CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol off.
JEFF DOUGLAS: Good evening, I'm Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.
CO: The grass is apparently greener on the other side. As Toronto's police chief, Julian Fantino compared legalizing weed to legalizing murder. Tonight, I'll speak with him about his new medical marijuana business.
JD: They said yes. In a plebiscite, Australians vote in favour of same sex marriage. But when it comes to making it law, a marriage equality activist tells us she will stay engaged for a long time to come.
CO: It may be the coup de grace, but it's not a coup d'etat. At least that's what Zimbabwe's military insists, even after its place President Mugabe in “protective custody”, and commandeered the state broadcaster.
JD: Going down uneasy. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves a pill doctors can track through the body. But since it's usually used to treat schizophrenia, the idea is sticking in our guest’s throat.
CO: Dumping at the opportunity. Canada has piled up containers full of garbage at the port of Manila. But on his trip to the Philippines, the Prime Minister insisted he would find a way to take out the trash
JD: And… the upper-crust-acean. A new study finds that when two mangrove crabs engage in combat, the winner doesn't just shake claws and respect the loser’s dignity. It performs an exultant victory dance
JD: As It Happens, the Wednesday edition. Radio that tut-tuts at the behavior of the insensitive clawed.
[Music: Theme]Back To Top »
Part 1: Julian Fantino medical marijuana business, Zimbabwe ‘coup’, crab dance
Julian Fantino medical marijuana business
Guest: Julian Fantino
JD: This week, Julian Fantino held the scissors to cut the green ribbon of his new, green business, Aleafia. It's a clinic that connects patients to medical marijuana. And it's not exactly the business venture you'd expect Mr. Fantino to be involved with. As the former Toronto police chief, he used to put people in jail for selling marijuana. And the former MP and federal Conservative cabinet member has also compared legalizing marijuana to legalizing murder. We reached Julian Fantino in Sudbury, Ontario.
CO: Mr. Fantino, I'll ask you a blunt question: have you tried marijuana?
JULIAN FANTINO: No, I never have.
CO: You've never smoked? you've never done any marijuana products?
CO: Why do you think that it's OK?
JF: Well, I suppose that I can rely very heavily on not only the experts, the scientists, the doctors and the medical profession with whom I've had the opportunity to learn from and interact with. But more compelling than any of that has been the stories of real-life experiences by people who have been suffering from multiple different ailments, and who have been helped greatly by medically ordered cannabis.
CO: This is when you were Minister of Veterans Affairs?
JF: It did happen during that time. When I was lobbied by various veterans groups to transition veterans from opiates and how much better the response was when they went on to medical cannabis. And eventually, the government ended up approving medical cannabis as opposed to opiates for these people.
CO: And yet, you said in 2015, I am completely opposed to the legalization of marijuana.
JF: Yes, that was the issue at that time. And I was addressing a different-era — a different time.
CO: That was less than two years ago. What was a different era then?
JF: Well, the different era is that now, it's being made a legal item. And so, therefore, there's no point in me arguing the issue. What I do think is important though is that if and when it becomes a legal commodity that the concerns expressed to ensure that there be proper education.
CO: OK. But just so I understand, you said before that you were completely opposed to the legalization of marijuana. You said that the Liberal’s policy will make smoking marijuana a normal, everyday activity for Canadians, and make marijuana available in storefront dispensaries. Make it available and this is simply wrong. This is a quote. It puts the health and safety of our children and our communities at risk.
JF: Well, again, I go back to what I stated earlier that in that era, there was no talk of legalization. Now, it's a reality. It's going to happen. You have to separate out the legalization from what I'm involved in right now. I'm involved in the medical aspect that helps people greatly through the dispensing of medically prescribed marijuana cannabis. People suffering from chronic pain, sleep deprivation, the post events from cancer treatment. These are things that we're involved in right now, and we’ll have to wait and see how the rest of it shakes out.
CO: But this is not volunteer work you're doing. This is a company that you will make money from. So how will you capitalise on the legalization of marijuana?
JF: Well, we're not looking to capitalize on anything right now. We're dealing with the medical aspect of cannabis. It's a comprehensive health approach to people's issues.
CO: You are starting a health network that presumably you expect to profit from.
JF: The health network has been started because of our motivation to help people. They can be helped in a different way than with opiates.
CO: And you make… sir, let’s just it clear, you will make money from this, right? This is for profit.
JF: We are a private company, funded mainly by family and friends. And we're expecting at some point in time that it would be a profitable endeavor. It's a business no doubt. We pay taxes, we're registered, we're running it as a business and we'll see where that takes us.
CO: Now but you can see why people's eyebrows are being raised. As chief of police in Toronto, you were very strict about drugs. You put people in jail. There are young people who are in jail because of people like you, who undoubtedly got involved in other things because you know what happens in jail. You don't see any contradiction between your past life as chief of police?
JF: Not at all. Not at all. What I did in law enforcement. I ascribed and I followed my oath of office — the laws of the land. But you know what? You're making a huge mistake if you are to believe that I put everyone in jail that I came across that had the marijuana. I gave all kinds of people all kinds of breaks. But we're talking about a different issue. We're talking about me today as a responsible, educated, informed citizen, who's had the experience of knowing the benefits of medical cannabis for people who are suffering from ailments that are normally not well cared for by opiates.
CO: But you knew this when you were in government — when you were with the Harper government. You said you learned from the vets that they needed this medication. That it was good for them. And yet, you were part of a government that passed a law that put mandatory minimum sentences on people for having as few as six plants. That people went to jail — went to prison — with six-month sentences. The courts had to give them because of a law you passed, even as you knew, according to what you've told us, that this was something of benefit to vets.
JF: Well, I can tell you right now that we're talking about medical cannabis.
CO: It was that time too. If someone was going plans for medical reasons when you passed bill C-10 that wasn't an argument. They would go to jail if they had six plant. Is that not true, Mr. Fantino?
JF: All I'm telling you is that what we did was to help veterans. And now, we're helping others who are benefiting greatly from the medical cannabis availability. And the response from those people who are coming through our clinic is absolutely invigorating.
CO: All right. And you say you saw that then. See, this is what's key here. You said you saw that when you were Minister of Veterans Affairs. You knew how much it helped people. Did you or did you not support the Harper government's law — bill C-10 — that that made mandatory minimum sentences for as few as six plants? The war on drugs — the Harper war on drugs — did you support it?
JF: There was no Harper war on drugs.
CO: I'm asking you a question. Did you support the mandatory minimum sentences for people for as few as six plants going to prison?
JF: I'm afraid I can't answer that question wholly because there were more issues attached to that particular bill…
CO: It was so controversial. There were people across the country…
JF: I don't want to have an argument with you about what you understand and what I'm doing. What I'm doing is I'm involved in helping people with my colleagues who are reputable people. You want to throw up the past and all these different nuances. I'm telling you that what I'm doing today is helping people. We at Aleafia, along with my colleagues, have exposed ourselves to the benefits of all of this. That's what we're doing now. I can also tell you that part of our work at Aleafia is to advance the science, to do research, to actually do what we can to help people get off of opiates, which is an epidemic in this country.
CO: Well, can I put to you that it appears that you've had your change of heart since you saw a business opportunity for yourself?
JF: Well, you can appear to say what you want. And I'll repeat myself. We are involved with very ethical, honorable people, financed totally by family and friends who believe, as we do, in the benefit of medical cannabis to help people suffering from various ailments. And trying to lessen the dependency on opiates, which is a tragedy in this country.
CO: But you do expect to make money from this?
JF: Well, if there's money to be made, there's investors that have put their trust in us. And I think we owe them a return if a return is available. But that’s not their concern. It isn’t about money. I mean you can frame it any way you want. But you will never be able to take away my integrity with respect to what I'm doing now and what I've done in the past.
CO: All right. Mr. Fantino, Thank you.
JF: You're welcome.
JD: Julian Fantino is the former Toronto chief of police, a former MP and former federal Conservative cabinet minister. He is now the executive chair of Aleafia, a new medical marijuana services company. Their chief operating officer, Gary Goodyear, is also a former cabinet minister under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. And Aleafia’s CEO is Raf Souccar, a 34 year veteran of the RCMP. We reached Julian Fantino in Sudbury. To listen to this interview again, or to share it, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.
Guest: Rashweat Mukundu
JD: Robert Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe for almost forty years now. Today, it seems his long reign could be coming to an end. The military has surrounded President Mugabe's residence, where he is being confined. His wife, Grace Mugabe, who was being touted as his successor, has reportedly fled the country. And the former Vice President, Emmerson Mnangagwa, who had left Zimbabwe after being been sacked by the Mugabes earlier this month, is said to be back. Overnight, soldiers also seized Zimbabwe's state broadcaster, and a military spokesman delivered this message:
SPOKESPERSON: We wish to assure the nation that his Excellency, the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe and Commander in Chief of the Defense Forces comrade Mugabe and his family are safe and sound. And that their security is guaranteed. We wish to make it abundantly clear that this is not a military takeover of government
JD: Major-General SB Moyo on Zimbabwe state TV early this morning. Rashweat Mukundu is a freelance journalist in the capital of Zimbabwe, Harare. That's where we reached him.
CO: Rashweat, what was that like last night to be at home watching television, when suddenly the Major-General appeared on your television?
RASHWEAT MUKUNDU: It was a huge surprise. There was a lot of anxiety, and many of us could not sleep looking at the situation, especially when there was a lot of movement of the military into the city center.
CO: How did you react? How did you and others react when this happened?
RM: Well, lots of phone calls to family and friends to try to assess what this means. Also, to get more information because when the announcement was being made, there was lots of explosions. There was lots of gunfire that was taking place. And, of course, there was information that the state broadcaster had been taken over. And still the president is under house arrest. So this created lots of anxious moments for many of us.
CO: But now when the state broadcaster is taken over by the military, the Major-General appears on television. The president is under house arrest. It sure looks like a coup. So what do you make of him saying this is not a military takeover?
RM: It's a way to manage the reaction of the international community. But in the final analysis, this is a coup because President Robert Mugabe is not in a position to exercise his authority as the head of state. And he's under house arrest, so, ultimately, this amounts to a coup.
CO: All right. So to put Robert Mugabe out of power is something that some people have wanted for a long time. This has been anticipated by people in Zimbabwe and out of the country for some time. What is it that finally motivated the military to do this?
RM: They think within the military that they are power brokers. And if Mugabe is to go, which is expected now, their thinking is that it is their prerogative to then select what takes over from Mugabe. Unfortunately, Mugabe has been under pressure from his wife, Grace Mugabe, who developed her own ambitions to take over from Mugabe. And he dismissed it. Emmerson Mnangagwa was the military’s choice to take over from Mugabe. And essentially, this is what triggered the reaction from the military to threaten Mugabe, but also, to ultimately take over as they have done.
CO: And it's extraordinary, isn't it? You mentioned that Grace Mugabe, this is Robert Mugabe’s wife, who some are saying she has left the country; she's gone to Namibia. It’s not confirmed yet. So Robert Mugabe believed he could just have a succession of himself by putting his wife there. And that seems to be what has triggered the military to say no we're going to take over here. We're going to be in charge of succession. Is that what's going on?
RM: It's, essentially, what is going on. Because over the past two I would say two years or so, there's been a growing tension between Mugabe and the war veterans of the liberation struggle. They wanted Mugabe to clearly indicate that Emmerson Mnangagwa would to take over from Mugabe. But, apparently, Mugabe was not so sure whether his comrades would protect his family. So he has been under pressure from his wife to guarantee the interest of the family. More so in the context in which Mugabe is not only 93 years old, but also clearly struggling with his health. So Grace Mugabe then moved into to the center of the politics in Zimbabwe, clearly, determining the pace and the decisions. That is around to the war veterans who are in the military establishment who think that Mugabe is abandoning his comrades in preference for his wife. So it resulted in the events of the early morning today.
CO: Right. And you mentioned Emmerson Mnangagwa. He was until recently, as you point out, he was Mr. Mugabe's deputy. Robert Mugabe fired him and got rid of him. He planned to put his wife in place. Does it appear that Emmerson Mnangagwa is going to be established by the military as the new president?
RM: That's a possibility that Emmerson Mnangagwa could come back to Zimbabwe. He had gone into exile. And Mnangagwa is certainly a frontrunner to take over from Mugabe.
CO: Now, when you say that they say Emmerson Mnangagwa is a frontrunner that's suggesting that somehow there's going to be some competition. I mean who will ultimately choose successor in Zimbabwe now? Will there be elections? Will the people get to choose? Or is this something the military they're just going to figure out who they think should be running the country?
RM: It's entirely up to the military right now to figure out who should take over. And my reading is that their man is Emmerson Mnangagwa. But should there be any complications, then they may look for an alternative who could it be the current defense minister. But whether we are going to have elections I doubt that. I think we may have to wait longer for the people of Zimbabwe to choose a leader of their choice.
CO: Now, Robert Mugabe has been criticized for his bad governance, his economic policies, runaway inflation, land development and also the military, as you point out, suppressing any opposition to Mugabe using violence. So will anything be different in Zimbabwe after Robert Mugabe is gone?
RM: Well, for the majority of for Zimbabweans, they are essentially looking at two bullies at each other's throats. That is Mugabe and the military. And none of these viable options, but there is a palpable dislike of Mugabe and his wife, Grace. There is some celebration amongst the ordinary citizens. And for Zimbabweans stuck with Mugabe for 37 years, there's also thinking that change just needs to happen. Whatever format that change takes at least we can then start anew. With a new face, a new struggle or challenges we may face going forward.
CO: Rashweat, we will be watching closely what happens in the coming days. And I appreciate speaking with you tonight. Thank you.
RM: Yeah, thank you for the time to talk. Thank you.
JD: Rashweat Mukundu is a freelance journalist, and a human rights activist. We reached him in Harare, Zimbabwe. And they are going to cover this on “The Current” tomorrow morning. So tune in to CBC Radio One at 8:30 am.
Guest: Paul Chen
JD: It's hard to be defeated, isn’t it? It’s hard to accept it. It's even harder when your opponent is a sore winner, who gloats, and rubs their victory in your face — by dancing around with their dumb claws in the air. Paul Chen, a researcher with the National University of Singapore, has been pairing up mangrove crabs to duel one another. But he isn't particularly interested in the fighting per se. He's interested in seeing what a crab does after it emerges victorious. And he and his team of researchers have just published their findings on these crustacean jerks in the journal Ethology. We reached Paul Chen in Singapore.
CO: What body parts do they rub together?
PC: They rub both claws together. One of the claws will be in contact with the substrate, and they will rub another claw up and down in quick succession.
CO: And you've actually recorded the sound of that. And we have a bit of that sound, so let’s play what that sounds like.
[Sound: That’s creepy]
CO: Wow! How did you get that sound?
PC: Yeah, so the sound was recorded to a contact microphone that's attached to the bottom of a tank.
CO: And so the other crabs can hear the sound then?
PC: We don't really know. I mean that is subject for a study. But we believe it does because the loser actually reacts to it by reducing the risk of re-engaging with the winner.
CO: OK, so what do the losers do? So this is a fight, the crab that wins is the one making these motions. How does the other crab respond?
PC: Usually, what the other crab responds is either just stationary and observing the environment. But whenever the winner approaches it, it will back up quickly.
CO: How would you describe this? It sounds like kind of a dance.
PC: It is more of a sound-producing action, rather than a dance. I'll explain it like that.
CO: But it's about victory. This is the winner.
PC: Yeah, it’s about victory.
CO: Why do you think they do it?
PC: Well, I think they are doing it for two reasons and they're not mutually exclusive. One reason is to prevent the loser from re-engagement. And the other is to announce the victory to nearby observers so that they will not try to engage a contest with it because it's a strong individual.
CO: And is it really necessary. I mean are they just kind of rubbing the other crab’s nose, so to speak, in its loss?
PC: Yeah, I think is necessary because these crabs actually live in high-density. And, therefore, engagement can be common. And so to avoid contest is beneficial because you can't spend more time in other activities such as feeding, such as finding mates, so avoiding fights is really beneficial.
CO: Now, you say that they don't always do it. When are they not doing that? And when are they doing it?
PC: I think they don't do it when the intensity of the fight is low. I think they're just trying to conserve energy because they don't really think that this contest is going to matter. And the loser is not really interested in engaging again, so that they will not perform victory displays in this case.
CO: What do you hope to get from doing this study?
PC: What I hope from getting doing this study is to probably learn how animals resolve conflicts. Fighting in the animal kingdom — how animals resolve conflicts — usually does not result in death or severe injuries. And I think through this we can learn a lot about how we can resolve conflict peaceably. And to get, at the same time, to resolve differences.
CO: Do you know any other animals that do this? That do some kind of a victory thing just to send a warning to the others don't mess with me?
PC: Yeah, there are quite a number of animals that does the same behavior, but in different ways and different forms. For instance, we have the record of the blue fairy penguins. They’ll do a bow with a call. And that is actually a victory display for blue fairy penguins. Crickets do the same as well. They call and jerk their body. We don't really know how widespread this behavior is, but we believe that this is probably more widespread. It's just that people are not reporting them. So we hope that in this study more people will study post-contest behaviors. And record those behaviors down.
CO: All right. Maybe we should do a few post-contest studies of humans?
CO: All right. Well, we'll leave it there. Mr. Chen, thank you.
PC: Thank you.
JD: Paul Chen is the lead researcher in a recent study that found a male mangrove crabs do a victory ritual after winning a fight. We reached Mr. Chen in Singapore. And you can see a video of these rejoicing crabs by heading to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.Back To Top »
Part 2: Australia same-sex marriage, digital pill
Australia same-sex marriage
Guest: Sally Rugg
SPEAKER: For the national result: Yes responses, 700,817,247. Representing 61.6 per cent… [sound: lots of clapping and cheering]
JD: That is the sound of a park in Sydney yesterday, at the historic moment when people learned that the "yes" side had won. Across the country, Australians were glued to their televisions, as the country's bureau of statistics announced that more than 60 per cent of voters were in favour of same-sex marriage. That result comes after a controversial and non-binding postal survey. And now, people like Sally Rugg are focused on what comes next. Ms. Rugg is the marriage equality director for the group GetUp. We reached her at the airport in Sydney.
CO: Ms. Rugg, how are you feeling about the vote?
SALLY RUGG: I'm so happy and so, so proud. As a campaigner, I'm so proud of what we've pulled off as a nation and the incredible result that we've got. But as a queer woman, I feel like the country is behind me. And I feel like for the first time in I don’t know 15 years, you know the country saying yes to me.
CO: You were tweeting after the vote. You said I still don't have any words. I can't stop crying. Thank you. How was the response? Just tell us about that moment when, we just heard a bit of tape from it, when the announcement was made.
SR: You know it's funny I've been working on this campaign for so long that I thought when the results came through, I would just be able to treat it as a normal work moment. But as soon as the announcement came through and it said yes, I honestly felt like the air had been knocked out of me. I burst into tears. The crowd around me erupted with cheering and more tears. It was astonishing. I can’t really describe the feeling.
CO: And not that is that you won by a good margin of 60 per cent. But that also, so many people in Australia voted. I mean 80 per cent of eligible voters sent in their ballot. And when we spoke with you last time, you were worried that they might not do that — they might not bother you. What do you think made the difference?
SR: Absolutely. I mean as soon as this postal survey was announced, I mean, first of all, it was non-compulsory. It was also non-binding. So we were frightened that people might not want to participate. And also, it was done over you know through the postal system, so that's another barrier. To see that 80 per cent of Australians participated is completely mind blowing. And I honestly think it's because this reform is so long overdue in Australia. And we have a longstanding public support as well. So it's a reform that enjoys huge amounts of public support, and it's long overdue.
CO: We also discussed last time about how the vote was very expensive. Many said it was unnecessary. The politicians should have just had the courage to lead. To make decisions and that this looked to sound like it was a delay tactic. But now with this mandate — now with this vote — and this is a non-binding vote. What do you think Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will do? What is he compelled to do in your view?
SR: There's never been a greater mandate for parliament to pass marriage equality, and to do so as soon as possible. So couples can start marrying before the end of the year.
CO: And how do you think that the prime minister himself voted in this plebiscite?
SR: So the prime minister voted yes. Another reason why this whole exercise had been pretty bizarre you know we've got majority support not only in the general public, but also in both Houses of Parliament — and from the leader of every major political party in Australia, including the prime minister. So I think there is absolutely no reason why there should be any further delay in marriage equality.
CO: I guess the greater question is what was the delay? I mean given that which you're seeing just in these past days, and during this plebiscite, just how overwhelming the support seems to be in Australia for gay marriage. What about the opposition? Where might there be snags still with those who are saying well, there's not enough protection for people's rights within this plan for same sex marriage in Australia?
SR: Yeah, I mean already earlier in the week, before we even had the yes result, our opponents of marriage equality have been very vocal on the no side. They began talking about a new piece of legislation that not only wouldn't really deliver marriage equality, but would also be a sort of Trojan horse for all these new laws that would grant permission to discriminate against LGBTQ people at the shop counter, in the workplace and in our health and education system. Parliament has pretty swiftly condemned most of it. And the bill that's being put forward all of that today is very strong. It's very thorough. It has good religious protections, religious freedom protections, while not extending or duplicating any anti-discrimination law. It’s a good bill, and we're really hoping it gets passed.
CO: But is there room there for those who say that people should be able — clergy should be able — to refuse to perform ceremonies if they object. That people should be able to refuse to give service to same-sex couples and same-sex marriages. Will that be the case within the law?
SR: So this piece of legislation will not compel clergy to perform same-sex marriages. So they will continue to be able to refuse whoever they like. But in terms of serving LGBTQ people in businesses in you know florists and cake shops and stuff like that. We already have anti-discrimination protections that say you have to serve people no matter of their sexuality, or their gender identity, or their racial background. We're really proud of those laws. We don't see marriage equality as a reason to impede them.
CO: Malcolm Turnbull says that this will be law by Christmas. Do you think that will be the case?
SR: It better be. And if not, there's seven million people who have just voted yes who will be there to hold him to account.
CO: We’ll leave it there, Ms. Rugg. I know you've got to get on the plane, but thank you for speaking with us.
SR: Thanks so much.
JD: Sally Rugg is the director of marriage equality for the group Getup. We reached her at the airport in Sydney, Australia.
Roy Moore lawyer
JD: Trenton Garmon is Roy Moore's lawyer. He is supposed to be the Republican Senate candidate’s best line of defence. But he is turning into something of a liability. For a week now, Mr. Garmon has been doing the media rounds, trying to set the record straight on his client. Mr. Moore has, of course, been accused of sexual misconduct with minors, including a 14-year-old girl. But Mr. Garmon's media strategy is unusually personal… and, frankly, just unusual. It appears he really likes to familiarize himself with the anchors that he speaks to. Take, for example, Mr. Garmon's interview with CNN's Don Lemon last week.
DON LEMON: What I said specifically is the conversation. It’s not a monologue. What I said specifically at the top of the show was that the statute of limitations has run out, so there will be no judge and jury. There will be no process. The process is that a woman has come forward on the record.
TRENTON GARMON: But hey, Don Lemon Squeezy, Keep It Easy. Here's the thing, man.
DL: It's just Lemon. Hold on. My mom didn't take me home and my mom didn't take me down. I can't keep that easy squeezy it's just Don Lemon. Go on.
TG: I got you, man.
JD: Trenton Garmon thought that calling CNN host Don Lemon, Don Lemon Squeezy Keep It Easy would warm him up. It did not. Regardless, Mr. Garman apparently thought that that same strategy would be advisable to employ again today, in an interview with MSNBC. So before his interview with co-hosts Ali Velshi and Stephanie Ruhle, he decided he would do some research on Mr. Velshi’s, quote, “Cultural background”. Here is how that exchange went, starting with Ms. Ruhle asking Mr. Garman a question.
STEPHANIE RUHLE: If Roy Moore doesn't remember, how could he say that it's definitively false? And number two, why would he need permission from any of these girls’ mothers if they weren't under age?
TG: Sure, that's a good question. Culturally speaking, obviously, there's differences. I looked up Al's background there. Wow, that's awesome that you have got such a diverse background. It’s really cool to read through that. But point is this…
SR: What does Ali’s background have to do with dating a 14-year-old?
TG: I'm not finished with the context of it.
SR: Well, please answer. What does Ali Velshi’s background have to do with dating children — 14-year-old girls?
TG: Sure. In other countries, there's arrangement through parents for what we would refer to as consensual marriage.
SR: Ali is from Canada.
TG: I understand that. And Ali’s also spent time in other countries.
SR: So have I.
ALI VELSHI: I don't know where you going with this, Trenton.
TG: But here's to answer your question. So he said no, comma. So he answered No. And then he went on to say his process would be before he date anybody — whether they're 25, 35, or whether he doesn't know their age — he would ask the mother's permission. So he actually answered No. There's no inconsistency in that. And I stand by the answer.
JD: That Roy Moore's lawyer, Trenton Garmon, speaking to MSNBC hosts Ali Velshi and Stephanie Ruhle today.
Guest: Paul Appelbaum
JD: It's a pill that can be digitally tracked through the body, telling doctors when — and whether — patients take their medicine. The medication has now been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. And experts hope it can help remind patients to take drugs as prescribed. But not every doctor is convinced by the benefits of these pills. The first digital drug to be approved by the FDA is an antipsychotic. Meaning, these meds are used to treat mental disorders. Dr. Paul Appelbaum is a Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine, and Law at Columbia University. We reached him in New York.
CO: Dr. Appelbaum, how exactly do these digital pills work once they are ingested?
PAUL APPELBAUM: Well, the pills have imbedded in them two kinds of tiny, tiny metal particles. When the pill is digested by the acid in the stomach, they send a very weak electrical signal, which with the current system is picked up by a receiver, which is in a patch on the person's arm, which in turn sends it to their cell phone, which they can use to transmit it to other people. Their physician or family members, or actually, anyone they designate.
CO: Now, does the patient or the person who's taking the pill do they have complete control over who would know whether they've ingested? Who would get a message from the phone? They can choose that and nobody else can?
PA: Under the current approach, they get to designate up to five people who would get an alert when they've taken the pill.
CO: What kind of patients — who — would this be useful for?
PA: That's one of the problems in my view with the rollout of this device. It is embedded in a medication called Abilify, which is an anti-psychotic medication that's used for people with schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder, or related conditions. And sometimes for people with depression as well, who may not be psychotic. And so these are people who, by definition, have difficulty perceiving reality. They may hear voices, they may have delusions and what it means to these people to have imbedded in the pills they take a little device that sends an electrical signal about their behavior. Really is one of the big unknowns.
CO: Wow! Because they suffer from paranoid reactions, delusional responses to that and that might trigger some of those?
PA: Right. The concern would be that for some people with a psychotic disorder, who start out paranoid about the world believing that people are trying to monitor their behavior, to be given a pill of this sort might well confirm those beliefs. In fact, somebody is monitoring their behavior and trying to control what they do. And that could either make them worse or make them less rather than more likely to take their medication. So this is an odd group of patients to choose to roll out a new technology. You might think, as one of my colleagues suggested, that you'd be much better off for example starting with people with Alzheimer's disease. For whom the issue is forgetting to take the pill, and who might be delighted to have a phone call reminding them to take the pill when they neglect to do so.
CO: So this technology you see that it could be useful in and other kinds of patients in other situations. But why would they start with this one? Why would start with this drug?
PA: So there are two reasons why they may have started with Abilify. From a practical perspective, non-adherence to medication regimens is a big problem in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Often patients fail to recognize their illness and their need for treatment. Or they may have side effects and therefore decide to stop taking. Abilify per se has been a very lucrative medication for Atsuko, which is the Japanese pharmaceutical company that makes it. But its patent is about to expire here in the United States. And one can't help but wondering whether the decision to start with Abilify is a way of extending the life of a patented medication for which larger amounts of money can be charged.
CO: On the issue of surveillance, there's obviously going to be — if this is successful — other applications for it. And could it be in the future that this becomes a condition of release from prison or another institution that somebody is able to monitor a drug that someone’s supposed to have.
PA: Yeah, I think that's certainly a real possibility. We now have circumstances in which people who were on parole from prison or probation are ordered to comply with treatment at risk of being sent back to jail or prison. At the moment, there's not a good way to monitor their compliance. This technology would offer that. On the other hand, you know one wonders what the consequences will be of probation officers or judges having access to this kind of information. For example, if I forget to take my pill this afternoon, I'm not so sure that I would really look forward to being hauled into court tomorrow morning by a judge who has a punitive approach. And who's likely to re-incarcerate me for a simple act of forgetting.
CO: Can you see a time when this having this kind of built in snitch line on your meds becomes something that insurance companies will insist upon? Say they there's a condition if someone's not taking their drugs, the condition could get worse. And that they say hey, we've monitored it, and you didn't take your drugs.
PA: Yeah, I could imagine that. I could imagine, particularly for people with chronic disorders who've had several hospitalizations already, that the insurers would be looking to reduce their losses if you will, which is how they look at it. And would say that if you want to continue being insured by us, you need to take a pill with a sensor in it. I don't think that's beyond the realm of possibility.
CO: All right, very interesting — alarming as well. Dr. Appelbaum Thank you.
PA: OK, you're welcome.
JD: That was Dr. Paul Appelbaum, a professor of Psychiatry, Medicine and Law at Columbia University. We reached him in New York.
Novelty advent calendar
JD: The website for the British bakery chain Greggs dedicates a full page to one of its most popular products: the sausage roll. "All hail a British classic!" it exhorts us. Now that's just marketing copy, of course. You're not actually supposed to "hail" a sausage roll, because it's not really worthy of exaltation, and anyway, it can't hear you. Recently though, Greggs put its signature product in an image where it's literally being hailed. And some believe that, unlike the savory British staple, that's tasteless. I should explain by way of context that advent calendars are big business in the U.K. They're calendars with tiny doors in them — you know the ones, one for each day of December leading up to Christmas. And behind those doors are pictures, or candy, or chocolate. This year, the stationery store WH Smith had one with twenty-four erasers inside, for example. Or also, the supermarket chain Morrisons is offering a pricey one — a hundred bucks Canadian — but that comes with tiny bottles of gin. Well today, at Greggs headquarters, they're probably raiding those gin advent calendars. Because a right-wing Christian group is calling them "sick" and "cowards" for a particular ad the bakery chain put out for its own forthcoming advent calendar. It's got the three wise men from a nativity scene, genuflecting around a hay-filled manger, in which lies...a sausage roll… with a bite taken out of it. Now, Greggs has apologized for depicting Jesus as meat pastry that someone is eating. But that group, which calls itself the Freedom Association, has called for a boycott, which was kind of to be expected. There's always controversy when you replace a real role model with… well, with a model that's a roll.Back To Top »
Part 3: Manila garbage, Mueller bio
JD: Ruby Slipperjack spent her formative years in a residential school in northern Ontario. She still lives with the trauma of that. She has shared her experiences in her work as a children's author. Now, Ms. Slipperjack has won one of Canada's most prestigious literary prizes. She is this year's winner of the 25,000 dollar Vicky Metcalf Award for Literature for Young People, for her body of work. It was presented last night, at the Writers' Trust of Canada Awards in Toronto. The author's most recent novel, titled "Dear Canada: These Are My Words", is based on her own life. Here's part of what Ruby Slipperjack said last night.
RUBY SLIPPERJACK: Of all the novels that I've written, “These Are My Words” was the most difficult. It was difficult because sometimes these memories are very painful to recall. And believe me, I had nightmares. As you know the federal policy connected to the establishment of residential schools was simply to take the Indians out of the child. It did profoundly damage those who were forced to undergo this unjust, morally reprehensible policy. But it failed. We're still here. I'm still here. In writing this book, I wanted young readers to know what it's like to lose everything that you know. And I wanted them to feel what it was like to lose the parents, your siblings, their extended family, friends, the community and most importantly, their cultural identity. As an educator and as a teacher, It was my duty — my responsibility — to provide young readers a balance in learning about the residential school experience. I did this with humour and the sentiment of hope. Perhaps someday all Canadians will know and understand the legacy of the residential school experience. From my perspective, to accomplish this we must first educate our children. We are all fortunate to live in a country that celebrates its writers on an annual basis. It's a wonderful thing. This prize was such a surprise and is deeply appreciated. To the survivors of residential schools [speaking in Ojibwe]. Again, I thank you for this honor of this award. Miigwetch.
JD: Canadian author Ruby Slipperjack, speaking last night at the Writers’ Trust Awards. Ms. Slipperjack Vicki Metcalf Award for Literature for Young People and is the author, most recently, of “Dear Canada: These Are My Words”.
Guest: Aileen Lucero
JD: Earlier this week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made headlines when he grabbed some food at a popular fast food chain in Manila. He was in the Philippines for a summit of regional leaders. And that photo op prompted environmentalists to demand Mr. Trudeau take out something else: thousands of tons of Canadian trash, that's been sitting in shipping containers at the Manila port for more than four years. Aileen Lucero is the National Coordinator of Eco Waste Coalition. We reached her in Quezon City.
CO: Ms. Lucero, can you describe what is in these garbage bins in the port of Manila?
AILEEN LUCERO: These garbage bins that can be found in the port of Manila are 103 containers, full of heterogeneous mixed household waste composed of soiled diapers and used cups and other sorts of wastes that we here in the Philippines categorise as a residual, which is intended for garbage directly being sent to the dump site and landfill.
CO: And this is from Canada? You're sure of that?
AL: Yes, this waste is from Canada. It was exported here in the Philippines between 2013 and 2014.
CO: How did Manila come to have 103 garbage containers full of our soiled adult diapers?
AL: It happens because the Canadian company mis-declared those containers as recyclable scrap plastic.
So under certain provisions, it is allowed to be transferred to developing countries. But then when the Environmental Management Bureau here in the Philippines discovered that it is mis-declared, they alerted the Bureau of Customs here in the Philippines that intercepted the shipment.
CO: And the Philippines accepts recyclable waste from other places. And they did get the money for recycling recyclable stuff.
AL: Recyclable plastics. This waste is in violation, which is not allowed under the trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste.
CO: But this Basel Convention refers to toxic garbage. Is this classified as hazardous or toxic waste?
AL: Yes, it is.
CO: Because your Department of Environment and Natural Resources in the Philippines is saying the garbage is not toxic.
AL: Here in the Philippines it is [incomprehensible], therefore, it cannot be recycled at all. The DNR did not do this study on the toxicity.
CO: Now, this has been four years that these containers have been sitting there, right?
AL: Yes. Yes.
CO: Why didn't they get shipped back immediately? Because if they said it was mis-declared, why is it still sitting there? Why didn't you send it back?
AL: Canada is not accepting it. As, according to them, there has been some loophole under your law that you could not accept the export of those thrash shipments.
CO: Our law says we can't accept this trash because we prohibit the import of trash. But it's our garbage, right?
AL: Yes, it is. But there are some legal obstacles that need to be addressed. Firstly, it’s a commercial thing. It's a private-to-private transaction.
CO: So why doesn’t the company — why isn't this the company that sent the garbage there that had the contract — why aren't they obliged to get the garbage out of there?
AL: Our importer — a local counterpart here in the Philippines — is obliged to export these waste garbage containers. On the Canada side, we cannot find the owner of the company. He cannot be found.
CO: Oh dear, the plot thickens. Now, to add one more layer of intrigue to this, we know that our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was in Manila. And he, apparently, was quite near this garbage. He was buying some takeout food apparently. But he is committed he said to finding a solution for our garbage in your port. What do you think of that?
AL: In 2015, during a signing, is when the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau mentioned about that the Canadian solution being developed so that the garbage can be exported back. If we found 2015 completely vague, we found the prime minister’s statement as welcoming. What the prime minister said offers a glimmer of hope for a country like ours that is struggling also with their own waste. We really trust that the Canadian government will be able to address legal and financial questions so as not to delay the shipment of this overstaying trash back to Canada.
CO: So there’s still legal and commercial concerns there’s who's paying for it, and who takes it?
CO: Well, I'm terribly sorry that you have our garbage, including those diapers. It's embarrassing that you are stuck with that. So I hope this gets resolved very quickly.
AL: Yes, we are also looking forward to this issue being resolved. If it's for the financial concerns I think Canada is a developed country that could shoulder all this financial expense for the sake of the relationship of both countries.
CO: All right. We'll leave it there. We'll see what happens. Ms. Lucero, thanks for speaking with us.
AL: Thank you very much.
CO: Bye bye.
JD: Aileen Lucero is the National Coordinator of Eco Waste Coalition. We reached in Quezon City, the Philippines.
JD: It's unlikely to bring down President Trump anytime soon. But that didn't stop a group of six Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives from introducing articles of impeachment today. Here is Representative Steve Cohen laying out his case against the President.
STEVE COHEN: I’m taking this action because of great concern for our country, our Constitution, our national security and our democracy. We believe that President Trump has violated the Constitution and we've introduced five articles of impeachment. The first is obstruction of justice, which deals with Mr. Comey’s firing. The second is a violation of the Constitution's foreign emolument clause, which deals with money he's taken from foreign powers without the consent of Congress. The third is a violation of the domestic emoluments clause, which deals with money he's made from the United States in his personal businesses beyond that of his salary, which is also forbidden by our Constitution. The fourth is undermining our federal judiciary, and the fifth is undermining freedom of the press. These are progressive actions he's taken over a period of time against the press and against the judiciary with positive actions to cap off a series of patterns of behavior belittling and questioning these institutions that are so important for our democracy. The judiciary obviously is in the Constitution and the equal branch of government. The press is not in the Constitution, but freedom of press is. And he's threatened licenses of broadcast stations, so-called “fake news” and other actions that hurt our democracy. So we're calling upon the house to begin impeachment hearings immediately.
JD: That was Democratic U.S. Congressman Steve Cohen, introducing five articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. The announcement was largely symbolic. The Democratic motion has little chance of succeeding in the Republican-controlled House and Senate.
Guest: Matt Flegenheimer
JD: "I'm no fan of Donald Trump, [and] frankly I can't think of two people who deserve one another more than Andrew Weissman and Donald Trump." That's a quote from a New York Times profile of Andrew Weissman, the lawyer responsible for making whatever case may come from the Special Prosecutor's investigation into the U.S. President and his team. The quote came from a defence lawyer who still seems to be recovering, after facing off against Mr. Weissman in the early 2000s. Matt Flegenheimer is the Times reporter who wrote that profile. We reached Mr. Flegenheimer in Washington D.C.
CO: Matt, there has been much written about Robert Mueller. As the special counsel, he's the public face of this investigation. But you have pulled back the curtain to show another formidable character. Can you tell us about Andrew Weismann?
MATT FLEGENHEIMER: Andrew Weissman is someone who really made a name for himself as a prosecutor in Brooklyn. He was involved in a lot of high-level Mafia cases involving some organized crime families in New York. Some of the more were high-profile, tabloid-ready cases involving some of the charismatic but fundamentally brutal mafia characters. And he moved on after that to a prominent role in the Enron task force investigating companies from the early 2000s. So the spotlight is not new to him.
CO: You have a very interesting description of him as you call him “the pounding heart of this investigation”. As Mr. Muller is the stern-eyed public face. And you describe Andrew Weissman as a “bookish legal pit bull with two Ivy League degrees, a weakness for gin martinis and classical music and the list of past enemies that includes professional killers and white collar criminals.” That's quite the resume.
MF: There were a few people who tweeted at me oh, he sounds like a James Bond prosecutor when you put it like that — shaken not stirred. but he’s sort of had this reputation as being somebody who would press an issue right up to the line in the opinion of perhaps of opponents of his on the defense over that line of ethics for a prosecutor. But his friends and colleagues from the eastern district in New York, from the Enron task force, from his time in private practice do defended his ethics saying he is you know aggressive not over aggressive. In this investigation, he is somebody who has had a lot of experience converting prospective defendants into cooperators who would talk to prosecutors about other targets of theirs in the investigation.
CO: And what does that mean? In terms of his specialty being to convert defendants into collaborators, just in particular in regards to this investigation into possible Russian collusion within the last election in the United States. What would that mean for what the investigator is doing at this point that he has someone who can convert defendants into collaborators?
MF: Sure. I mean I want to be careful about not connecting Weismann himself with any particular action of this investigation because I frankly don't know what he's responsible for. But you know you see somebody like George Papadopoulos, who has pleading guilty, a sort of lower-level staff member adviser. He’s the kind of person that you would see them trying to talk to you about other members of the campaign who they are looking at as part of this investigation. I think the sort of order of operations seeing to some lower-level campaign staffers in the case of a mafia prosecution. Lower-level people within the organized crime family that's the sort of methodology I think you've seen pursued in his past career.
CO: In terms of the other indictments from this case, how might he pursue them? What can you tell us about his modus operandi when it comes to those?
MF: I think you know you've seen really, in the Manafort case in particular, he's been the member of Mueller’s team who has been sort of directly involved in that he was seen as being sort of the engineer behind this pre-dawn raid at Manafort’s home this past summer. These kind of shock and awe tactics are the sorts of methods that you've come to expect from somebody like him as a means to getting people to talk.
CO: And this was also because we've heard from Paul Manafort and from Rick Gates that they said their lawyers said that they were surprised to have these sudden indictments, and the pre-dawn raid of Mr. Manafort’s West Virginia residence was surprising. But it looked from the outside as though these things were going to happen, but they weren’t warned as they usually are. And that's something that apparently took them by surprise, is that right?
MF: Sure. I mean I think you know in Manafort’s case, they had indicated to him that he should expect an indictment. But there's no question that they're taking a sort of approach of keeping any prospective defendants on their toes.
CO: And this you called it a shock and awe raid of Mr. Manafort's home. And it's kind of his signature — his Mark of Zorro — he puts on the door.
MF: Sure. There were you know fans of his and critics who sort of instantly recognized this as a kind of classic Andrew Weissman production.
CO: But you've also pointed out that there are some who regard him as overzealous. And those who also say that he might be a pit bull, but he's a fair pit bull. How do you think that's going to manifest itself in the course of this investigation?
MF: It's hard to say. I think you know you've already seen efforts from defenders of the president and from conservative allies in the news media to discredit Robert Mueller himself. I think there's been a little bit more of an effort lately to look at members of his team, including Weisman. He is somebody who has donated several thousand dollars over the course of several years to Democratics, including President Obama. So I think his record has been scrutinized to be scrutinized. And will continue to be scrutinised as this goes forward.
CO: And do you think now that there have been indictments, that it makes it more difficult for Mr. Trump to fire Robert Mueller or Andrew Weisman.
MF: I truly don't know. I think there was consensus at the time of Mueller's appointment among members of both parties on Capitol Hill that he was somebody whose integrity was not particularly questioned. And whose credentials were seen as pretty unimpeachable. The sort of politically-charged environment around this has changed a lot of people's opinions about Mueller. I think there's no question it would provoke a major firestorm if he were to remove Mueller. Or I guess he would have to technically fire AD Sessions to set that into motion. But there's no question that would be a major firestorm.
CO: All right. We'll be watching. Matt, thank you.
MF: Thanks so much. so much.
JD: Matt Flegenheimer is a reporter for the New York Times. We reached him though in Washington, D.C.
JD: Jean Mason has a doppelganger. Several people have told her that there is a woman in the Kensington Market area of Toronto who looks just like her. According to Jean's friend, Katerina, the doppleganger has a name: Ingrid Fox. And she's said to hang out around the local park. Jean is the narrator of Michael Redhill's new novel "Bellevue Square" — one of five books on the short list for the 2017 Scotiabank Giller Prize. Before the winner is announced this coming Monday, we'll have readings from each of the authors. And without further ado, here's Michael Redhill reading from "Bellevue Square", which the Giller jury described as "warm, and funny, and smart". And a warning: some of the language gets a little spicy.
MICHAEL REDHILL: The park Katerina meant is called Bellevue Square. I saw what she was talking about right away. You could see anyone or anything in that park. I sat on one of its benches after leaving the food mall and watched people coming and going for two whole hours. I had to remind myself to keep looking for my twin. But the passing parade was so gripping that from time to time I forgot my stakeout. The park was a clearinghouse for humanity. I saw no sign of my lookalike. The following week, I went back, and the week after to a couple more times. I walked through the square sat for an hour; sometimes two. For cover, I had one of those puzzle magazines full of Sudoku and crosswords. And I occupied myself with filling them in when I wasn't doing my regular sweep of the park. I figured out which restaurants would let me use the washroom, which stores sold the cheapest water. As my main lookout point, I settled on the low wall that half encircles the playground on the north side of the square. It gave me a vantage to the south, as well as both sides of the park. And I could easily scan the path that cut it in half diagonally southwest to northeast. I found reasons throughout the second half of April to drift toward the park, or pass the park, or sit in the park. There were times when I was at home or in the bookstore when I felt a need to go there. And other times I sat on the low wall overcome with a feeling of wrong. As if I were forgetting something important or being watched myself. At the very beginning of May, I started buying my groceries in the market too. That gave me extra days to have a reason to go. The temperature shot up into the 20s and the park swelled with people and animals.
MR: I began to count the number of people who weren't Ingrid. And I kept track of them on my phone, giving every person an identifying name so I wouldn't count them twice. Like “ear lobe mole”, and “triple sweater man”, and “bendy”, who was a woman who had sat askew on her neck. The puzzle book did its tasks so well that in those early weeks, no one so much as acknowledged my existence. Then, almost exactly a month after Mr. rhône had first warned me of Ingrid's existence, a woman walked clear across the park toward me like she recognized me. And I thought ah, this woman knows Ingrid. She wore two pieces of clothing: a tight white halter top with white spaghetti straps cutting into her burnt shoulders, and a pair of white lycra shorts, white sunglasses, a layer of lipstick red as a car crash. Also, I had to presume no underwear. The front of her shorts looked like someone had painted over a tarantula. She kept coming even though I'd put my head down to write feverishly in the margin of my magazine.
MR: I saw her light blue toenails and silver sandal straps come to a stop inches from my feet. She said do you have what time is it? I told her it was almost 4 o'clock, and she sat down on the wall beside me as if giving her the time had been an invitation. She took a bottle of beer out of her purse, twisted off the cap and began drinking. It was 26 degrees and the cold green glass was sweating. I noticed a child on the wall of the sandbox looking at the bottle. Spandex had hiccups and burps, which made her sound like she was beat boxing. She must have come from one of the rooming houses down on Denison Avenue, got a beer out of her mini fridge and came to sit in the park. She drained her beer and put the empty into her purse. It clinked. If you can get two in that's what you want. Two was always enough to renew the drunk for my father. Her second beer was sweatier than the first.
MR: Within a few weeks, I had worked out a general taxonomy for the park. Many homogenous groups had formed. I identified in discrete subsets: obsessives, paranoiacs, zombie's, professional clowns, hair eaters, weepers, chatterers, skitzos, aliens, psychotics, dipshits, ferret keepers, goths, takeout eaters tourists, police, masturbators, shouters, air guitarists, CD sellers, city workers emerging from the ground and cat walkers to name a fraction. On May 15th, I did a tally of all the people I had individually witnessed in Bellevue Square, comers, goers and stayers. Among my most interesting sightings was a drunken teenager making out with the Al Waxman statue. As well as a man sitting in the grass with a bottle of Vaseline and a single disgusting Q-Tip, which he kept inserting into his nostrils.
MR: I also saw people getting each other off under blankets and a nudist who was ushered out of the park by police officers. But none of these people had been Ingrid. To be precise, by the middle of May, Ingrid Fox had not been 4,233 people.
JD: That was Michael Redhill reading from his novel “Bellevue Square”. It is one of five books on the shortlist for the 2017 Scotiabank Giller Prize. Winner of the $100,000 prize will be announced on Monday.
Dateline: Air piper
JD: Dateline: Dunedin, New Zealand.
[Music: Dateline theme]
JD: Every vehicle comes equipped with a musical instrument: drums. Of course, they do also function as the steering wheel, but that's fine because you can pound away while safely guiding your minivan through the mall parking lot, only sacrificing maybe the tiniest bit of control when you have to lift a hand to hit the cowbell. For most of us that built-in instrument is enough. But what if your imaginary instrument is more hands-on, which means, of course, your driving is more hands-off? Take, for example, an unnamed driver in Dunedin, New Zealand, whose behaviour was described by one police officer as, quote, "foolish, to say the least." Bryce Johnson told the news website Stuff that he'd noticed this driver with neither hand on the wheel. Sargent Johnson said, quote, "His fingers were going a million miles an hour, And I'm certain I could see a black-type instrument, which looked like a clarinet." What it was, apparently, was a chanter — as in the black tube part of bagpipes you use to play the melody. Or, at least, a facsimile of a chanter. Because, as the driver explained, he was a piper, but he was "air-piping" along to something on the car radio. So a quick piece of advice about doing that: don't do that. Because when you get lost in the music, and let go of your inhibitions and the drum kit — I mean, steering wheel — you risk an accident. And if you think you can air-pipe and drive at the same time, wake up: Because that's nothing but a pipe dream.
CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.