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 2020

The AIH Transcript for October 15, 2020

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: Cold comfort. After 36 years and one wrongful conviction, Toronto police say they've identified the man who murdered nine year old Christine Jessop in 1984.

CH: Left, right and senators. While others focus on the future occupant of the Oval Office, some in the U.S. have their eyes squarely on the Senate, which our guest says is poised for a flip.

CO: Threats leveled. A Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq chief says if the RCMP don't start charging non-Indigenous fishermen for intimidation and vandalism, he's worried about more violence against his members.

CH: Primal scream therapy. The Newfoundland University student has had it with his school fumbling virtual learning and since case counts are low in the province he's petitioning for in-person classes.

CO: The dark side of the moon mission. NASA will soon lead a new lunar landing expedition. So it's laying out the ground rules for anyone taking part, including don't fight, don't be sneaky, and pick up after yourself.

CH: And sticking to their guns. The St. Louis couple infamous for pointing a big rifle and a tiny pistol at protesters in June, ate at a pancake restaurant this week and left the server a postcard of themselves holding the big rifle and the tiny pistol. As It Happens. The Thursday Edition. Radio that knows not to mix the gratuities and the gratuitous.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: First Nation chief says he fears for his people after attacks on Mi'kmaw lobster fishery

Christine Jessop cold case

Guest: James Lockyer

CH: 36 years after her death, Toronto police say they now know who killed Christine Jessop. Christine was nine years old when she was last seen buying bubble gum at a Toronto general store in 1984. Her body was found three months later. Here's interim Toronto Police chief James Ramer.

JAMES RAMER: On Friday, October 9th, 2020, we positively confirmed the identification of the person responsible for the DNA sample found on Christine's underwear. Calvin Hoover of Toronto, Ontario, was 28 years old in 1984. He was known to the Jessop family at the time of Christine's disappearance. He died in 2015. However, if he were alive today, the Toronto Police Service would arrest Calvin Hoover for the murder of Christine Jessop. Today's announcement is only the first very important answer in this ongoing investigation. It has obviously generated many more questions. And we are asking for the public's help as we look for information about Calvin Hoover, in an effort to create a timeline of his whereabouts and the last moments of Christine's life.

CH: The Christine Jessop case made headlines across the country not only because her disappearance and murder were shocking, but also because of the wrongful conviction of her neighbour, Guy Paul Morin. He was charged in her murder, acquitted in a first trial, and convicted in a second. Then in 1995, new DNA evidence led to his verdict being overturned. As It Happens spoke with Mr. Morin in January 1995, the day after his acquittal.

GUY PAUL MORIN: Well, I think initially it started off with the police. They wanted a person to pay for this crime, this crime that's the most horrendous crime anyone can do, take a life of another. And I see that they picked on me. They put their blindfolds on. They weren't broad minded enough. They didn't look at other suspects. They focused on me and they went full fledge. And it looks like, as I see it, I mean, they put the microscope on me. They over magnified and blew it out of proportion, distorted everything.

CH: James Lockyer was one of Guy Paul Morin's lawyers. We reached Mr. Lockyer in Toronto. And the warning: there are some disturbing details in this interview.

CO: Mr. Lockyer, when you hear the police say that they have positively identified the man who killed Christine Jessop. What does that mean to you at this point, after all these years?

JAMES LOCKYER: Well, it's some words I've been waiting to hear for 36 years. And it's really good to hear them. It's most unfortunate that the man is no longer alive. I'd like to see him prosecuted. But I guess we're never going to see that.

CO: It's been 25 years since your client, Guy Paul Morin, was acquitted. You've spoken with him today?

JL: Yeah, I spoke to him about an hour before the press conference. The police went to his house this morning and told him what was coming.

CO: What did he say?

JL: Well, you know, I think we all at the public inquiry into his wrongful conviction, we all got to know Christine's family, especially the mother and brother. And like me, Guy Paul's first thought was for them that I hope it is some crumb of comfort for them.

CO: Why do you think it took police so long? I mean, how Guy Paul Morin himself describes it, they wanted a person to pay for this crime, they picked on me with a blindfold on and they ignored all kinds of evidence. It's a quick summation of what you and others spent years building as the case to defend him. But why do you think the police didn't identify this man?

JL: Well, I suppose because they identified Guy Paul. I mean, that's one of the problems of a wrongful conviction, is that the real culprit gets away with it. You know, it's another impact, another effect that people often don't think of when you chase the wrong person. And that's what they did. And Guy Paul put it very well that they put on their blindfold. And that is exactly what they did back then.

CO: This man, Calvin Hoover, who killed himself in 2015. And as you say, he will not be facing trial for this murder. But he seems to have been a family friend of the Jessops. He was somebody who may have worked with Christine Jessop's father at one point. Is this a name that ever came up? I mean, in the course of the many different angles and roads you took trying to clear the name of Guy Paul Morin, did you ever hear the name of Calvin Hoover as a suspect?

JL: I think I'd remember the name somehow -- and I don't. It doesn't ring a bell at all. There were some other suspects sort of tentatively identified from time to time, but I don't remember him being one of them.

CO: But as you mentioned, Christine Jessop was murdered in the fall of 1984, they persisted in the trial of Guy Paul Morin until he was acquitted in 1995. During that period time for the police, this case was solved, they had no reason to look for anybody else. Does it cross your mind that there may have been others? Because the police say they're still gathering evidence about this and they want the public to respond? What do you make of the possibility that this man was at large for so long?

JL: Well, it's one of the first things that crossed my mind, actually. Larry Fisher, for example, who killed Gail Miller rather than David Milgaard carried on committing numerous sexual assaults on strangers in the ensuing 28 years. Because you think, you know, he abducted an eight year old girl from a family that he knew, and we know he sexually assaulted her because he left his semen on her panties and he drove her a long way. Her body was found some 25 miles or so from the family home where she disappeared from. She was last seen alive getting off the school bus and walking up the driveway to her home. So either he abducted her before she got in the house or he went to the door of the house and abducted her because there was no one else in the house that particular afternoon. So, yeah, of course. And I'm sure that's one of the things the police are looking into.

CO: And possibly her parents are thinking about.

JL: Yeah. You know, who knows what her parents are thinking, 36 years of this. They lost their daughter or the sister, depending on who you're thinking of. And now this sort of comes out of the blue. I mean, I think they only found out this morning as well, as far as I know. I mean, I'm still trying to react to it. It's still a bit of a shock, to say the least. I invested myself into this case like no other case in my career. It took probably a solid three years of my time working on it. Why? Because I right from the outset believed Guy Paul was innocent. And finally, we got the DNA results.

CO: At the same time that you were looking to exonerate Guy Paul Morin, you must have, in your mind since you believed him to be innocent all the time, have known that there was someone like Calvin Hoover out there. And this man, we now learned, was 28 years old at the time of the murder of Christine Jessop. And he kills himself. There's a mug shot, obviously, that they're showing. What are police do you think, looking for at this point about him?

JL: Well, they're looking to see if he's responsible for any other similar crimes, whether they are homicidal in nature or sexual in nature or a combination of both as they were in Christine's case. And I would think his suicide would suggest a very troubled person, consistent with, you know, the type of person who would have done what he did to Christine. I mean, there aren't many people on this planet, thank God, who can do what he did to her. So hard to believe it's a one timer. But I guess the police are trying to find out that very thing.

CO: The police say that they were able to crack this cold case because of new technologies, genetic genealogy, they have new tools -- that's why they were able to do it and not at the time. But how does that sit with you that they say, well, the only reason why we got it wrong before is because we didn't have the tools we have now?

JL: Well, today it sits very well with me indeed. And of course, it solves some other really significant cases like the Golden State killer in California, right. I mean, when Christine was murdered back in 1984, DNA was not available. We got a DNA result on Guy Paul or on Christine Jessop's clothing -- the result then was not a very discriminating result. It excluded Guy Paul 100 percent. But since then, we knew that they've got a much more discriminating result where they could put it into billions.

CO: How confident are you that they actually now have accused the right person? They got it wrong once. Is it possible they still have it wrong?

JL: Well, I don't think so. If they've got a match, it's going to be a match to the tune of probably trillions, a match to the extent that they can say there is only one person on planet Earth who could have this DNA reading 100 percent.

CO: Mr. Lockyer we will leave it there. Thank you.

JL: Okay thank you. Bye bye.

CH: James Lockyer is a Toronto lawyer who represents Guy Paul Morin, who was wrongfully convicted in the killing of nine year old Christine Jessop. Today, Toronto Police identified the man who killed Christine. Through DNA analysis, that man took his own life in 2015. You can find more on this story at: cbc.ca/toronto.

[Music]

Nova Scotia fishing latest

Guest: Mike Sack

CH: Anger and violence toward Indigenous lobster fishermen in Nova Scotia has moved from the water to the land. On Tuesday night, several hundred commercial fishermen raided two facilities where Mi'kmaq fishermen were storing their catches. As we heard on last night's program, one Indigenous fisherman barricaded himself inside a building while a mob of non-Indigenous fishermen yelled, threw rocks, and threatened to burn him out. The RCMP are being criticized for not taking action against anyone in that mob and not laying any charges. Mike Sack is the chief of the Sipekne'katik First Nation. We reached him in Digby, Nova Scotia.

CO: Chief Sack, did you ever think that the disagreements between the fishermen could turn into what we have seen in the past days?

MIKE SACK: No, I haven't. It's very unfortunate. And the real part is that our problem is not with them. We're here discussing our moderate livelihood with the government. And the fish industry has taken it upon themselves to try to interfere and interject.

CO: Can you describe what you saw, what you understand from the videos and what you've been told happened in these incidents on Tuesday?

MS: Yeah, I believe right from the start when we first issued our license that there's been a lack of law enforcement. And commercial industries are making it very well known that you're going to take law into their own hands. And there's hate crime and a lot of stuff going on that shouldn't be.

CO: Can you just describe what you saw happen on Tuesday?

MS: Yeah, Tuesday. We've had a couple of different lobster pounds that our people deal with, and they were targeted. The lobster pounds themselves were damaged, vehicles were burnt and damaged. Lobsters were removed from the lobster pound as well.

CO: And just describe the scene, because it appears or what we know and understand is that a very very large couple of hundred fishermen, commercial fishermen, showed up at those lobster pounds where Indigenous fishermen had their catch. Is that right?

MS: Yeah, I guess it was just mobs of commercial fishermen showing up to lobster pounds. They started to damage one of the pounds right away. And they messed with the cooling system, the water filtration system that would kill the lobsters that were inside. At that point, rocks were thrown, a lot of hollering and name calling. That's when they started to burn one of the vans. There was pushing and shoving from there when they weren't getting anywhere. So when they couldn't get inside the building, they left. They went more west, I guess, to another lobster pound where they took the same approach and they were successful on getting inside. They took the guys lobster. A couple of our band members were inside the building who were scared for their life. The RCMP didn't appear to be assisting them, they were just onlookers, I guess. So we've had a very rough chain of events for our community.

CO: There's one video of one of your members inside, as you point out, who appears to be trapped. He's saying that he can't get out, that he's afraid of what's going to happen, that he opens the door at some point, that a rock comes his way. What were the police doing about this? They were there at the time. What interventions that they make.

MS: The police have just been all along saying that they didn't have enough bodies on hand to enforce the situation. So they just kind of -- I'm not sure, you'd have to talk to them what their approach is. They were just kind of standing around in my view.

CO: And the RCMP have confirmed that the employees at both lobster pound locations were prevented from leaving while these mobs were there and that there were threats and all kinds of mischief, as it's called. How is that possible -- how is it that the police can't protect people when they're there and there's people they know who are being threatened inside?

MS: That's what we don't understand. That's where our frustration has come in. So we've tried all avenues. Today, we sent a letter off to the prime minister of Canada hoping there's something that he will do. If not, I'm not sure what tomorrow will bring.

CO: But what are the police saying as to why they didn't intervene? As you say, that it was not really clear whether someone was going to be seriously hurt. It didn't happen, but the police were there...

MS: The police have been on every site as everything has happened. And they're saying they don't have enough officers on hand to stop the situation. So they just let it go and they're taking the law into their own hands. And unfortunately, the RCMP is sitting back and collecting overtime.

CO: One of the videos we can see the RCMP standing at the entrance to a facility where one of your members is barricaded inside. And they appear to be preventing people from getting in the building. And another one, they're extinguishing a truck that's been set on fire. So they are intervening to some extent, are they not?

MS: Oh, yeah. There's some officers that are trying their best. And I've got nothing against the RCMP officers themselves. I'm uncertain of the mandate or direction they receive, that's where my concerns are.

CO: And what about the losses themselves? Because we saw lobster that had been dumped out onto the parking area. But social media posts circulated by people defending these raids and said that some of the lobsters they found in those pounds, they say, were egg bearing females, they weren't supposed to be harvested. They said there were dozens of crates of frozen dead lobster removed because they said that they found evidence of very poor fishing practices in the part of the Mi'kmaq fishermen. What do you say to that?

MS: They planted all that stuff to make it look that way. I was told directly from a commercial fisherman themselves that that was their plan to make it look like we're not able to regulate our own fishery and to discredit it and to do all sorts of undermining bad things to our people.

CO: So you're saying this wasn't a spontaneous thing that happened and they just happened to find this, you say that this was they planted this kind of evidence against the Mi'kmaq?

MS: Yeah, because there's that one facility is used by a couple of different people. So there's a friend of theirs that does not deal with any of our people that had into what's going on there - just trying to set it up and make our people think we're doing wrong.

CO: Chief Sack we'll be following this story as best we can. I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

MS: No problem. Thank you for your time.

CH: Mike Sack is the chief of the Sipekne'katik First Nation. We reached him in Digby, Nova Scotia. Now here's some of what Mark Miller, the federal minister of Indigenous Services, had to say about the video and the RCMP response today in Ottawa.

MARK MILLER: The first job of the police is to serve, protect, and preserve the peace. What I saw in the video was probably a limited snapshot of what went on, but it was obviously alarming. People need to be protected and space needs to be given for negotiations to be had under very difficult circumstances with Chief Sack and his people. This is the duty of the police. Again, I hesitate to to speak more about it because preserving the pieces is not a finality in and of itself -- it is a process that needs to be maintained and it includes more than these acute events. There's some exceptional people within the police force and there are also some systems that are set by systemic racism, need to be addressed. Hard to import all those thoughts into a particular video clip. But I was as alarmed as anyone that saw the video over social media over the last few days.

CH: That was the federal minister of Indigenous Affairs, Mark Miller, speaking today in Ottawa. And you can find more on this story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Moon rules

Guest: Mike Gold

CH: In space, no one can hear you scream. Even if you're standing on the moon yelling "Pick up that Snickers wrapper idiot!" at a fellow astronaut. That scenario, just so you know, would break more than one of the rules NASA has drafted for proper moon etiquette. The proposed rules, called the Artemus Accords, include being peaceful and not littering. The U.S. space agency has convinced eight other countries, including Canada, to sign on. But some countries might not be so eager to agree. Mike Gold works for NASA. We reached him in Washington, D.C..

CO: Mike, under this accord, just how badly behaved would an astronaut have to be to be told to get off the moon?

MIKE GOLD: [Chuckles] Pretty badly. They would have to violate the outer space treaty, which I think is a relatively high bar. But let me warn all the astronauts out there that the purpose of the accords is actually to enforce the outer space treaty to create repercussions for bad actors. So I don't expect to have any issues, particularly with our astronauts. But for the first time, there's actually consequences to not following international obligations, which is why we're so excited about the Artemus Accords.

CO: Why was it necessary? What was the the motivation to set up these rules?

MG: So we are embarking on a grand new journey to the moon, and then eventually to Mars via the Artemus program. And the goal is for NASA to land the first woman and the next man on the moon by 2024. We're going to have amazing new opportunities for science and discovery on the moon -- and then again, eventually on Mars. But these new opportunities require a new legal framework. And that's why we have the Artemus Accords to ensure that as we move forward with the Artemus of this mission and the exploration of the moon, that we do so in a safe, peaceful, transparent fashion.

CO: Okay, so space, especially the moon, is about to get very busy -- so you have rules. Rule number one, which makes perfect sense 'Everyone must come in peace.' Can you give us some of the other rules that you'd like to see space explorers and people who visit the moon actually obey?

MG: Certainly. Many of the rules that I'm about to describe are in service of what you just mentioned -- how do we preserve the peace? And transparency is the very spine of the Artemus Accords. So many terrestrial conflicts are based on misperceptions and confusions, which is why we're requiring four countries to join us in the Artemus mission to be transparent, to honour the registration conventions so we know where different countries or even companies are operating to deconflict activities. And that involves notification of safety zones. And these are areas where a country or company may be operating that they would inform the United Nations and the public where they're operating and what they're doing and then coordinate if any other entity were to enter that zone. We are trying to avoid conflict before it happens via the ground rules of the Artemus Accords. Another important principle is the public release of scientific data that we've got seven terrific partners that have signed on to the Artemus Accords. We've got numerous relationships throughout NASA. But we want to be able to take the whole world with us on the Artemus journey. And that's why publicly releasing our scientific data for anyone who has an Internet connection, they can enjoy the benefits of this new era of discovery.

CO: And also things about, taking your garbage with you. Because we know that space is pretty junked up at this point, isn't it?

MG: Absolutely. We have a very challenging situation relative to orbital debris right now here on Earth and like with so many things, we need to do better as we go to space than we have on Earth. And orbital debris is a good example of that. And that's why underneath the Artemus Accords, we're going to ask all of our partners, as well as ourselves, to act in a responsible fashion where there must be plans for the safe disposal of spacecraft or other debris to ensure that we preserve the environment and space for future both governments as well as commercial operations.

CO: So your traditional allies, the U.S.'s traditional allies, like Canada, Australia, Japan, the U.K., they have agreed to this accord. I guess, conspicuous by its absence is Russia. Why can't you get Russia to sign on?

MG: So the Artemus Accords are for contributions to the Artemus program. So nations that want to participate in Artemus, what we're saying is, if you're going to join us, we're actually going to require some ground rules. This is not a replacement for the outer space treaty or any kind of grand treaty -- again, this is rules for people who are contributing to Artemus. So if you're not contributing to the Artemus program, then you don't have to sign. And that's why you don't see Russia or a few other countries that aren't currently participating in Artemus. That being said, we hope that as many countries as possible do eventually join the Artemus program. And when they will, then they'll be asked to sign the accords.

CO: When you talk about this being for the benefit of all mankind and as from the point of view of the science of space exploration, but we know that a lot of the motivation for going to space is commerce, isn't it? It's to make money, it is to explore, to possibly find resources. And that's very competitive. So isn't that one of the problems with trying to come up with universal rules that countries might not sign on because they're don't want to share their information, they want to be compatible with the United States because they're competing with you?

MG: So I don't think that there's actually competition relative to these principles between science and commerce or even between nations. I think that everyone benefits to the extent that we have rules and norms of behaviour that preserves safety and preserve transparency. We all want and need these important principles.

CO: All right. We'll leave it there. Thanks Mike.

MG: Thank you. We appreciate your interest in space exploration and NASA.

CH: Mike Gold is NASA's acting chief for international and inter-agency relations. He was in Washington, D.C..

[Music]

Part 2: U.S. Senate flip

U.S. Senate flip

Guest: Jessica Taylor

CH: The president of the United States is often called the most powerful person in the world. But what the president can do with that power depends heavily on Congress and who controls its two branches. In a few weeks, not only is the presidency up for grabs, so is control of the Senate. It's now in the hands of the Republicans. But some are predicting the Democrats could win it back. Jessica Taylor is one of those prognosticators. She analyzes the Senate for the independent newsletter, The Cook Political Report. We reached her in Washington, D.C..

CO: Jessica, what makes you think that the Democrats are the clear favourite to control the Senate after this election?

JESSICA TAYLOR: Well, Democrats started out with an advantage when we look at the map, because Republicans are defending 23 seats to just 12 for Democrats. And at this point, we have over a dozen races, Republican held races, that we consider competitive. Now Democrats need to flip three seats -- if Joe Biden wins the presidency, making Vice President Kamala Harris the tiebreaker, four if he doesn't. But I think that they can safely assume that if they're looking at winning the Senate, then Joe Biden has won the presidency. But getting to those three, they're likely to lose a seat in Alabama, but there are at least two seats that I think are definitely their way, Arizona and Colorado, that we rate as lean Democrat. And then there are seven seats in our toss up category and another three in our lean Republican category. So they have multiple opportunities there to get those remaining two seats that they would need.

CO: What are the forces behind that? What are the things that might flip those? Because some of them weren't competitive races when this election began, were they?

JT: They weren't. I mean, Democrats are swamping Republicans in money and ad spending. And then when you see President Trump's numbers dropping and Republicans really saw in their polling a precipitous drop after the first debate where President Trump did not do very well at all and then after his COVID diagnosis. So you have, I think, just the instability that President Trump brings. Health care is a major issue. I think that's the issue that really helped Democrats win back the House in 2018. And now could do the same for them in 2020. And I think that issue and the issue of protecting pre-existing conditions has only been magnified due to the pandemic.

CO: What are you hearing from Republican insiders about their prospects?

JT: They're very dim. They really feel like Trump is being a drag on down ballot candidates, and they've really saw that after that debate especially. And, you know, right now, on average, he is trailing Joe Biden in polls by about 10 points. And it's been, you know, pretty steady at about seven or eight points but that's gotten worse in the past few weeks. I think these Republicans are sort of inextricably linked to Trump. And the one thing that I hear that Republicans are hearing in focus groups and Democrats are too, that they see these Republican senators as enablers of Trump -- if some of them are sort of beginning to sort of slowly distance themselves from him in these last few weeks, it's too little, too late.

CO: A few days ago on the show, we looked at Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and his fight in South Carolina. His opponent there is just bringing in tons of money, just an unprecedented amount of support there. But I want to look at some of the other competitive races, the two leading ones you mentioned. Let's look at Colorado. Tell us why there is going to be possibly a Democratic senator in Colorado when this is all over?

JT: Well, I think that's the probably number one seat that Democrats are most likely to flip. Cory Gardner running for a second term. And he has the not great distinction of being the Republican incumbent running in a state that Trump lost by the most in 2016. Trump lost Colorado by five points. Again, we expect that to grow to double digits. And so while I think Gardner is running a good race and his Democratic opponent, former Governor John Hickenlooper, has not run a stellar one, the lean of that state ultimately, I think, is going to be too much for Gardner to overcome. And he is, again, in our ratings favourite to lose that seat.

CO: What about in Arizona? He also mentioned Martha McSally.

JT: So Arizona is another state where we have seen really the demographics shift the political landscape. Part of the Sunbelt, where we see a growing population, a diversifying population and also a lot of seniors moving in. Those are two groups that President Trump and subsequently Republicans are rapidly losing. McSally was appointed to this seat. She was never elected to fill the seat of the late Senator John McCain. And in fact, she was appointed to it after she had just lost the race for the same position in 2018. So McSally is coming in already with high negatives, having lost that race. She didn't really do much differently. And then you have Democrat Mark Kelly, who is a former astronaut. I think one of the Democrat's best recruits that even Republicans will concede to. He's also the husband of Gabrielle Giffords, a former Democratic congresswoman there who was shot and nearly assassinated almost a decade ago while she was giving a sort of constituent stop, and several others were killed as well. So they become outspoken advocates for gun control.

CO: What do you think at this point is the best Republicans can do with the Senate?

JT: Our projections is that Democrats would gain between two and seven seats. So that's sort of low end, leaves them still one seat short. But when I talk with Republicans, they think their best night is keeping it to 51-49. So that would be them, you know, losing four seats total. And I think that's sort of the median where most Republicans were hoping okay, maybe we're not swamped out here.

CO: But would still have the Democrats in control of the Senate?

JT: Yeah, they'd still be in control. But I think, you know, again, you start talking about higher and higher margins, then that makes it much harder for Republicans to work on things. Or this is what Republicans are saying, you know, if Democrats, do you have a majority then they could push things through, like repealing the filibuster or adding members to the Supreme Court, things like that.

CO: We are, I guess, just less than three weeks left in the campaign. Might you change your prediction before voting day?

JT: Well, I mean, the problem is, is there is no voting day here, really, specifically because we have millions of people that have already cast their ballots that are voting right now because we in many states have loosened restrictions on mail in and absentee voting. There are long lines forming in early voting states like South Carolina and Georgia. People are voting now. Millions of people have already cast their ballot. And we sort of are getting some of that data in from what those voters look like and right now at least, the numbers look very bad for Republicans. But we do see, though, that more Republican voters tend to vote on Election Day. So Republicans need to get their voters out to sort of counter the advantage that Democrats have built up with absentee and early voting.

CO: All right. We'll be watching. Jessica, thank you.

JT: Thank you.

CH: Jessica Taylor is a U.S. Senate analyst for the independent newsletter of The Cook Political Report. She was in Washington, D.C..

[Music]

Mayann Francis

CH: It started with an apology and it seemed a plan for real action to tackle racism in Nova Scotia. Last month, Premier Stephen McNeil apologized for systemic racism and promised to restructure the justice system to promote equality. To accomplish that lofty task, the government appointed a so-called design team to decide on the next steps. But a prominent Black Nova Scotian says members of her community who were working on this issue were excluded from the team on purpose. Yesterday, former Lieutenant Governor Mayann Francis was a guest on CBC Halifax's Mainstreet, where she discussed her concerns about the anti-racism efforts.

MAYANN FRANCIS: We are in a situation now which is very, I find it, extremely sad because it's dividing and it's also a step back, and it also shows disrespect for members of the African-Nova Scotian community who have been working for decades, the last several years, on issues of injustice with the justice system. Why were they not consulted? I don't understand that. When you're going to have an apology, you need to make sure that the apology is followed by positive actions. So what I called 2020 and what we're dealing with now, I call that modern day slavery -- leading to systemic discrimination. When I think about slavery, I look at it as a successful business that was able to pass down from generation to generation negative attitudes about Black people, we are inferior, we're not intelligent, we're not articulate. All of those. And then separate is another description for women, which I'll just leave that aside. It's another day. I think people who are on the committee, whether you are African-Nova Scotian or whatever colour you are, whether you're White privileged or Indigenous, I think you have to ask yourself, are we doing the right thing? Does that mean I step away? Does that mean I stay on but recommend that we talk to or consult with? And go from there.

CH: That was former Nova Scotia Lieutenant Governor Mayann Francis talking to our friend Jeff Douglas yesterday on Mainstreet, sharing her concerns about a new committee that's been formed to tackle systemic racism in the province's justice system.

[Music]

Memorial University class

Guest: Marcus Furlong

CH: Marcus Furlong is sick and tired of taking his university courses online. Mr. Furlong is in his third year at Memorial University of Newfoundland. Like most post-secondary students across the country, he's taking virtual classes. And that won't be changing anytime soon. The school's senate recently voted to continue online courses through the winter. But unlike students in the rest of the country, Marcus Furlong lives in Newfoundland and Labrador, where COVID is basically nonexistent. The province hasn't had a single new case for the past three days. So he's started a petition to get people back into the classroom. We reached Marcus Furlong in Torbay.

CO: Marcus, what was your day of virtual university like today?

MARCUS FURLONG: Well, it was the same as any other to try and get myself ready for it. I start out with a bit of an exercise, and then I spend hours at a time on the computer doing work, mostly going through slides and watching some pre-recorded video lectures, things like that.

CO: What do you think that you're missing out on in not being able to go to Memorial University in person?

MF: I think what I'm missing out on is I'm missing out on the in-person instruction. And there's some things that you just don't get through the online instruction. You're not as able to ask questions as readily when it comes up. And other students, you don't get to hear their questions answered as well because sometimes a student will ask a question that you weren't thinking of and then that helps you learn more as well. And also, it's also very impersonal. We're really just losing out on a lot of communication as well as losing out on a suitable learning environment, because it's a lot harder to learn from home than it is in a classroom setting.

CO: What program are you in?

MF: Doing a mix of biology and earth sciences, because I'm going to be a paleontologist, so it's kind of a mix of the two.

CO: And so how do you think it's affecting your ability to get the education you need for the job you want?

MF: I definitely think it is compromising it. I mean, I'm doing everything I can to meet the new learning environment that I'm in. But ultimately, I do think that it's resulting in a lower quality of education and compromising my actual learning. And I'm not quite understanding things as well as I would have had I had been there.

CO: We know that lots of things are compromised. Lots of things aren't what they should be. And we are in the middle of a pandemic. So do you think it's appropriate to actually have to make these kinds of compromises?

MF: So for most of the country, most of Canada, I would say yes. But in Newfoundland and the Atlantic bubble, we kind of find ourselves in a bit of a unique situation -- Newfoundland especially given that it's an island, something that we have that the rest of Atlantic bubble doesn't, because all the Atlantic bubble, except for maybe New Brunswick right now has really low cases. Newfoundland has really enforceable borders. We know who's coming in and from where they're coming, because the only way you're getting into Newfoundland is by air and by sea. And because of that, I think we're in a unique position where we're actually able to take a lead and open up more in-person activity on the campus where that might not be possible in the rest of Canada.

CO: But you know that the government of Newfoundland and lots of people who live in Newfoundland believe that the reason why you don't have very many cases over the course of this virus, is because it's been so strict. I mean, Newfoundland has been one of the strictest places in Canada dealing with the movements of people. Do you think that they're showing that they are having the results now?

MF: I would agree. I was actually in favour of Newfoundland closing the borders. I was suggesting that it should be done before it was actually done. And so I agree that that's why it has happened. But what we have to look at here is that given that we have dealt with the virus mostly in Newfoundland right now, there is an opportunity to allocate resources, to actually allow for the return of students in. We are letting rotational workers into Newfoundland as of now, having our quarantine requirements in place and making sure that people coming in are tested and making sure that they're not testing positive for the coronavirus, and if they are -- taking the appropriate measures to deal with that. And I think the same thing can be done with students if they were to come in as well.

CO: The university has said that it will allow some activities to take place on school property this winter. I think, for example, the students that have programs that have what they call significant practical components, that might include you, is that possibly something that you will be able to take advantage of?

MF: I'm hoping that I will be able to take advantage of that. I mean, I'm doing science courses that have lab components. I can only hope that classes like that will be allowed to take place. But given the significant amount of sciences going on at Memorial, I'm kind of a bit pessimistic in imagining that that will be the case. I don't see them without some kind of a push actually allowing the different sciences to hold lab activities or things like that.

CO: Are you getting any live lectures where you can actually interact with your professor?

MF: Myself, no. There are some people, but the vast majority of students I know are getting all asynchronous classes where you're either watching recordings or just going over a PowerPoint slides with a voiceover that you click on.

CO: So you started a petition. What kind of reaction are you getting from other students?

MF: So it's a very bipolar reaction. I'm finding there's some students that are all for it and they really want to go back to classes and they think it can be done. And then the other reaction is there's a bit of a knee jerk to say, no, of course not, we're in a pandemic.

CO: But for the most part, you think that students, including yourself, will just continue with your semester?

MF: It's a really tough question and it will vary ultimately on student ro student. I know several students who dropped classes because the workload has increased. And they also just don't have suitable learning environments or maybe they have learning conditions. And I actually know some students who have skipped the semester or have dropped out of the semester and they were waiting for the return in January, like a lot of people were expecting. And with the news in January, they're kind of figuring out where they are and whether or not they should go into the online classes or whether they should stay out or not.

CO: And what about you?

MF: That's a bit of a tough question for me as well. I'm not sure. One of the possibilities I've been looking at is seeing if I might be able to transfer to one of the three universities in the Maritimes right now, which are having in-person classes this semester and haven't had any outbreaks.

CO: So you might leave Memorial.

MF: It's a possibility. It's something that I've been considering because I realistically have to consider my education here. If I can't get a proper education here, I mean, we don't know when we're going to go back, if not January.

CO: All right, Marcus, we'll leave it there. I hope it gets better for you. It sounds very frustrating. But thank you.

MF: All right. Thank you for your time.

CH: Marcus Furlong is a third year student at Memorial University of Newfoundland. We reached him in Torbay.

[Music]

Mark & Patricia McCloskey

CH: These people assume you remember them. But if you don't have a mental picture of them, don't worry. They have lots of actual pictures of themselves to give you.

MARK MCCLOSKEY: Good evening America. We are Mark and Patty McCloskey. We're speaking to you tonight from St. Louis, Missouri, where just weeks ago you may have seen us defending our home as a mob of protesters descended on our neighbourhood.

PATRICIA MCCLOSKEY: America is such a great country that not only do you have a right to own a gun and use it to defend yourself, but thousands of Americans will offer you free advice on how to use it. At least that's what we experienced.

CH: This past June, Mark and Patricia McCloskey did defend their home. Or from a different perspective, they stood awkwardly on their lawn, pointing one weirdly huge gun and one weirdly tiny gun at protesters who were just walking by. This week, they pleaded not guilty to felony charges for that incident. And some people even consider the McCloskeys heroes, especially the McCloskeys. On Tuesday, the couple eight at the Original Pancake House in Ladue, Missouri. Shortly thereafter, their server said, "Oh, my God, look what they left me." Not referring to the tip, but to the two postcards Mark and Patricia McCloskey had left -- postcards featuring photos of Mark and Patricia McCloskey. In one, they were holding the guns on their lawn in June, that's the one they autographed. Since the story went public, a lot of people have expressed confusion over this act of generosity, including the photographer who took that picture and says the postcard may be a copyright violation because they didn't get permission to use it. It seems like the McCloskeys are really trying to stretch their 15 minutes of fame or infamy. Also seems like now they might be stuck with piles of illegal postcards. So whether they're acquitted or they wind up in prison, they'll probably still be holding all the cards.

[Music]

Red dresses

CH: Last week, Mohamad Bsat was out for a run in Hamilton, Ontario, with two friends. They're part of a group called The Air Up There Run Crew, which was created specifically for runners who are Black, Indigenous and People of Colour. The crew was nearly finished their run when they saw something that made them stop in their tracks: a collection of red dresses was hanging from the trees outside Hamilton's central police station. They paused for a few seconds to take some photos of the art installation, which is meant to raise awareness about missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Then they went on their way and then they heard two police officers calling after them. Here's Mohamad Bsat speaking to CBC Hamilton about what happened next.

MOHAMAD BSAT: As we were kind of crossing the street, I was a bit ahead. Two police officers shouted at us, "Hey, get back here." And I was a bit ahead of my two friends, Claire and Vince. Claire a non-binary Black person, and Vince a West Indian man. They stopped them. And I turned around and I catch the interrogation and they're asking them, what are you doing here? Vince answered that they were just taking photos. So I jumped in at that point and said, what's happening? They said they were responding to suspicious activity. I said, what suspicious activity? Two Brown people and a Black person taking in an art exhibit. And a police officer said, well, someone came and complained to us. There's also been a lot of hatred towards the police because of the defund the police movement. So they wanted to respond to this suspicious activity. So then the police officer pulled out a notepad to continue their questioning. And at that point, I said, are you detaining us? They said no. And I told them we will no longer be answering any of their questions, and we left immediately. And I felt small. I felt really dehumanize. And I think that might be my two friends could concur with that experience. We're all contributing members of this community -- and in that moment, it didn't matter. We were judged and racially profiled because of the colour of our skin. And we were made to feel like we weren't part of this community, that we were just seen as threats.

CO: Mohamad Bsat speaking yesterday. After posting about the incident online, Mr. Bsat and his running group decided to organize another community run last night. CBC Hamilton spoke with Jessica Bonilla-Damptey who showed up to walk alongside Mr. Bsat and his group in solidarity.

JESSICA BONILLA-DAMPTEY: I am here to walk in solidarity with all BIPOC folks. I am here to walk in solidarity and say that these streets are our streets. And as a Latin American Indigenous woman, a person of colour, a visible person of colour, a mother of two children who are racialized -- we're Black, Indigenous and as well as Latin American. These streets need to be safe for our kids. They need to be safe for us and they need to be safe for all of our communities. I am also a member of the Sisters in Spirit Committee here in Hamilton who had the red dress display at City Hall on October 4th and was cautiously excited to have the red dress display out front of the city of Hamilton's police station. As a racialize individual, I also know that the police station isn't necessarily a safe place for all people, and police aren't necessarily safe for all people. And our community is having big conversations of what safety looks like in our cities here in Hamilton. And running by an art exhibit or running in front of a police station that should be a place that is safe for us, for all people. But as a racialized individual, knowing that it isn't necessarily a safe place for folks. And that being validated by this experience where these runners said that they were dehumanized and humiliated for this experience shows us that we have so much more work to do in Hamilton in general to prevent these things from happening. AsI mentioned, I'm a mother of two children who are racialized, I have nieces and nephews who are also racialized, and know lots of other kids who are racialized -- and I do not want them to have to go through these experiences that we're going through as adults, and our ancestors have gone through as well.

CH: That was Jessica Bonilla-Damptey speaking with CBC Hamilton yesterday about a run organized to support the city's BIPOC community.

[Music]

Part 3: Rutgers profs

Rutgers profs

Guest: Deepa Kumar

CH: They've invested decades of their lives in Rutgers, but the university has invested in them at a discounted rate. That's what Rebecca Givan, the V.P. of a union at the New Jersey school, said today at a news conference before introducing the plaintiffs in a new lawsuit. All five are female tenured professors at Rutgers and all five are suing for pay equity. Deepa Kumar is one of the plaintiffs. She's a former president of the union that's filed this lawsuit. And she's a professor of media studies at Rutgers. We reached her in Union City, New Jersey.

CO: Professor Kumar, how much money do you estimate you've lost out on over the years?

DEEPA KUMAR: I estimate that I have lost about 300,000 dollars over the last 12 years because I wasn't paid what I should have been paid.

CO: Wow. And this is in comparison to which colleagues? How would you compare that to come up with that number?

DK: So the salaries of my colleagues who were hired at the same time as I was and done an analysis with the help of my union.

CO: And the people you compared yourself with are mostly men?

DK: Yes.

CO: Or are all men, I should say?

DK: Yes.

CO: And White men?

DK: Correct.

CO: But this isn't the only case -- you're not an outlier here, are you? What did you and the others discover about pay disparity at Rutgers?

DK: So essentially, about half a century ago, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a lawsuit for pay equity along with all of her colleagues at Rutgers, female colleagues at Rutgers. And they actually won a historic settlement. The lowest awarded payment was six thousand dollars, which back in 1969 is quite a bit of money. Now, when I was the vice president and later the president of our union, the Rutgers AAUP-AFT, I did a survey of our members to see the extent to which we have either progressed or we have gone back. And the hard reality is that pay inequity continues to exist. Men are systematically paid more than their female counterparts for doing essentially the same work. And so we took it upon ourselves as a union to address it and to put forward the proposal of equal pay for equal work. And our management wouldn't have any of it. We provided hard data. We provided evidence that an economist, Professor Mark Killingsworth, trained at the University of Oxford actually did for us. And management was having none of it. But eventually, on the brink of a strike, we won this provision to actually realize pay equity not just for women and people of colour and the disabled and our LGBTQ colleagues, but for everyone. Anyone who does standardly similar work is another, and who is not paid the same, actually has a process which within 90 days they can have their pay set right.

CO: But now you're still launching the suit. Why is that?

DK: Well, because it's been 15 months since we ratified our contract and since this pay equity provision has gone into effect. And in fact, some colleagues who have applied for this program, have been waiting longer than a year to actually have their pay corrected. And not one single case has actually been addressed. In fact, the university has hired notorious anti-union firm by the name of Jackson Lewis. And so the union felt that it was high time that this was set right. And so five people, five women, five female colleagues who are senior in rank were selected by the law firm representing us to come forward and to take this to the court.

CO: And we should say the five of you are tenured professors. Two of them are distinguished professors. They have the highest levels of scholarship, published books, peer reviewed articles, speaking engagements, are well-known in their fields, as are you. So is that making a Rutgers University shake in its boots?

DK: Well, that's a great question, and it should be. And I really hope that that is what is going on. I know that there was some anxiety behind the scenes once they heard that the New York Times will be running this article about us. The thing is, you know, universities like to keep their shame hidden and it's only when a public spotlight shone on it that, one can actually expect to see any movement or any justice.

CO: I was fascinated to read that the longer women are in their careers, the more the gap grows, so that if you go back to some of the junior professors, people in the ranks who are starting, there's less disparity. But as you progress, when you think you're actually going to do better, that's when the separation actually gets more pronounced, doesn't it?

DK: That's exactly right. And the thing is, it's not because the women don't accomplish as much, whether in terms of scholarship, teaching, or service. You know, you've seen the records of all the five people who are going up. What happens is that when we first join, we are recruited quite heavily because we apparently have potential. And therefore our starting salaries are not always, but certainly in a lot of instances are quite competitive. But then the system of rewards and punishments works, rewards, particularly work better for you if you are White and male. And so I, for instance, started in a cohort of five faculty who were all hired around the same time. They were all White except for me. My salary was actually among the highest of these folks because I was being recruited away from another university. But within a decade I had fallen to the lowest in this group. And I had a pay equity difference of 13,500 dollars on average. That is the amount I was earning less than that.

CO: You mentioned that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was among those -- now she wasn't a Supreme Court justice when she was at Rutgers fighting for pay equity 50 years ago. How do you think she might react to know that your women are still fighting for the same thing?

DK: I think she would be very saddened to hear that a historic battle that she fought with her colleagues is one that we are having to refight and to re-litigate all over again.

CO: Professor Kumar it is good to talk to you. Thank you.

DK: Thank you very much.

CH: Deepa Kumar is a media studies professor at Rutgers University. We reached her in Union City, New Jersey. In a statement to our program, Rutgers said that creating a new and complex pay equity program is complicated at the best of times, and that COVID-19 has made things more complicated. But it says we are committed to resolving outstanding claims as quickly and responsibly as possible.

[Music]

Internet

CH: When the world shut down, people turn to the Internet for just about every aspect of their lives: ordering groceries, finding masks that were both fashionable and functional, talking to our families. But for the first six months of the pandemic, Catherine Peever was completely disconnected from everything because she didn't have Internet. Ms. Peever is visually and mobility impaired. She lives in the community of Rexdale in northwest Toronto, one of the places hardest hit by the pandemic. Here she is speaking with CBC Toronto about what it's been like to navigate this new world and what a difference the Internet made in her life.

CATHERINE PEEVER: It was a really awful six months. I was very frightened. I was angry. I felt that I had been left behind because I'd say, you know, I need help getting groceries, and they'd say, well, order them online. Well, I don't have Internet. And they'd say, well, here's some URLs for Wi-Fi access. And how do I find these things if I don't have Internet? The Rexdale Community Health Centre, the seniors coordinator there -- well, the staff there -- worked really hard and they found an Internet provider company that gave them a deal. And so they set up a thing for the seniors to get four months of Internet access. It really opened up my world. I could get information on COVID. I could order things online. I could talk to my relatives that are far away, they're not in the Toronto area, you know, information, getting books from the library.

ISMAILA ALFA: What were the initial barriers to you getting Wi-Fi or having Internet?

CATHERINE PEEVER: I've been without Internet since 2016. When my phone line in the apartment stopped working, I lost my cheap Internet access. And the only options that I could find through research was either Bell for Rogers version of the same. And they were three times the cost of what I was paying. So I accepted that I'm going to have to go without Internet. I'm going to have to use the library now.

ISMAILA ALFA: Now, at least through the healthcare centre or the health centre, you do have the Internet, which is a good step. I mean, COVID-19 tests in Ontario are now by appointment only, the easiest way to do that is online. What's your message to policymakers about people in your possession for whom Internet affordability is a barrier?

CATHERINE PEEVER: But first thing I'd love to say is you really need to make the fact that Internet access is not universal part of your contingency plans for situations like this. And second of all, I'd like to ask Internet provider corporations to consider the fact that there's a significant number of us, my neighbours, my friends, who can't afford Internet access, that we really need to have affordable Internet access in order to make sure that everybody's okay during situations like this.

CH: That was Catherine Peever from Toronto speaking with Metro Morning host is Ismaila Alfa.

[Music]

Netherlands flu shot cafe

Guest: Bas van der Elst

CH: The Netherlands set a grim new record today. For the first time, it surpassed 7,500 new daily COVID-19 cases, making it one of the worst hit countries in Europe. And last night, the country went into a partial lockdown, mandating masks indoors for the first time since the pandemic started and closing down bars and restaurants. Which means Bas van der Elst's restaurant in The Hague had to shut its doors, at least to customers looking to dine in. But for the past two days, people have been showing up there to get their flu shots. We reached Bas van der Elst at Cafe Franklin in The Hague.

CO: Bas, how is your restaurant handling their first day of this lockdown in the Netherlands?

BAS VAN DER ELST: Well, actually, we've been expecting this lockdown for a few days so we could prepare for it. We're doing takeout and delivery once again, just as we did in the first 11 weeks of the lockdown this spring. So actually, we were just preparing to get everything going for takeout and delivery.

CO: What does it look like in Cafe Franklin tonight?

BAS VAN DER ELST: Yeah, we had some orders and we got some people going on the streets taking out food because they wanted to leave their homes, maybe for a few a few minutes. But it's an empty cafe right now and people are just taking out and we are taking out orders and we're delivering them. So it's a whole different setting than in a normal situation.

CO: What would it normally look like tonight?

BAS VAN DER ELST: Packed. [Chuckles] Yeah. This is a completely different situation.

CO: Now, I understand you were quite busy and the place was quite packed earlier today before you opened for a coffee. What was going on in Cafe Franklin today?

BAS VAN DER ELST: Well, we made our cafe available to the doctor's practice across the street to give patients their flu shots. So it was a very busy afternoon.

CO: Why did your cafe end up being a place to get flu shots?

BAS VAN DER ELST: Because the practice itself has long narrow corridor with just one entrance, which makes it impossible to accommodate hundreds of patients in a COVID proof setting. And our cafe has two entrances, which allows for a constant flow of people. So, yeah. So it is way more COVID proof than their practice. So we've made it available to them.

CO: Did you volunteer? Did they approach you?

BAS VAN DER ELST: No, they approached us. We immediately said yes, because, of course, we wanted to help them.

CO: All right. What did you think when you said, hey, can we use your cafe to give people flu shots?

BAS VAN DER ELST: [Chuckles] I thought it was quite an unusual proposal. But yeah, after I thought of it, we immediately said, yes, let's do it. Let's help these people.

CO: I was listening to an interview or a report from a BBC reporter who is a local stringer in your neighbourhood who was walking by, I guess she goes to your Cafe Franklin, and was thinking, why are there so many people in there and why are they all wearing masks? And then she realized that it was a flu clinic.

BAS VAN DER ELST: Yeah. Yeah, well, people reacted somewhat surprised when they saw the large queue outside. They were probably thinking that we were giving away free beer or anything. [Laughter] Yeah, normally we are quite a popular cafe, but we've never had a queue this large.

CO: How are people in The Hague? How people in your country, how are they dealing with this latest news of this very large surge in cases of COVID-19?

BAS VAN DER ELST: Yeah. Well, the number of infections is rising very swiftly, so that's why the government has imposed new restrictions this week. But we're not in full lockdown in the Netherlands at the moment. Here in Holland, we call it a lockdown light, so people are able to go out on the streets, all shops remain open, supermarkets are still open, schools are open, but people are working from home as much as possible and restaurants and cafes are closed. But there are still people on the streets. It's just way less busy than it used to be.

CO: And what are people's attitude toward the pandemic? Are they wearing masks? Are they keeping a distance?

BAS VAN DER ELST: Well, you know, here in Holland, we are keeping a distance. There is this discussion about the masks, whether they would really have a significant influence on the spread of the virus. So I guess we are not wearing as many masks as in other countries -- around the world or in Europe for instance. But people are more willing to wear a mask in the last couple of weeks.

CO: I thought the government is saying that people need to.

BAS VAN DER ELST: Yeah, well, in the first weeks of the pandemic, the government always has underlined that the effect of masks is so small that it wouldn't be necessary to wear them. And in the last couple of weeks, they are trying to get people to wear masks, because even if it just works for a fraction, it would work in containing the virus.

CO: Do you wear a mask?

BAS VAN DER ELST: I do wear a mask, when I go shopping, for instance, and we wear masks at our cafe when we serve people or now when people take out food.

CO: There is a video from last night on the news just well, I guess was online just minutes before the lockdown, it was a countdown toward 10 p.m. and it was an outdoor bar in The Hague. Other bars you could see that in the distance packed with people. Everyone having a party as they went to this countdown to when the bars would close. So it didn't seem like people were terribly worried about the pandemic. Is that the mood in The Hague?

BAS VAN DER ELST: Well, I haven't seen the video. I read something about it. And I don't think this is the mood at all here in the Netherlands or in The Hague. I think this was just one event that, of course, didn't have to happen. But it's not the mood in general.

CO: And what about Cafe Franklin? How will you do in the next four weeks?

BAS VAN DER ELST: Yeah, we'll just try to keep as much staff as possible by delivery and take out orders. Yes, just trying to cope with it. It's just a very hard time for everyone owning a business right now. But we've been through the last of period of lockdown, and I'm sure that we will get through this one as well.

CO: All right. I hope so. Bas it's good to talk to you. Thanks.

BAS VAN DER ELST: Thank you very much.

CH: Bas van der Elst is the owner of Cafe Franklin. He spoke to us from The Hague.

[Music]

Last Tourist

CH: It was meant to be the climax of a journey around the world, but it turned into a months-long anticlimax. When 26 year old traveler Jesse Katayama arrived at the foot of the Andes prepared to climb the 3000 steps to Machu Picchu, it was March 14th and Peru was locking down. So instead of taking in a wonder of the world thousands of feet above sea level, Mr. Katayama was forced to hunker down in a nearby town. He considered trying to get back to his native Japan on one of the emergency flights in the early days of the pandemic. But then he reasoned that maybe if he hung around, Machu Picchu would reopen. And so, with a quiet tenacity that earned him local notoriety as the last tourist in Machu Picchu, Mr. Katayama waited and waited and waited. And now, seven months later, Jesse Katayama is getting the last laugh. Machu Picchu is still closed to tourists, but it did open just for the last tourist who is at long last on top of the world. In a gleeful series of Instagram posts, Mr. Katayama can be seen alone but for his guides at a site that's typically lousy with humanity, proving that if you wait long enough, eventually you'll meet your Machu.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

October 15, 2020 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode