Wednesday June 07, 2017

June 7, 2017 episode transcript

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 2016

The AIH Transcript for June 7, 2017

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas



CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

CO: A target’s targets. ISIS strikes in Iran, killing 12 people in two attacks on Tehran, and the country's Revolutionary Guard immediately pointing fingers at Saudi Arabia and the United States.

JD: Arguable improvement. An Ottawa law professor says the proposed expansion of Canada’s rape shield law would finally give complainants of sexual assault trials some say over whether their past behavior can be used as evidence in court.

CO: “Cardinal” Sin. She was the victim of a violent sexual assault, but Angela Cardinal herself was jailed and shackled. Tonight, I speak with her sister-in-law who only learned of Angela's story after it appeared in the news.

JD: When her daughter lost her life, she lost her self. Julie Nicholson left her job as a vicar after her daughter was killed in the 7/7 bombings, and wrote a book about her experience. Tonight, in the wake of more terrorist attacks in the U.K., she shares what she's learned.

CO: It hates shopping for booze, but its tail is a big fan. When a disgruntled female Peacock entered his liquor store, our guest first imagined he had a human interest story in his hands. But it turned out to be breaking news.

JD: And… pop quiz. A group of twenty-something guys in Spokane, Washington placed an ad seeking what they're calling a “generic father” to attend their barbecue next weekend. And if that seems like a long shot, well hope springs paternal. As It Happens, the Wednesday edition. Radio that hopes they find someone without farther ado.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part 1: Iran attack, Edmonton sex assault follow-up, liquor store peacock.

Iran attack

Guest: Azadeh Moaveni

JD: The attacks today struck two of Iran's most important symbols. At the Parliament building in Tehran, gunfire and explosions broke out. And then, at the mausoleum of the Islamic Republic's founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, more explosives. Twelve people were left dead, 42 others wounded. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attacks. This is the first time it has done so in Iran. But today, Iran's Revolutionary Guard came out swinging saying that Saudi Arabia was also responsible. Azadeh Moaveni is an Iranian-American journalist based in London. And that is where we reached her.

CO: Azadeh, this is a shocking attack in Iran. What affect is it having on people? Because this is the first time we've seen ISIS do something like this.

AZADEH MOAVENI: It is. It is. Iranians are very shocked. They're reeling from it. They've been quite exceptionally buffered really from all of the violence in their region really for much of the last 10-15 years. Even though you know we have Afghanistan on one side, Iraq on the other. Even though Iran is involved in you know many of these conflicts you know in Iraq through proxies in Syria. There have been you know almost no attacks within Iranian soil, and Iranian security services are quite strong. They're on top of it. But also you know the fight has not been brought to Iran, so I think Iranians for the first time are kind of waking up to the realization that some of the things you know their government is doing in another region might have some blowback back home. And I think that's you know a shock for most people.

CO: There's tremendous security in Iran, but how vulnerable are people feeling then do you think?

AM: I mean I think there are jarred. The country's leading officials are really trying to downplay it. the supreme leader you know dismissed it as fireworks. The speaker of parliament kept speaking throughout the attack as it was unfolding and he said this is a really peripheral thing you know they try and do this. So they're trying to keep everyone very calm. The reality though is that even though these attacks were very iconic, you know they were on two very highly visible symbols of the revolution of democracy at the Parliament. Iran has been has been quite good at ensuring that ISIS doesn't really recruit amongst its Sunni population. Also, for domestic reasons, you know ISIS has not had a very strong or even you know decent kind of chance at attracting a lot of Iranian Sunnis for a lot of domestic reasons. So although it's quite a shock, you know the first attack really for a lot of young people ever that they have witnessed. I don't think that the regime is going to see this as something that will hopefully herald a lot more.

CO: ISIS has claimed responsibility but Iran is pointing the finger at Saudi Arabia. What evidence does Iran have the Saudi Arabian is behind this?

AM: There's no evidence that's been put forth yet and there may never be. It's simply a causal identification you know in the eyes of Tehran. I mean it was only a month or two ago that Mohammed bin Salman, the deputy crown prince of Saudi Arabia, said very clearly we don't want to engage with the Iranians diplomatically. We have nothing to say to the Iranians. We're going to take the fight to Iran. You know these are kind of unprecedented hostility coming out of Saudi Arabia. And then, two months later, you know or just short weeks later we have this. The Iranians are surely going to see this you know in light of these Saudi threats. Certainly from the Iranian strategic vantage point, you know they will certainly be looking at the possibility of Saudi involvement. And they watch out for that in other places too Carol. I mean in other areas of the country they watch over activists. They watch over people's bank accounts. I mean they're very aware that there is very serious Gulf money being spent on stoking unrest in Iran, and so they're watching closely and viewing it all within that prism.

CO: We've actually seen other places where that is and area of concern and is being pointed to. And that's been the WikiLeaks that we've seen of emails that came out of the State Department showing that there was great concern in the United States, at least under the Obama administration, that Saudi Arabia was channeling funds into ISIS. And so is Tehran trying to make the case that Saudi Arabia accuses Qatar of all kinds of state-sponsored terrorism. Is Tehran trying to make the case that it’s the pot calling the kettle black?

AM: Absolutely. I mean that’s certainly the case. And you're right, the Wikileaks information does make very clear that that the U.S. government was aware of that. That it was pressing the Saudis on this. In the region, you know it was widely known. There was a point at which the Saudis started to pivot on that, and that might have been perhaps a year or a year-and-a-half ago when it when it became clear that Assad was not going to fall. When it became clear that no matter how much money they funneled to these jihadist groups, and how much they supported them, they were not really going to get the upper hand and Assad was not going to fall. The Saudis kind of pivoted away from that. But you know be that as it may, we are where we are in the Syrian conflict you know in large part because of Saudi-Qatar other kind of Gulf funding for these groups on the one hand, and Iran and Russia on the other.

CO: All right. We have an entirely different administration though in Washington now and the president was in Saudi Arabia and it was his first official visit abroad. Did Donald Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia change the facts on the ground? Has it emboldened Saudi Arabia to some extent do you think?

AM: Absolutely. I think unequivocally it has. I mean I think what we're seeing with Qatar is a direct outgrowth of that meeting in Riyadh and the Trump visit. And I think what we're seeing is absolutely astonishing. I mean Qatar is an independent sovereign country in the Gulf. And it's effectively being threatened with a takeover by Saudi Arabia, by the United Arab Emirates; two American allies. I mean when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait you know we went to war to protect the sovereignty of this little, tiny country and there might have been you know many strategic reasons for that as well. But today, we're looking at a president who is enabling and has essentially green-lighted threats of a coup — a takeover — of a country simply because these countries disagree with its foreign policy. They view it as inconvenient. They dislike Qatar's independence. So I think we're in a very strange and different moment in the region where essentially President Trump has said that Saudi hegemony will be the reality of the Middle East for the region that's been reeling under you know the conflict spread by the Saudi assault on Yemen. People dying of famine, you know what's happening in Syria. You know this is a part of the world that has been so bloody and devastated. And to see it kind of turning even more so, lurching towards more violence simply because President Trump you know embracing one hegemon in the region. As opposed to President Obama who said to the Saudis look you and Iran are both important countries. You have to learn to share. And we're no longer there anymore.

CO: All right. We will leave it there. Azadeh, thank you very much.

AM: Thank you.

JD: Azadeh Moaveni is an Iranian-American journalist. She is based in London, UK. And that is where we reached her.

[Music: Ambient]

Edmonton sex assault follow-up

Guest: Guest

JD: “Angela Cardinal’s” story was first reported by the CBC. It made national and international headlines this week. Angela Cardinal is not her real name. That is protected by a publication ban. She was an Indigenous sexual assault victim. She was jailed and shackled while testifying against her attacker in 2014, and she was killed in an accidental shooting in 2015. She never saw her attacker brought to justice. Ms. Cardinal's story forced Alberta’s Justice Minister to apologize to her family directly. And now, the provinces chief court judge has vowed to review the case. Lance Blanchard has already been convicted in the case. Yesterday, he appeared in court. And in that courtroom, Ms.Cardinal's family faced him for the very first time. We reached Ms. Cardinal's sister-in-law, whom we also cannot name in Edmonton.

CO: What was it like for you and your family to sit in the courtroom yesterday and see this man for the first time?

GUEST: It was horrific. Just to see him it was really hard.

CO: This story of your sister-in-law, who we're calling her “Angela Cardinal” because of the publication ban. It's a shocking story — a shocking case — and can you tell us when did you first learn of what had happened to your sister-in-law?

GUEST: About two weeks ago, we learned the horrors that she went through.

CO: And there’s two parts to this horror, isn’t there? I mean there's the part of the violent assault against her in 2014 by the man you saw in court yesterday, Lance Blanchard. And then there is what happened to her during the trial of Lance Blanchard where she was the victim of this violent assault. What can you tell us about what happened to Angela during that trial?

GUEST: She was locked up, shackled and forced to share a cell right beside the man who assaulted her. Share the vehicle with him twice on the way to court. That shouldn’t have happened. She's not a criminal, she's the victim.

CO: And do you know why that happened?

GUEST: No. They said that they were worried she wasn't going to make it to court. But she didn't miss any court dates prior to that.

CO: They said that she appeared to be falling asleep one day during trial.

GUEST: With trauma your body shuts down. You'll get tired. She went through so much trauma that night, and to relive it every day during the trial. Her body was just shutting down.

CO: And she was living rough too, wasn't she? She was on the streets at that point?


CO: And yet still she wasn't missing court dates. She wanted to take part in this trial against this man who had so brutally assaulted her.

GUEST: Yeah, she wanted justice for what he had done.

CO: Why do you think now that the judge orders this to happen that she is to be to be shackled, she is to be incarcerated for the duration of the trial. The judge says that she won't be put into the same van or near the man who attacked her. But in fact that happens. Why do you think that there was nobody else to advocate on her behalf? No one else in this whole court process who saw that there was something terribly wrong with this?

GUEST: To me, they didn't care. I think it was her race. Honestly, I think they just thought of another Aboriginal woman who lived on the streets homeless. They called her an addict, but she wasn’t. It is so appalling. I don't even know what to say about it?

CO: And after the fact, the justice system in Alberta is saying that this was so wrong. It never should have happened. It was just a travesty. But, at the same time, there were other people. They must have known what Angela was going through — what she had been put through — and why is it that you didn't even know — your family didn't even know — what she was going through?

GUEST: She was such a private person. She never liked burdening the family with her problems. She was just like that.

CO: What have you understood about what actually happened to your sister-in-law in the course of this assault? There is there's a 911 call, isn't there?

GUEST: Yes, I heard that the other day and my heart sunk. It is just crying for help. Somebody help me. It was heartbreaking to hear. I couldn't finish listening to that call because she's passed now. And to hear that sadness come from her.

CO: And that call was something she was able to make while she was being assaulted by this man…

GUEST: She was so brave.

CO: Tossed the phone away and allowed this recording as she called for help to 911 to happen. So she was able to do that. But she never got to see Lance Blanchard convicted.

GUEST: No, unfortunately not. She was killed in an unrelated shooting seven months before.

CO: Why were you in court yesterday? What was that about?

GUEST: To let him know that she has family and that she was loved.

CO: What was the purpose of yesterday's hearing?

GUEST: About his mistreatment in jail.

CO: He's challenging the time in solitary confinement he has spent, is that right?

GUEST: Yeah. And his complaints about wearing shackles when he goes out to dentist appointments.

CO: Has he been classified as a dangerous offender?

GUEST: I think that hearing was going on today. I am not too sure.

CO: What are you hoping comes of that?

GUEST: That he would be classified as a dangerous offender. This is not the first woman he's hurt. And it probably won't be his last. He was smiling when he left the courtroom yesterday in his wheelchair.

CO: You heard this week Alberta’s Justice Minister apologized directly to you and to Angela’s mother. And the Minister said she was shocked to learn that this had happened to Angela, and that actually she said it keeps her up at night. Were you satisfied by that response?

GUEST: Not really. It doesn't excuse what the judge did to her. We are opening up a formal complaint with the Justice Minister because no complaints were done before. No one complained about what the judge did. Nothing was done about it until now.

CO: And the other thing is that there's still a publication ban on her name. We’re using “Angela Cardinal” as a pseudonym, but why do you think there's still a ban?

GUEST: We don't know. We want it lifted. The whole family wants it gone because she's a human being. There's so many Angela Cardinals and giving her a fake name doesn't make her who she is. Her name makes her who she is. And I think that people need to know who she is.

CO: And who if she? We’re hearing this horrible chapter of your sister-in-law's life where she went through this assault and she was shot dead, but who is the woman that you'd like us to know?

GUEST: A loving, caring mother; my best friend. She had nothing. But me and her brother needed something, she would take the shirt off her back to help us. She loved everybody. She never hated anybody.

CO: Well, we're going to continue to follow this story and I really appreciate you talking to us today. Thank you.

GUEST: And thank you guys for covering this.

JD: That was was Angela Cardinal's sister-in-law, whose name is protected by the same publication ban that prevents us from using Ms. Cardinal's real name. Ms. Cardinal was an Indigenous sexual assault victim. Her shocking case made headlines this week. We have more on this story on our website:

[Music: Jazz]

Meilleur Question Period

JD: Today, the federal Liberal government’s pick for Official Languages Commissioner took a pass on that job. Officially. From the beginning, Madeleine Meilleur was a controversial choice. As a former Liberal cabinet minister in Ontario, she was criticized for her connections to the party. Opposition parties also objected to her meeting with two of the Prime Minister's staffers before she applied for the position. In Question Period today, Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer asked the prime minister about the appointment.


ANDREW SCEER: By trying to appoint a Liberal donor and activist, Madeline Meilleur, The prime minister made a mockery of a process he claimed will be open and transparent. But luckily Madame Meilleur has better judgment than he does and has withdrawn herself from a process that has become tainted. As a provincial minister, Madame Meilleur introduced a law that required multi-party support for positions like this. Will the prime minister learn a lesson here and ensure that the next officer of parliament — the Ethics Commissioner — will not be another partisan Liberal and will enjoy the all-party support in this House?

[Sound: Clapping]

GEOFF REGAN: The Right Honorable Prime Minister.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians need a strong, independent appointment process. And that’s why we reformed to an open way for the appointments process in this country. After 10 years of excessive partisanship by the former Conservative government, we know that picking the best people for the jobs, regardless of their backgrounds and people that reflect the full diversity of this country is what Canadians expect. That's exactly what we're delivering.

JD: from Question Period in Ottawa today, that was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responding to Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer. The government's controversial pick for Official Languages Commissioner, Madeleine Meilleur, announced today she was withdrawing her application for the job.

[Music: Guitar]

Liquor store peacock

Guest: Rani Ghanem

JD: A female Peacock walks into a liquor store and says, “Got any Wild Turkey? Not to drink, the bird. I want to make fun of its neck.” That's about halfway to a joke. And so is what happened to Rani Ghanem on Monday. And in the end, what happened to Rani Ghanem was equally unfunny. Mr. Ghanem was at work. He was helping his uncle manage the family liquor store. And then the peacock — the peahen of course — came in. It seemed amusing at first. And then it was not.


[Sound: A lot of broken glass]

JD: Rani Ghanem work at Royal Oaks liquor store. We reached him in Arcadia, California.

CO: Rani, at what point did you realize that you had an unexpected visitor at your liquor store?

RANI GHANEM: I did not realize until about three minutes in. A customer came in and she pointed the bird out to me. I got up. I was shocked. I was like whoa, a peacock!

CO: A peacock?

RG: Yeah. Immediately as I noticed, I took my phone out I got to record this. My friends have got to see this.

CO: And now this is a peahen, so it's a female peacock. So not the great big colorful plumes…

RG: No, that is a peahen, but I think they go all in the same category.

CO: What did she look like?

RG: Well the peahens awfully look like overgrown chickens. They have a very similar look to chickens or ducks. Unless you see the little you know feathers that are on top of its head they look a lot like chickens or ducks. They're just a little bit bigger.

CO: But they're big and they got sharp claws.

RG: Yes, they do.

CO: And so what did you do about this peahen?

RG: You know when it first took its first flight inside the store that's when I realized this is going to be a problem. First, I was excited to see a peahen inside the store. But when it took its first flight that's when I realized it was going to be a problem. I called the emergency line and I was like hey, I need somebody here. And they sent the Humane Society over. Until the Humane Society came over we had a little bit of action going on and a couple attempts to try to get the bird out of the store that ended up in failure. And then all we did was make the bird go crazy, kind of fly around the store a couple of times and panic in everybody's heart.

CO: Now just for people we have to describe because you are in a liquor store. This is a place where there are bottles all stacked up and precariously placed. Where you don't want to a big bird flopping around and so what did she do as she made her way around your shop?

RG: So surprisingly it took flight in here twice, but did not damage anything until the Humane Society got here and tried to get out of here with a fishing net. So when the Humane Society tried to get it with the fishing net, the bird kind of panicked and started to jump through the shelves. And when it started to jump through the wine and champagne shelves that's when the damage started. It was swimming through those bottles. I mean bottles getting knocked left and right. And I'm on the other side of the counter just looking heartbroken every time a bottle falls. I'm like no, what happened?

CO: And so obviously this bird had very expensive taste. I went for the champagne.

RG: Right, it went straight for the Moet, I mean looking at a $60-$70 bottle right there. That's the first thing it went for.

CO: And how much damage did she do?

RG: I estimated around $500 just because now I have literally empty sections in my wine isle.

CO: And how did you finally get her out?

RG: The Humane Society came here and the person that works for them had a fishing net and kind of guided it through. It ended up going through the wine shelves and after the wine shelves I end up helping him out. He pinned her down and I grabbed her from the back and we guided it outside. It was safely released and it was in perfect shape and no harm done to the bird.

CO: Now you just work at this shop. It's not yours. What did your boss say about this?

RG: I had to explain it about three times for him to believe. I'm like yes a peacock in the store, bottles, destruction is like a peacock. He was like wait, a peacock? Are you telling me a person? I was like no, a peacock. It was a hard to believe story.

CO: And knowing you had to do a lot of cleaning up.

RG: Yeah, I had to do a lot of cleaning up. Oh my god, I can still smell the wine in here

CO: Rani, thanks for speaking with us.

RG: Not a problem. You're welcome.

CO: Bye bye.

JD: That was Rani Ghanem, who works at Royal Oaks liquor store. We reached him in Arcadia, California. We have a video of that peahen in that liquor store at our website:

[Music: Old TV show theme]

Sound of the Day: Horsey McHorseface

JD: Last springm, the U.K.'s Natural Environment Research Council asked the public to name one of its polar research vessels. Most Brits agreed the best entry, hands down, was “Boaty McBoatface”. As you will likely recall, that brilliant name was sadly overruled, in favor of the RRS Sir David Attenborough. But a name of the caliber doesn't just disappear. At a recent race in Australia, the horses were neck and neck as they rounded the corner coming into the final furlong. “Big Dreamer” was out in front with “Supercharge” close behind and “Lilac Wine” vying for position. But “Horsey McHorseface” never wavered. Here is the call at Australia's Cessnock Racecourse. Our Sound of the Day.


ANNOUNCER: Supercharge got clear down the side of the six hundred lanes by three. Horsey McHorseface and Masking are next and moving up on the outside as they come up towards the home corner. Around the corner Supercharge is still in front. Horsey McHorseface is out now. The Big Dreamer back to the fence. And then fallowed masking, Lucky Starlet and Chastity Strikes. The Big Dreamer got through on the inside. Supercharge quickly beaten. Horsey McHorseface is coming. Horsey McHorseface and The Big Dreamer. Horsey McHorseface beats The Big Dreamer.

JD: What a finish on Horsey McHorseface pulling ahead to win a race in Australia on Monday. It was the first win for the three-year-old Steedy McSteed.

Back To Top »

Part 2: Consent changes, dad wanted

Consent changes

Guest: Elizabeth Sheehy

The significance of the Trudeau governments update to Canada's sexual assault laws is up for debate. But the bill looks to change the criminal codes rules around consent, and to also expand what is called “the rape shield law”. And that particular aspect of the bill has defense lawyers warning that the government is actually tipping the balance in favor of the prosecution. But Elizabeth Sheehy thinks that the biggest change will be for complainants. Professor Sheehy is a law professor at the University of Ottawa.

CO: Professor Sheehy, let's look at these changes made to what’s called the rape shield law. Just before we do that though what is this law supposed to do?

ELIZABETH SHEEHY: Well, the law is supposed to provide some sort of screen before an accused person in a sexual assault trial is allowed to introduce evidence of the complainants past sexual relationships or sexual activity. And so the screen is what's called a Section 276 hearing. it's a voir Ddre, held only with the judge and the counsel and the accused. In which the defense needs to make the case before the judge that this proposed evidence about the woman, usually it’s a woman, about the woman's past sexual relationships or history ought to be admitted in the trial proper. We know that kind of evidence is usually quite prejudicial to a complainant. And it's the kind of evidence that we also know from numerous studies has the capacity to mislead the trier of fact you know into disbelieving the woman because she has had a sexual life you know before this particular assault.

CO: So how would the proposed changes to the rape shield law work? How would that change anything?

ES: Well, one very important change from the perspective of complainants is that complainants will now be permitted to stay in the courtroom and hear the arguments and the evidence. And currently, along with the public and the media, the complainant too is ushered out when this hearing — this voir dire — takes place. And of course I think that's quite hard on complainants because of course this evidence is a serious concern for them in a very fundamental way. You know it's about their past lives and you know the arguments and the evidence affects them quite profoundly. So you can imagine that for complainants to be able to sit and hear it will be important in terms of them feeling and knowing what's actually being said about them. And whether the weather and how the crown is you know defending the public interest in that context and so on. So that's very important. The other important aspect of the bill is that complainants also will have the right to legal representation in that hearing and they've never had that before either. That means that if she's able you know she might hire a lawyer who might advance arguments in that hearing that are different from what the crown might say. Or they might have different responses to the defense lawyer’s argument. The other big change that everyone's talking about is the fact that the new bill, if it passes, would characterize communications. Most importantly is social media communications like text messages, Facebook posts as sexual activity. And the significance of that characterization would be that those kinds of messages that are currently available to a defense lawyer are to introduce in a trial without any real limits would have to go through that same vetting process in a voir dire.

CO: I guess a very, very, public case of a trial that all these things came to play and was that of Jian Ghomeshi. And there was a great deal of the communications between Mr. Ghomeshi and the complainants in that trial that was entered as evidence. I know it's hard to revisit these things, but how might things have been different at The Ghomeshi trial if this law was in place?

ES: Well, I haven't undertaken an analysis of the specific items of evidence that were introduced in Ghomeshi. But what I can say is each one of them would have had to go through this voir dire process before it was used in the trial. And the judge would have had to undertake a balancing exercise to determine whether this evidence was too prejudicial or more probative than prejudicial.

CO: And one of the complainants in the Ghomeshi case, Lucy DeCoutere, she tweeted today about this change. She said this would completely change outcomes in sexual assault trials, level the playing field in a flawed system where there's no room for nuance. Would you agree with her?

ES: I think it's really hard to say. I think some of the other changes to the sexual history laws here do offer that possibility of more leveling of the playing field. The issue of the vetting of you know communications like social media. You know I think it's hard to say at this point. I think we're going to have to wait and see how judges grapple with it.

CO: Would there also eliminate sort of an element of surprise? Because the sense was is that the women who were in that trial. I hate to always go back to this one, but this is the most well-known trial — the Ghomeshi one. That they were caught off guard by the examination in court and the presentation of those emails that they that they did not know how to respond to it. They would know in advance that this was going to be entered as evidence, is that right?

ES: Well, it seems so from my reading of the draft bill. It seems that element of surprise might be eliminated. I think at the same time, defense forces will still have the opportunity to cross-examine a complainant in the trial itself as to allegations or concerns about collusion or shading of testimony. So will it stop defense lawyers from challenging complainant’s credibility? I don't think so.

CO: One other party in this is of course the lawyers who represent the accused. And they are saying that there's a good deal of pushback from the defense bar, who believes that this is not going to protect the rights of the accused. What do you say to that?

ES: Well, I certainly understand their concerns. And it certainly would be more onerous for defense lawyers in these trials. There's simply no doubt about that. You know I have no response to it except to say that you know this is I guess an effort to respond to what some have called a run around the sexual history evidence voir dire. Because if you can somehow slip in sexual activity through introducing text messages or other kinds of social media communications, as of today, you can avoid that whole process of vetting and balancing the competing interests at stake here.

CO: All right, very interesting. Professor Sheehy, thank you.

ES: OK. Thank you very much.

JD: Elizabeth Sheehy is a law professor at the University of Ottawa.

[Music: Ambient]

James Clapper


JAMES CLAPPER: I lived through Watergate. I was active duty then in the air force as a young officer. It was a scary time. I have to say though that I think you compare the two that Watergate pales really in my view as compared to what we're confronting now.

JD: That’s former U.S . Director of National Intelligence James Clapper speaking to the National Press Club of Australia earlier today. And as you heard Mr. Clapper was pretty blunt in his assessment of the Trump administration. After suggesting that the Watergate scandal pales in comparison to the current investigation into possible Russian collusion, Mr. Clapper went on to question the firing of James Comey and added that he was pretty eager to hear the ousted FBI director's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee tomorrow.


JC: His subsequent actions sharing a sense of intelligence with the Russians and compromising its source reflect either ignorance or disrespect. And either is very problematic. Similarly the whole episode with the firing of Jim Comey, a distinguished public servant, apart from the egregious inexcusable manner in which it was conducted reflect complete disregard for the independence and autonomy of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, our premier law enforcement organization. I’m very interested to see what happens with Jim Comey’s hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee. I think it will be very significant to see both what he says and what he's asked about and doesn't respond to. As I've often said, it is absolutely crucial for the United States, and for that matter for the world, for this presidency, for the Republicans, for the Democrats and for our nation at large that we get to the bottom of this. You know is there a smoking gun with all the smoke? And I don't know the answer to that.

JD: That was former U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper speaking earlier today in Canberra, Australia. And this afternoon, on of course the eve of his appearance before the Senate committee, Mr. Comey released a letter outlining his meetings with President Trump. The letter describes how the president demanded his loyalty and said he hoped that Mr. Comey could just let the probe into his national security adviser, Mr. Flynn go. For more on this go to: www.cbc/news.

[Music: Jazz]

Dad wanted

Guest: Travis Rybarski

JD: Dad news travels fast. Not so very long ago, a group of friends in their twenties in Spokane, Washington posted an ad on Craigslist that has since gone viral. They were looking for someone to attend their Father's Day party. And not just someone to show up and eat their food and drink their beer, although that is the payment they're offering. No, no, they want someone who's dumb jokes will make them groan, but whose presence is comforting. They're looking for someone to fill the role of “generic father”. We reached one of the barbecue planners, Travis Rybarski, in Tacoma.

CO: Travis, why do you need a dad at your barbecue?

TRAVIS RYBARSKI: Well, you know all of us know how to grill, but we're not prepared to fill the role of “barbecue dad”. We need somebody to give general advice and make corny jokes. There's just some cultural things that a barbecue dad can do that we just can't do for each other.

CO: And so where does where do you get this stereotypical idea of barbecue dad?

TR: You know that's a good question. I guess we get it from American sitcoms and from some of our own dads. I mean there's a few dozen of us in the extended group that we refer to as “the boys”. So some of us have stereotypical dads like that, some of us don't. But I definitely identify with the stereotype and obviously it's caught on because a lot of people identify with the stereotype.

CO: And what will the barbecue dad have to do?

TR: Well, he'll have to grill, he’ll have to call people “Champ” and “Sport” and “Big dog”. And then he’ll have to sit back and crack open a few cold ones with the boys and maybe crack some jokes. Maybe tell somebody to pull his finger.

CO: What? Pull his finger?

TR: You’ve never heard of that bit?

CO: No.

TR: Oh, that's just a classic bit where a father figure says pull my finger and then when his finger gets pulled he flatulates.

CO: All right. OK. So all the people applying to be your barbecue dad, they all say they can they can do that?

TR: Yeah, there's a lot of really solid applications. So the process of vetting has been pretty difficult.

CO: Well doesn't the barbecue dad have to bring anything more than that? I mean does he does he have any knowledge that he can share with the people at the barbecue?

TR: Well, we do require at least 10 years of experience grilling and at least 18 years of experience as a father. And we also require them to bring their own barbecue.

CO: Right. And do they have to know anything? Don't they impart wisdom while they're doing this?

TR: Oh yeah, they need to give us general advice for sure. But you know real dads have another kind of level of advice to give. We just want a barbecue dad. So that's kind of just shallow, general advice like keep your chin up, Sport.

CO: What about knowing how to build your own deck or how to fix your car? Oh yeah, all of that stuff is a bonus. I don't know if we'll have any cars to work on or decks to get built, but we definitely need stories. So you know if they have stories of being in the military or building their own deck or they just want to talk about Jimmy Buffet, all of those stories are appreciated.

CO: You have a photo on your ad: a man in a blue sweater barbecuing. Is he the generic dad?

TR: He's not the generic dad, but the internet considered him to be a “grill dad” when we Googled that. So he ended up in the advertisement.

CO: You Googled grill dad and you got this guy?

TR: Yeah, he's the second result. So we just put that photo on there. You know Dane is the one who wrote the ad, and he just threw that guy on there. And we had no idea who he was. We just pulled it off the internet. Luckily they caught on to it, we got to meet them through Skype and they were they were totally entertained by the whole thing. They weren't concerned that we used their photo without permission.

CO: Now since you put this on Craigslist how much response have you had?

TR: Well, the news stuff has been the most notable of responses I guess. All the national news outlets talking about it or reaching out for comment. Their responses locally are really fun too. You know getting to hear people talk about it. I was at a coffee shop yesterday in Olympia and the people at the table next to me were talking about it. So just hearing everybody buzzing about it has been one of the most fun parts, and of course, around 100 applications as well.

CO: Now you say you have a preference for applicants whose names might be “Bill”, “Randy”, or “Dave”. How many Bills, Randys and Dave's have you had?

TR: Well, there's been a lot of dads with names under five letters, which is excellent. So you know we've also gotten “Matts” and “Robs” and “Bobs” and “Jacks” and all of those names too. So we haven't put together any statistics about what names are applying. But now would be interesting to look at how many Bill, Randys, or Daves we got.

CO: And no one named Mohammed or Ahmed?

TR: No, we haven't gotten any culturally diverse names. People have stuck with kind of the Caucasian stereotype I guess. But it would be awesome for us to get some diversity.

CO: How will you know when you've got the right dad?

TR: We've actually hired one father as of Tuesday.

CO: Oh OK. And how does he fit the profile?

TR: Well, he fits the profile because he has dad experience, he has grilling experience and he had a really heartwarming story. He reached out. I'm not going to share any details. I don't know what shared, but he had a hard experience and he had a really good reason that grilling with us would be a good way for him to heal and a good way for him to spend a really hard week. And Taylor Right, who's handling our application process right now, hired him on the spot and then came back and told the boys about it and we were really happy with the decision. But we decided to hire three barbeque dads. So we're still accepting applications for those other two. And still hoping that one of them is Bill Murray.

CO: OK. Bill Murray's your ideal barbecue dad is he?

TR: Well, you know someone argued that that the local Spokane applicants are better barbecue dads than Bill Murray. He might not be able to talk about lawnmowers and building his own deck and Jimmy Buffett. He's a celebrity, so he's a different type of barbecue dad that doesn't quite fit the profile. But we feel that it would be really awesome to have him there, and he's somebody we've all looked up to as a fatherly-type movie figure. So we think would be awesome if he stopped by.

CO: All right have fun.

TR: Thank you.

CO: Bye Travis.

TR: Bye.

JD: We reached Travis Rybarski in Tacoma, Washington. Travis and his friends posted a Craigslist ad for a generic Father to man the girl at their barbecue next week.

[Music: British pop invasion]

Naughty Theresa May

JD: Turns out politics is not the only field in which Theresa May has made some enemies. This week, on the ITV program “Tonight”, the British prime minister made a shocking admission. It started with a question so British It may as well have been written in HP Sauce atop a shepherd's pie.


JULIE ETCHINGHAM: What’s the naughtiest thing you every did?


JD: That was “Tonight” host Julie Etchingham. It sounds like an easy question. But with the U.K. election imminent, it put Ms. May in an extremely complicated position. How could she come up with an answer that was sufficiently naughty, but not excessively naughty? The kind of naughty that gets you elected, but not arrested. Well at first, she stalled for time


THERESA MAY: Oh goodness me. Well I suppose… gosh, do you know I’m not quite sure.

JE: There must have been a moment.

TM: Nobody's ever perfectly behaved, are they?

JD: But of course, she could not stall forever. First, because she was on television. And second, because there was a secret. A secret she had kept locked in the basement of her consciousness for decades and it came lurching up the stairs. It was pounding on the door, bellowing to be released. And so, bravely, Theresa May let that dark secret out.


TM: I have to confess when me and my friends sort of used to run through the fields of wheat. The farmers weren't too pleased about that.

JD: Oh and there it was. As children, she and her friends had sort of run through fields of wheat, which displeased farmers. Now obviously, that was a powerful and cathartic moment for MS. May a great burden of wheat-related shame had been lifted. Not everyone was impressed. Someone tweeted a photograph of Ms. May hiking in the Swiss Alps with her husband, Phillip, with a caption reading quote, “Nice field of wheat you've got there. Would be a shame if somebody ran through it!” And then others presumed to select Ms. May's naughtiest moment for her. A gentleman by the name of Dan Gilbert. Tweeted, “Goodness me. Gosh. Well I must confess me and my friends cut police to levels that harmed our national security.” Ibrahim Salha tweeted, “What about selling arms to Saudi Arabia?” There were also tweets suggesting that cutting M-I-5, making Boris Johnson Foreign Secretary and stoking anti-immigrant sentiment may be naughtier than knocking down some weat. Still, it was a courageous confession, a rare instance when a politician gave a stock answer, and went against the grain at the same time.

Back To Top »

Part 3: Defence review, “A song for Jenny’

London attacker’s mother

JD: Today, the mother of one of the London attackers apologized to her son's victims and their families. Youssef Zaghba was one of the three men who sped across the London Bridge on Saturday night, before leaping out of the van with knives and stabbing people. Eight people were killed in the attack. Mr. Zaghba had been on the radar of Italian authorities after being detained at an airport there. He had a one-way ticket to Istanbul. And authorities believed he was trying to reach Syria. His mother, Valeria Collina, is Italian. She is a convert to Islam. She says she tried to turn him away from extremism. Sky News interviewed Ms. Collina in translation at her home in Italy.


VALERIA COLLINA: [Speaking: Italian]

TRANSLATOR: I have no words. It is too big. I say I can understand their pain because as a mother, I feel it too. I don't know if there is any sense in asking for forgiveness? But if there was then I'd ask for it. If there is anything that I can do I will because the words do not come easily to me because it's such a horrible thing. It's something that should never happen. But there is one thing I can do: I can make a commitment to combat this. Me personally. I'm part of the Islamic community, therefore I can decide to spread the knowledge of the real Islam for the rest of my life.

JD: That was Valeria Collina. Her son, Youssef Zaghba, was one of three men who killed eight people in a terror attack in London on Saturday night. All three attackers were killed by police.

[Music: Sombre]

Defence review

Guest: Harjit Sajjan

JD: Harjit Sajjan wants you to spend a whole lot more on your military. The Minister of National Defense released his review of Canada's long-term defense needs in Ottawa this afternoon. It includes a boost to overall spending by something like 70 per cent. The announcement follows yesterday's speech from Chrystia Freeland, Minister Sajjan’s colleague at Foreign Affairs. Minister Freeland called for Canada to take the lead in an international system that the United States has come to question under President Donald Trump. We reached Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan in Ottawa.

CO: Minister Sajjan, who is the enemy? You're saying that Canadians need to spend a lot more on our military and those expenditures are under way. But who do you see as the major threat to Canada in the world today?

HARJIT SAJJAN: I think what’s very important, as Minister Freeland outlined in her foreign policy statement yesterday, Canada need to play an important role in the world. I mean not just also here to making sure that our number one priority is to protect Canadians. So that we can respond to everything from natural disasters to emergency response, search and rescue as well. Our sovereignty is very important. But at the same time, we know the challenges that the world faces. I mean everything from the recent Russian aggression, violent extremism as well and conflicts that have been happening and that require United Nations peace support operations. We need to be able to deal with the direct threats. And at the same time, be more supportive and involved in conflict prevention and reduction as well, which peace support operations play important role.

CO: Sis, I can appreciate that over the next 10-20 years, and this is where this policy is covering, is that you don't know where things are going to go? What will be the existential threats? But let's just look at ISIS right now because that's one of the principal battles that our allies and Canada is involved in. So if what we're seeing is that Mosul might fall. That ISIS is it seems to be on the move. What we've seen today in Iran with another attack there. What concerns do you have about where ISIS is going to be next and where we should be as a nation?

HS: I think it is important to look at dealing with the direct threat. ISIS is a threat of today. Before, it was al Qaeda. You can talk about Taliban. And now, it's ISIS. And there's many other groups as well. So dealing with a direct threat and being engaged in the world is very important. And it's also in our interest as well as it is with our allies. But also, it's important to deal with preventing a threat. To making sure that before violence and groups are able to set up in other parts of the world that we actually can intervene at the earliest ages to not allow them to have the conditions where they can be able to recruit more. And intervening doesn't necessarily mean strictly with military. Also we need to look at it from a development perspective and capacity building for host nations as well. But we need to make sure that the Canadian Armed Forces are well-resourced and that the members are well looked after. So that not just our government but future governments… if the Canadian Armed Forces are called upon, and they will be, that they have all the necessary tools. That’s what our defense policy does and we make sure that it's well-funded with predictable, sustainable funding for the next 20 years.

CO: All right. Well, I’m going to take this geographically someplace then because if you're saying that if there is concern about preventing where ISIS or terrorism might go next one of the principal places many people are concerned about is North Africa. That as ISIS or whatever other forces who are playing the role of ISIS as they are defeated that they are moving to North Africa. This is where we have talked about having a peacekeeping mission in Mali. You talked also about having capacity development in these areas. What are the plans for North Africa?

HS: Well, first of all, I'm very conscious of the fact that displacement occurs when you deal with a direct threat. And whether it's places like in Africa, North Africa, the West or even al-Shabaab in East Africa is making sure that we as Canada provide innovative solutions to the problems. We know that peacekeeping today is not the peacekeeping of the past. So we need to make sure that we do the necessary ground work, get all the necessary information, so that when we look at the challenges on the ground we have the right number of troops that we're putting in. The right number equipment, but more importantly military is just one solution when it comes to conflict prevention. Capacity building is important, development is also important. So we are working with our allies right now. We’re working with the United Nations. I was there just a couple of weeks ago talking to the various leaderships on what the U.N. is now calling an “integrated approach”. Something we've been working on called a “wole-of-government” or “comprehensive approach”. When we work together ee can come up with better solutions. As a government though, we need to make sure that we fund the Canadian Armed Forces properly so that the men and women have all the necessary tools for the long term.

CO: OK. Can you clarify what the delay is then? Because the expectation is that we're going to announce something, or you will be soon announcing the mission in Mali. Is that still going to happen?

HS: No, our government has not made a decision yet on peace support operations. We are looking at the various areas and ways that we can contribute, whether it's looking at the locations and the approach that we want to take. We want to make sure that when we make that decision we're going to have a solid, meaningful impact on the ground. I mean it is easy for a government to make decisions and send the Canadian Armed Forces over or send any resource to a nation. And we've had many missions that go on for years. And so we don't want to for the sake of expediency make a decision to get a check in the box. We want to have meaningful contributions. We've done that in the past and we have a substantial impact. Canada has a lot to contribute as we learned from our allies as well. So that's one of the reasons we are taking the time. And Canadians expect us to make sure that we take the time for important missions like this.

CO: All right. Minister Sajjan, thank you.

HS: OK. Thank you.

JD: Harjit Sajjan is Canada's Minister of National Defense. We reached him in Ottawa.

[Music: Bluegrass]

Eric Trump

JD: With Father's Day fast approaching, it's only natural to feel a little protective of your papa. And that partly explains the kind of extreme rhetoric employed by Eric Trump yesterday. Now, his dad has found himself on the pointy end of a lot of criticism since he became the President of the United States. And Eric Trump believes that all that criticism is baseless and unwarranted. For example, in an interview yesterday, he referred to allegations that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign as quote, “the greatest hoax of all time.” And then later on Tuesday, speaking to Fox News host Sean Hannity, he dismissed those who disparage his father. He didn't just dismiss their criticism. That's not what I'm saying. I mean he dismissed them from humanity.


ERIC TRUMP: I've never seen hatred like this. I mean to me, they're not even people. It's so, so, sad. I mean morality is just gone. Morals have flown out the window. We deserve so much better than this as a country.

SEAN HANNITY: You’re right.

ET: It's so sad. You see the Democratic Party, they're imploding. They're imploding. They have no message. You see the head of the DNC, who is a total whack job. There's no leadership there. And so what do they do? They become obstructionists because they have no message of their own. They have no solid candidates of their own. They lost the election that they should have won because they spent seven times the amount of money that my father spent. They have no message. So what do they try and do? They try and obstruct a great man. They trying to obstruct his family. They come after us viciously.


JD: That was Eric Trump telling Fox News host Sean Hannity last night that he considered his father's critics quote “not even people”.

[Music: Ambient]

Song for Jenny

Guest: Julie Nicholson

JD: It has been nearly 12 years since Julie Nicholson lost her daughter. Her daughter, Jenny, was 24-years-old when she and more than 50 other people were killed in the London bombings on July 7th of 2005, an event now known as 7/7. In the months after that attack, Ms. Nicholson was, as you can imagine, consumed by grief. She eventually wrote a book about what she went through called “A Song for Jenny”. And now, after the three recent terrorist attacks in England, the families of new victims find themselves living through her crushing experience. We reached Julie Nicholson in Bristol.

CO: Julie, as you know, since March you have seen three terrorist attacks in England. What do you think families of the victims are going through?

JULIE NICHOLSON: You know I often hear media say these are families in grief. My response to that is that the grief has barely begun yet for those families. Because it's an immediate shock and trauma, and then the shock still continues for weeks. And the disbelief and the constant focus as well.

CO: So it's interesting you mentioned the asking questions like that about grief. And I've often asked you know have you come to terms with what happened? And you lost your daughter 12 years ago in this attack in London.

JN: Yes.

CO: In July 2005, asking the question have you come to terms with it must seem so shallow?

JN: No, no, no. I think it depends how you respond to the question. But I would say coming to terms with something, like all big subjects, has a spectrum. And I would say I became resigned, so therefore came to terms with the fact of her death very early. I mean we had five days before it was confirmed that Jenny was one of those that had been killed. So we had five days of sort of not wanting to give up hope. And once that news is delivered, for me, there was an immediate coming to terms. I accepted completely she was no more. But then if you asked the question you know have I come to terms with the manner of her death? Then I think my answer would be no, and never will I.

CO: That day 52 people were killed and many, many, more were injured. Four attacks, three of them in the subway, one of them on a bus. Where was Jenny, your daughter, going that day?

JN: Well Jenny was on her way from Redding, which is just outside London, into central London where she worked. And she just never arrived. We later found out ironically that because there was a mechanical problem on one of the subway lines that she had to divert. And it was because of that diversion that she was caught up in the bombing.

CO: I'm so sorry. What was she like? Can you tell us about Jenny?

JN: She was a typical 24-year-old young woman who had had a good degree and a Masters. She was looking at building a career in the world of music and the arts and was deeply in love with her partner and really looking forward to life. And I think a very caring, compassionate person who would have had a lot of sympathy and sensitivity to the plight of a lot of Muslims in the world today.

CO: And as you say you were waiting for days to confirm whether she was among the victims. When you were watching those news reports and this must be what so many families, so many people been going through in these three attacks in England. What’s that experience like as you wait, knowing what happened and wanting to know the news?

JN: I have quite a large family and we all gathered together. There was a need for us all to be together. We waited actually with great calm, but we would not allow ourselves to give in to our hopelessness until we were categorically, with certainty, informed that she had gone.

CO: You wrote a book about your experience that helped a lot of people because you describe the first six weeks and all the things you went through after your daughter's death and her funeral. And because you shared your grief so publicly, it was something that others could come to understand their own grief and understand yours. Why was it important to you to put that down?

JN: I've always been a writer, but I never sought to publish. So I've written plays and I used to write stories for my children when they were younger. But some months after Jenny’s death, I had kept busy, busy, busy. There's so much to attend to with a very public death and an act of terror. There's a lot of bureaucracy to deal with. A lot of government to deal with. Police to deal with. And funeral, so it takes longer than normal. And I felt that the whole thing kept me going because it kept me busy. And it was when I started to challenged myself well what now? I don't know what to do with all this grief, with all these feelings. And at about that time, I had made a documentary with the BBC over here where I met a number of parents who had had to face the deaths of child in all sorts of circumstances. And in doing that, I felt less isolated in my own grief. As a result of that, I was invited to write a book about my experience and thought what else am I going to do? I might as well do something where I can be true to my grief but also creative and alive.

CO: You mentioned something quite interesting because for a lot of the people who are going through this experience with their own losses that you do this in public. I mean this is a public death. These are international news stories. How does that change that one's ability to sort of cope and to get through?

JN: I mean really unless one is going to go to a desert island, where there's no technology and no outside world, it's a constant barrage. And there's a tremendous interest in the people who have died and their families. You know it is possible to stand firm against that and say no, this is happening to us. This is our family. But it's quite difficult and I took quite a decision that I would stand up and be honest and be truthful. There was a lot of interest in me because I was a minister of religion. I was a vicar ­— a priest — at the time. But I think mostly the families that I know from the London bombings, people sort of went along with the rhythm of the public interest for five years until the inquest. And after the inquest, a lot of us then said that is it! You know now we will take our children, our husbands, our wives back into us and away from the public eye.

CO: You decided though that you couldn't continue in that job as a vicar. Why not?

JN: Well, there were lots of reasons. I had two other children. My son was 17 at the time my daughter was barely 21. We had a lot of a lot of grieving to do. We had a lot of understanding who we were as a family now without this very vibrant link in our family chain. And I felt that it was just too much to try and be a priest and a vicar when what I really needed to do was be a mother and look after my family first and foremost. I also felt that on a very profound level I could not stand behind the altar week after week inviting people to come to communion — to the Eucharist — and speak words of peace and reconciliation and forgiveness when I felt so far distanced from those things myself.

CO: The four suicide bombers. The one that detonated the bomb that killed your daughter. Mohammed Siddique Khan, a 30 year old man, have you ever been able to forgive him?

JN: No, I don't suppose so. It's not something I think about over much these days. In the beginning, I needed to almost beside his name as a mantra. I needed to keep him in my head alongside my daughter. And I didn't think about forgiveness for quite some time and in relation to him. Until some months after, I was asked if I forgave him? Without thought, very instinctively, I knew that I didn’t. But after that, it all became a lot more complicated because I realized that many people had very different ideas of what forgiveness was and how important it was. And so I had to work all of that out for myself. And I felt that my daughter was the only person that had the right to offer forgiveness. As a mother, all I could forgive was the hurt in my heart and I did not feel I could do that. This man had killed himself along with those that he killed. So there was no person who could say sorry to me. There was no way that I could have a conversation with or a relationship with in an attempt to understand his action. So for me, it was something I put to one side. And what was very interesting to me is the amount of people for whom it then gave permission to be able to say actually, I have spent all my life trying to forgive a really dreadful act. And only now can I say I don't have to deal with this. And the other thing I would say about forgiveness is there was an assumption that by saying I don't forgive means that you're somehow preventing yourself from reaching a place of peace or that you feel vengeance or vindictive. And those things are just not the case. And I think I've become a very peaceful person. But the fact of the matter is, this man who carried out this atrocity, in my view, is beyond forgiveness. You know we talk about forgiveness when two children aged four or five in a playground have a falling out. We talk about forgiveness when a partner will have an affair or hurt the other person in the relationship. We talk about forgiveness in all sorts of different conditions and states. And yet, it doesn't all relate in the same way. So I don't see how something that relates both to a ruckus in the playground and also is somehow supposed to relate to mass murder is something that can be talked about in the same breath. I think it needs a lot more consideration.

CO: You've clearly given this so much thought. You have so much insight and so much to offer those who are trying to come to terms with things. There are now many families who are still in that state of shock. There’s a family here in Canada. One of the victims was Canadian. What would you say? What is the best advice you can give to those who are trying to…

JN: Oh, look, I would not presume to give advice. You know people really have to… It's Chrissy, isn't it? The young woman who was killed?

CO: Yes.

JN: I mean I would not offer advice because I think that that would be intrusive and a little arrogant on my part. All I would say is just be true to how it is for you. Don't allow anyone else to tell you how you should be. Be true to yourself. Mourn your daughter. Mourn that person you love and allow the process of grief. Allow the shock and the trauma to do its work. And although it may feel an impossible task now you will come through it. And I think when these things happen there's a tremendous need to try and bring some good out of the awfulness of what's happened. I know that from the community of 7/7, a huge amount of people have set up trusts that benefit other people. They set up charitable works. You know most of us needed to do something good. But give yourself time. You know it's a time to mourn and time to cry before a time to rebuild.

CO: Julie, I so appreciate speaking with you and this has just been extraordinary for people trying to come to terms with that. Thank you.

JN: You're very welcome.

CO: All right. be well.

JN: Thank you. Bye bye.

JD: Julie Nicholson's daughter, Jenny, was killed in the London 7/7 bombings in July of 2005. Ms. Nicholson is the author of the book “A Song for Jenny”. We reached her in Bristol, England. And we have more on the story on our website:

[Music: Ambient]

Leaning trees

JD: Like most trees, the Cook pine isn't very decisive. But now, at least, we know which way it's leaning. From its original habitat on a single archipelago 3,000 kilometers off the east coast of Australia. The Cook pine, named after Captain James Cook, has lazily made its way around the world, including to California. Recently, a guy named Matt Ritter with California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo was writing about the conifers. He noticed that they all grew at a slant. And then he noticed that they all slanted southward. So he phoned up someone in Australia to see if the same was true there: it wasn't. But that's the interesting part. In Australia he was told, Cook pines always lean northward. As Mr. Ritter told News Scientist, quote: “We got holy-smoked that there's possibly a tree that is leaning toward the equator wherever it grows.” And he was even more holy-smoked to find that his theory was true. After reviewing more than 250 Cook pine on five continents, he found that they all do lean toward the equator wherever they grow. And furthermore, that the further they are from the equator the more severe the angle of the lean. It's probably so the trees can get the maximum light, which of course is what all trees want. But with other species you can tell somehow that they're just trying too hard. Sycamores, I'm looking at you. Whereas the Cook pine is like super-cas, wherever it is, it's just going to lean toward the equator and catch some rays. Mr. Ritter says it is probably a quote, “artifact of its genetics.” Seems to work even if it's unusual. After all not every tree is inclined to be so inclined.

Back To Top »

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