a Supreme Court decision. The majority decision was -- it was written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a name people are familiar with. What did they say? What did the court say about why Mr. Flowers' rights have been violated?

SJ: The court found that the Mississippi Supreme Court was wrong to conclude there hadn't been no racial discrimination. Or put differently, they found that it was clear that the prosecutor Doug Evans discriminated on the basis of race when he selected the jury.

CO: And how many times has this happened? There have been six trials. Does this happen each time?

SJ: So in trials one, I believe that he struck all the African-American jurors he could. There was no adjudication of the claims that he had been discriminating on the basis of race because the Mississippi Supreme Court found that the prosecutor had engaged in other misconduct. In trial two, the trial judge found that he had discriminate on the basis of race and seated a black juror that Evans had struck. And in trial three, the Mississippi Supreme Court found that he had engaged in racial discrimination when he used 15 peremptory challenges to strike all the black jurors that he could. Then in trials four and five which had more African-Americans on the jury -- the jury hung on the question of guilt. And then at trial six, that was the trial in front of the Supreme Court now.

CO: When you say "he" -- you're referring to the same prosecutor, this is Doug Evans, each time?

SJ: Yes.

CO: And for the minority opinion at the Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas -- another famous name -- he wrote that as a dissenting opinion that it vacates four murder convictions of Mr. Flowers because the state struck a juror who would have been struck anyways by any competent attorney. What do you say to Justice Thomas?

SJ: Well first of all they didn't vacate four convictions. There were four convictions but it only vacated the last one. The Mississippi Supreme Court vacated the first three.

CO: This is for murders that happened 23 years ago in a furniture store in Mississippi. Can you tell us what's known to have happened there?

SJ: Well very little is known to have happened in there other than four people were shot execution style in the early morning in a furniture store. And there were no eyewitnesses to this crime. And there's really no probative forensic evidence. There were a couple of people who claimed -- once the reward had been posted -- they claimed they had seen him on the route to the furniture store. But even those descriptions had him wearing different clothes. There was also a person who claimed that in jail, Curtis had confessed to him. But in fact that person has now -- said that he was urged by the prosecutor to do that for help on one of his cases. And there was evidence of a single identification shortly before the crime of two men who were outside of the furniture store. The man who gave the identification could only describe them as black. And he then first identified tentatively someone other than Mr. Flowers and then was not certain about it being Mr. Flowers. So the evidence is extraordinarily weak. It always was weak. And it's weaker yet today because of the recantation of the witness.

CO: There's another interesting development in this story in that there was this remarkable podcast -- there is a remarkable podcast, "In The Dark" that featured the story of Mr. Flowers and how these convictions were reached and what happened in these trials. Did you think that had any effect on this case?

SJ: Well it's hard to know whether it had any effect on this case. I think this is a case in which there are two important things happening. One is racial discrimination which is enormously important in our society. And one is wrongful conviction. And Mr. Flowers was wrongfully convicted. And I think the "In The Dark" podcast brought to light the facts that convinced a lot of people that he was wrongfully convicted. So I think that's not technically any part of the Supreme Court's decision or even any part of the question they were addressing. But I think a lot of the public attention has come because of the podcast and because of the evidence of his innocence.

CO: What happens with Curtis Flowers now?

SJ: So the case will be returned to the Mississippi Supreme Court which itself will then send it back to the trial court. And Doug Evans can decide whether or not he's going to prosecute Curtis Flowers for a seventh time.

CO: It would be the same prosecutor? The same court?

SJ: It is the same prosecutor. Justice Alito said in his concurring opinion that he thought it was risky to have Doug Evans prosecute the case even the sixth time. There might be some reconsideration as to whether that's wise. But it will be returned to the same court -- and to the same trial court -- and the same prosecutor.

CO: And Mr. Flowers has been on death row, so what happens there?

SJ: So he will be removed from death row itself but he will be treated like a pretrial detainee. So he will be brought to local jail and then he can and probably will seek bail. But then the court decides whether or not to release him pending the retrial or not.

CO: We will leave it there. Ms. Johnson I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

SJ: You're very welcome.

CH: That was Curtis Flowers' attorney Sheri Johnson in Austin, Texas.

[Music]

Mason Garant

CH: Some golfers -- most golfers -- play their entire lives and never get a hole-in-one. And then there's Mason Garant: a seven-year-old from Windsor, Ontario, who recently sank a hole-in-one. Which is amazing especially since we are not talking about mini putt. But what's more impressive is that it is his second. The CBC's Sanjay Maru spoke to Mason Garant about his love of golf.

SOUNDCLIP

MASON GARANT: I started golfing when I was about one and a half. My dad and I started watching a lot of golf on TV. And I really liked the way that they shoot. And then I learned how to play. So I would prop myself on the coffee table at our house and I would try to swing the club.

SANJAY MARU: How did your first hole-in-one happen exactly?

MASON GARANT: So we were playing at the Roseland course -- and it was 95 yards. It was my first time hitting you over the water. I just wanted to get it over the water. But then it went into the hole.

SANJAY MARU: So fast forward about two years later -- how did this second hole-in-one happen?

MASON GARANT: So it was 80 yards. It was a back-right pin. I hit pitching wedge and I just landed on the green. And it had a lot of spin so it went forward a lot -- and it got really close and we were like, "Is that going in?" And then I looked around and it went in. I want to be a pro golfer. And golf is fun because you can meet a lot of new friends from all over the world.

SANJAY MARU: So where do you hope all of this golf practice takes you?

MASON GARANT: To the PGA Tour.

CH: Seven year old Mason Garant speaking with CBC reporter Sanjay Maru. The Windsor golfer recently recorded -- this is Mason Garant -- his second hole-in-one at the city's Essex Golf and Country Club.

[Music]

Part 3: Husband of jailed British-Iranian woman stages hunger strike outside embassy in U.K.

British Iranian Hunger Strike

Guest: Richard Ratcliffe

CH: Today, the world is paying attention to one big Iran story -- the one about the prospect of military conflict with the United States. But Richard Ratcliffe is staging a hunger strike in front of the Iranian embassy in London to attract attention to a different Iran story: the one about his wife's continued imprisonment in the country. Nazanin Zaghari-Radcliffe, a British-Iranian dual citizen has been detained in Iran since 2016. She's charged with espionage and plotting to overthrow the government -- charges she and her family deny. We reached Richard Ratcliffe outside the Iranian embassy in London.

CO: Mr. Ratcliffe you have not eaten in seven days now. How are you holding up?

RICHARD RATCLIFFE: Yeah definitely feeling quite tired now. I think the first day I felt hungry after that not so much. But now I'm getting quite dozey.

CO: Why have you decided to join your wife who is on a hunger strike in Iran?

RR: Well partly because she's on hunger strike behind prison walls and no one gets to see what that is. No one gets to see what that suffering looks like. And partly because it's not the first hunger strikes she has done. So I felt that really actually if she did it again that it was important that she was going to get through it that I would.

CO: Your wife Nazanin Zaghari-Radcliffe -- she has been in prison in Iran since 2016. She was visiting family in Iran when she was accused of spying and plotting to overthrow the government and sent to prison. Why do you believe that she is in prison? And why do you think the Iranian government did that to her?

RR: She was part of a wave of foreign nationals including some Canadians who were taken almost as bargaining chips to be used by the Iranian authorities.

CO: Do you know why or is there anything that you can point to is why she was chosen for this treatment?

RR: So it's profiling. Clearly it was because she worked for a media charity and they could then pretend that she was connected to the world media. And the people that were taken were either academics or in some cases businessmen or in some cases people they could say were sort of presented some kind of social activists.

CO: She is in Evin Prison -- is that right?

RR: That's correct. So Evin Prison is a big prison in Tehran.

CO: Many political prisoners are in Evin. As you mentioned Canadians are there and have been there. We've had a high profile journalist from Canada who actually died in that prison from very harsh treatment. Do you have any idea how your wife is being treated in Evin Prison?

RR: Yeah so at the beginning it was very tough. She was kept -- in the first year -- in solitary confinement. In a room about the size of a double bed with three blankets: one was a pillow, one to sleep on, and one to use as a blanket. And no window in the room -- just a light bulb on the whole time. Lot of trauma as a result of that. Now she's in the women's political ward. So you're right there are some really quite amazing women in the cells with her -- some very important human rights activists. And they look after each other much better. So her conditions now seem more akin to a normal prison and she's okay.

CO: But she is now facing more prosecution, is that right?

RR: Yes. A second court case was opened against (her) back in 2017 gets closed and reopened every so often. It was reopened most recently last month.

CO: Why do you believe that former British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson may have had something to do with why your wife is being prosecuted again?

RR: Well I think he didn't help. A second court case was actually opened against her immediately prior to him making some comments in the House of Commons which made her situation worse. But it was justified on the basis of his comments where he said in Parliament -- British Parliament -- that she'd been training journalists when she had just been on a holiday.

CO: He said that she had been training journalists...

RR: Well exactly -- while in Iran and in reality she'd just been on a holiday.

CO: Did Boris Johnson reverse and clarify what he said?

RR: He didn't change the parliamentary record. He did say that he was sorry if people took his words out of context. Eventually, he did clarify that the government's position was that she was on holiday.

CO: What effect did Boris Johnson's proclamation that she was teaching in Iran -- what effect did that have on her case?

RR: Well that was used to justify the second court case and used to explain how there was this new evidence in this court case. And this court case keeps getting open and closed. So the threat was that it was going to add to a second sentence that would have a double sentence. They haven't yet sentenced that. More to the point the way he then conducted afterwards where he undertook to link Nazanin's release to a debt the U.K. owed made signals in the British media that it was going to be paid and then didn't pay it made things more complicated for her and for others that were subsequently taken.

CO: We will just give people a few more details about that because it's very important that there is this debt that Iran has wanted repaid since the 1970s. And Boris Johnson suggested that that might happen. How did that get tangled up with your wife's case?

RR: Having made it clear that that was his ambition to sort but then that money not turning up obviously then they was anger in Iran. And then you have more people arrested.

CO: Given what happened last night and how tense things are right now between Iran and the United States -- how heightened tension there is, the possibility of some really major event happening of a military nature. Do you worry that your wife is now caught in a very very complex geopolitical game that's being played out?

RR: There's certainly a lot of tension. It's certainly true for all of the foreign nationals held that we're in the middle of a swirling storm with different dynamics. And yes I think things are not looking good at all in terms of Western-Iranian relations. But they keep changing. So part of my job is to sort of keep calm and focus on Nazanin. And obviously us sitting from the Iranian embassy, being accused of barricading it -- but being accused of that, creates its own tensions. We will see how things develop. And I think the basic question which is how easy is it to get over this when tensions are very high? Well you're right, it's much harder.

CO: As you mentioned, the embassy -- the ambassador of the Iranian Embassy where you are wants you to move. He thinks that you should be removed from that place. But he is also expressed in comments that he is sympathetic that you have been -- as a father and a husband -- you've been separated from your daughter who is in Iran and from your wife. What would you tell him? What would you like the ambassador to know about what your life is like without your wife and your daughter?

RR: I mean my message to the Iranian authorities and the embassy ambassador is: please end this as soon as possible, and bring Nazanin back. Obviously I appreciate that we camping in front of his doorstep -- it's not something that he is going to like. And it wasn't intended to be a popular act -- it was intended to make it clear that enough is enough. It has gone on too long. And we'll see how the Iranian authorities generally respond.

CO: Mr. Ratcliffe we will leave it there, and I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

RR: Thank you.

CH: Richard Ratcliffe is on a hunger strike to protest the continued imprisonment of his wife, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in Iran. We reached Mr. Ratcliffe outside the Iranian embassy in London.

[Music]

Angus Davison

CH: You've probably heard Angus Davison on our show before. He's an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Nottingham who had a famous garden snail named Jeremy. Jeremy was a rare creature who had a shell that coiled left instead of right which made it hard to find a mate for him because as Mr. Davison put it, Jeremy's "bits (were) in the wrong position." Well after putting out a call for similarly sinister snails, Mr. Davison successfully found Jeremy some partners. And even now after the rare snail's death, the professor receives messages from people who have found potential paramours for his late charge. This morning, Mr. Davison emailed us about a man and his daughter who found a left coiling snail here in Canada in an abandoned parking lot in Niagara Falls. This time it was a grove snail -- if that helps. And Mr. Davison said it's only the third time he's heard of one of those that coiled left. From our archives, here's our conversation with Angus Davison after Jeremy died in 2017. It was a sad moment but Jeremy had left behind some babies.

SOUNDCLIP

AD: So what we're going to have to do actually, is breed the offspring of Jeremy’s children and maybe even the offspring of those before we might we might see some other lefties. So this thing that we kind of began in kind of sort of lighthearted way we can talk about science, this is going to be good fun, we got but that's surprising we got these. We’re now committed to seeing this through for several years, so we might go quiet on the Jeremy the Snail front in terms of the science, but we will be working away in the background.

CO: I think I can say with confidence that though we've done a lot of obituaries on As It Happens, I think this is probably our first snail obit. [Laughter]

AD: Yeah, that's crazy.

CO: How will you remember Jeremy?

AD: I mean, I wouldn't go as far as to say he had a character but Jeremy was a bit unusual. Jeremy’s quite small, Jeremy’s quite dark-shelled and Jeremy also had a peculiar problem with his tentacle, one of the tentacles didn't extend properly. So you know certainly a different snail. Added to all of that Jeremy is left coiling snail. It's not exaggeration to say that Jeremy is probably the most famous snail in the world, and probably will continue to be for quite a while.

CH: From our archives, that was UK Professor Angus Davison speaking with us about his rare late snail, Jeremy.

[Music]

Encore: The Lost Words

CH: Last year we found the words to tell you about "The Lost Words" -- a poetry book written to reacquaint and enchant children with words taken out of the Oxford Junior Dictionary. Words like: "bluebell" "willow" and "raven" -- which were removed to make way for more technological terms like "broadband" and "voicemail." At the time, Carol spoke with Robert Macfarlane -- a lecturer in English literature at Cambridge University, and the book's author, about breathing new life into those words. Now the watercolor illustrations in that book by artist Jackie Morris also helped enormously to conjure those nouns of the natural world. And this week Ms. Morris was awarded the Kate Greenaway Medal for children's book illustration. In honour of that award, here's an encore presentation of Carol's interview with author Robert Macfarlane.

SOUNDCLIP

CO: Robert, when your Canadian publisher told me about this book, I was picturing some kind of well-informed reference book. I was not prepared for the volume that arrived — there’s large beautiful illustrations and poems and this work. How did you decide to do it this way?

ROBERT MACFARLANE: Thank you. Well, we knew we wanted to make a spell book. We wanted to make something which carried with it the possibility of magic. And we knew that for that to happen it needed to be an object that people marveled at — that they opened like a treasure chest or walked into like a landscape. And we were lucky enough to have publishers who believed that to be the case. And so it's proved. And working with this extraordinary artist, Jackie Morris, who works a lot with gold leaf, which is a magical substance on the page, we made this book that is as big as some of its readers I guess you could say.

CO: It’s about I think about 30 or 40 centimetres tall.

RM: Yeah, at least. Yeah, it’s about a foot and a half.

CO: So let’s open this treasure chest, when you start flipping through each of the words that you have celebrated here — there's about three pages dedicated to each one. Just describe what happens in those pages?

RM: So the book is as simple as a book could be really. It's just 20 words — 20 lost words. It begins with “acorn”; it ends with “wren”. And it makes a crooked almost a to z throw “Aren” and “Kingfisher” and “bluebell” and “otter” all the way to the end. And for each of those words, which were lost from this dictionary and therefore from children's language and stories in this country and around the world, we wanted to make it a sort of summoning back — a magical procession. So you open the first page for let's say “acorn’ — the double spread. And nothing is there; acorn is gone, all that acorn leads to is gone. The oak tree is gone, forest gone, there's just a page of almost absence. But scattered across it are letters. some of those letters — coloured letters — which get picked out by the readers, the children, spell “acorn”. And once those letters have been found, sorted, found, picked out and spelled in that magical and also that very straightforward sense, you turn the page in and there is acorn back on gold leaf the wonderful acorn icon painted by Jackie, and there is a full spell written by me which spells out is the word “acorn”. And that's to be read aloud by the children, by their parents, by anyone. And we've been so surprised by the people who have read from this book. And then once you've cast your spell as it were, the acorn spell in this case, you turn the page finally and there's a glorious double page from Jackie of watercolour paintings of the acorn summoned back. And that is oak tree and the entire ecosystem that an oak tree makes and creates in the community.

CO: And for each of these words, some “acorn”, “adder”, “bluebell”, “bramble”, “fern”, “heather”, “kingfisher”, “otter” “raven”, “willow”, “wren” — each of these words has this spell. Each has its own three pages. You talk about the old strong magic of the words being spoken aloud. Why is the part of the magic that these words should be said aloud?

RM: That's a great question. It's wonderful to hear you say them. It's the first time I've heard them said in a Canadian accent. You say them very wonderfully. And then I hear them differently again. And perhaps that's a sort of answer to your question that when we say things I mean that is where literature begins. It's our oldest technology the speaking of names really almost as a species. And to put them back in the mouth is to put them back in the mind's eye and into story again in the old sense. We spell things aloud — magic works with speaking aloud, and so we wanted to catch a little of that. And also you remember things differently when you speak them. So whenever I finished a spell, I would always send it to Jackie by email rather than carrier falcon or something. And I would say you know to be read aloud. She was always the first person to read them, and I always asked her to read them aloud. And so it's happened. And we now get sent videos, photographs, films everyday of children speaking the words — the spells — aloud, performing them. And of people older people reading them with their children. People with dementia and other associated conditions who are losing words. In other ways they're trying to speak them aloud as well, or having them spoken aloud to them. So I think there's something very strong in poetry and in memory about speaking out.

CO: Why were these words that you celebrate here why were they taken out of the Oxford Junior Dictionary?

RM: They were taken out because they weren't being used enough. That’s the simple answer. It’s not the dictionary’s fault. This is a dictionary that's very widely used in Britain for children aged roughly six to eight. It's a small dictionary, so you know they have to take hard choices about what language is relevant at that age group. But the words that went in were very telling to this edition of the dictionary in went “broadband”, “block-graph”, “attachment” “voicemail”, and well you get the picture. This was a moment in lexical graphic analysis as it were which spoke of a much bigger moment in culture where childhood is becoming virtualized. It's becoming in interiorized — it’s going indoors. And nature is slipping from childhood, as it is slipping from all our lives and our landscapes. So the book was a kind of protest not against the dictionary but against the loss.

CO: But why do children why do they need to name nature? Is it not just enough to be in it? And, of course, we know a lot of children can't even be in it. It's not even possible for them. But is it not enough just to walk into a landscape? Why do you need to name landscapes? Why did you name the things in it?

RM: That’s a great question. And part of what you say is absolutely right, there's a huge inequality of access to nature. And I guess you know we meet many people who say oh, my children know all of these words. They know them. And I say well, that's great. But there are millions of children who don't for have many complicated social reasons. I've been in classes where you know not a child in 30 knows what an acorn is. Not a child in 30 knows what a wren is. It's not their fault. Why does it matter that we name that? That's another great question because children are brilliant at nature, right? They run into it. They clamber over it if you give them a chance. They're naturals at nature. They’re incredible wondernaughts. They taste it and eat it and touch it. But they also love naming it. Children are miraculous namers. And to name something I think is to know it a little better, to see it a little more clearly, and maybe to care for it a bit more. If you see only trees as green, if you can name acorn, or otter, or kingfisher, or some of these most basic of the creatures we share our lives with then I don’t think you care for them really.

CO: We were trying to decide which of your spells as you call them — they read as poems, but you call them spells — and which one we'd like you to read. And it's hard when you have bluebell, and bramble, and fern, and kingfisher, and raven, and willow, and wren. They all just roll off the tongue, but I believe we have settled on otter.

RM: Oh, great. Well I have I have the book open at otter, hoping that you would say otter. So I call them spells partly because I don't want real poets to think I think I'm a real poet, because I'm not. But yes, this is the otter spell, written to be read aloud and heard. And you may be able to hear that each new stanza starts with one of the letters of “otter” — it spells it in that sense. So here goes. Otter enters river without falter. What a supple slider. Out of halt and into water. This shape shifter is a sheer breath-taker. A sure heart-stopper, but you'll only have a spot a shadow flutter. Bubbles, and never — almost never — actual otter. This swift swimmer is a silver miner with trout, it bores each black pool deep and deeper. Delves up current steep and steeper. Turns the water inside out, then inside outer. Ever dreamed of being otter? That utter underwater thunderbolter. That shimmering twister. Run to the riverbank, otter dreamer. Slip your skin and change your matter, pour your outer being into otter. And enter now as otter without falter into water.

CO: Well, I think that's poetry.

RM: Just excuse me while I untie the 17 knots in my tongue.

CO: It's beautiful. I spend my summers in a place where there are a number of otter, and it's just it's very evocative of those creatures. But so are all of these spells about the different animals and plants that you have named. And I guess what comes to mind is that if the words are being lost, they’re being lost to, right? I mean just in the few past decades the species lost is enormous. So do you think that's a corresponding development?

RM: Yeah, it is. I mean I think powerfully we are living through an epoch of loss. We're surrounded by it. It overwhelms us. We find it very hard to focus on it, to see it. Loss is a kind of absence, and absence is largely invisible. It doesn't present itself to us. We barely notice it. And yet, there’s losses happening. Of course we know about the high-profile losses — the rainforest disappearance, the charismatic mega fauna, the polar bears falling back. But it's happening in our daily landscapes as well. And many of the creatures that are named in these 20 names particularly skylark probably one of those culturally famous birds. Starlings — I know you have a lot of starlings in North America, but they're plummeting in population in Britain; they're going. Kingfishers are going; their populations are slipping away. So, of course, as the creatures themselves go, the plants themselves go. So the names go with them. And what's been amazing among the many responses to this book has been to see the language come back into children's schools, and also to see the care come back. So thousands and thousands of schools in Britain now and increasingly across America and Europe are using the book as a way to focus change and drive change and bring hope. Children and their teachers are busy rebuilding habitats within school grounds. They're taking outdoor classroom days. In some cases they're even building outdoor classrooms within the school grounds to work on the book. And the idea is above all the ideas and the creatures it brings. And I think the power of the response that we've seen speaks of this moment of loss, but also of hope that we're living through right now.

CO: And I will point out you are not overstating the case of what affect this volume — this beautiful book — has had. And I think the Guardian says it best and called it a cultural phenomenon.

RM: Well, thank you. Actually, I feel it's completely beyond my control now. We planted this little acorn — well quite big, golden acorn — back a year ago in Britain. And this wildwood has whooshed up into being from it. That is really not to do with us or the book now. It's to do with these much bigger questions around our relationship with nature and the natural world right now. But yeah, the unfurling of this book has been like nothing I've ever seen before and never will again. And it's utterly thrilling and very humbling. So it seems to me to say something about the way that culture can change if not politics at least societies and communities. And the community spirit that has driven… I mean people sea-kayak to remote islands to give copies of this book to schools — they hand-deliver them by the thousands to schools; sometimes accompanied by barn owls. Wildlife trusts have got behind it. It's become the strange symbol of hope for change in a dark time.

CO: Robert, thank you for this old, strong magic that you have brought back to these words. And it's really, really wonderful to speak with you. Thank you.

RM: And you Carol. Thanks so much. Bye bye.

CH: That was Robert Macfarlane speaking with Carol back in November 2018 about his book "The Lost Words." You can see some of those award winning illustrations by his co-creator, artist Jackie Morris, on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

June 21, 2019 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode