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 2022

The AIH Transcript for July 04, 2022

GINELLA MASSA: Hello. I'm Ginella Massa.

TALIA SCHLANGER: Good evening. I'm Talia Schlanger. This is As It Happens.

[Theme]

Prologue

TS: Tonight:

GM: From celebration to chaos. A rooftop sniper opens deadly fire on a July 4th parade in Illinois. A teen who was there describes fleeing from the sound of shots with his young cousins.

TS: So close and yet, so far. A Toronto woman spent a week trying to retrieve her luggage from the airport. Staff said it was missing. But she says she knew exactly where it was the whole time.

GM: Barrage of bullets. Police in Ohio shot an unarmed Black man dozens of times as he fled a car chase, killing him. His family's lawyer says there's no doubt in his mind that race was a factor.

TS: Loose threads. For years, many people believed a story about a high schooler who invented the 50-star version of the American flag. But when one writer started testing the tale, it quickly unravelled.

GM: Unsuitable Conduct. A U.K. movie theatre is forced to shut down screenings of the latest Minions movie, after people started showing up in formalwear and behaving despicably.

TS: And… super troopers. Ukraine wins recognition from UNESCO that making borscht is part of its cultural heritage, beating out claims from Russia.

TS: As It Happens, the Monday edition. Radio that applauds their stew-pendous victory.

Part 1: Illinois Parade Shooting, Missing Luggage, Minions Suit Mobs

Illinois Parade Shooting

Guest: Anand P.

CH: Overturned lawn chairs, panicked crowds, and blood-stained sidewalks. That was the scene at the Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, Illinois. At least six people were killed and dozens injured when gunfire erupted at the parade in the suburban city north of Chicago. Police say a gunman shot from a rooftop with a rifle. Anand P. was at the parade with his aunt and his seven-year-old twin cousins. We reached him earlier today in Highland Park, and we've agreed not to use his last name.

GM: Anand, just tell me how you're feeling right now? Has it kind of fully sunk in what happened today?

ANAND P.: It's starting to. The death count has risen. It's so surreal the fact that I've witnessed such a large event only an hour or two ago. I mean, it's crazy.

GM: So, tell us a little bit about your day. You… you went out with your aunt and your cousins. They're just seven years old.

AP: Yeah.

GM: What were you guys doing, and when did chaos kind of ensue?

AP: Yeah. So, we happened to be in town for the Fourth of July parade, and this parade is known across the town. People from neighbouring towns come. It's a very big, very big, well-known parade. You know, my… my mother and my aunt grew up in Highland Park, and they always go to this parade. So naturally, it was a no-brainer that we were all going to go to this parade and have fun. We were there for about 10 minutes, I think, enjoying watching the firetruck, you know, honk their horn, and… and the marching band, you know, play music. And we're having a lot of fun. And then suddenly, there was just very, very loud gunfire. And it was incredibly rapid in a very short amount of time. So, it was maybe five seconds is what I would guess of this. It was just very loud, very quick. And then it was done. And everybody was silent for about a few seconds, just completely in shock. And people, I guess… you know, I was under the impression that it was a car malfunction or something. I guess a lot of other people were trying to decide, you know, what even was this? But then people started running. And, of course, when somebody starts running, you know, we all… we all started running. So we ran just like everybody else to… at the top of a parking garage. It was… because it was the only place we could go. And we ran to the parking garage behind this car, and my aunt and the two twin cousins were sitting there hiding behind the car. That's where I filmed that video.

GM: Right. Just tell us. You shot some video. What is it?

AP: It was this kid who… he had no idea what to… what to do because he was little. And he was with his dog and yeah he yelled for the policeman. He said, like, what do I do? Or something like that. He had no idea what he was doing. That was kind of a flash in my mind of what I saw with this kid who really needed help. And I kind of watched. And, of course, the police helped him, right? So, he was fine. But it was just one of those really heart-wrenching moments where you're like, wow, this kid has no… no idea what to do. Shouldn't even be… have to be, you know, experiencing this.

GM: At what point did you realize that this was something really serious, that this wasn't fireworks, this wasn't a car backfiring?

AP: I honestly thought it was fireworks or a car backfiring for a long time. But after the police confirmed that it was gunfire, I mean, that's when… that's when it was real.

GM: What went through your mind when you… when you heard that?

AP: I honestly just don't even know what was going through my mind at that point. I remember getting in the car, and we drove home using all the back roads because, of course, they know the roads very well, right? They grew up here. I was just trying to stay cool and make sure my cousins were safe because, I mean, they're little and yeah.

GM: What were you telling them?

AP: You know, they didn't have a really full understanding of what was going on. They knew there was a loud noise and that was about it. We told them, you know, not to speculate, not to think about… that it was gunfire. And I haven't seen them in a little bit because we're picking up my brother right now, but we left them watching “Finding Nemo” at home.

GM: Was there concern that this was still kind of an ongoing threat?

AP: Yeah. So at the time, I wasn't too worried that we were still in danger because I couldn't hear anything more beyond the initial gunfire. And my understanding of shootings is they happen in the first few seconds, and then they're done. So, I… I wasn't as worried as I should have been, is how I should put it.

GM: Hmm.

AP: And once I got home… and there was a cellular drain, right? We couldn't… we couldn't get any… we couldn't see any information. So, we got home the Wi-Fi, right? So when I got home, and I realized, like, the shooter was right next to us, and they hadn't been caught, there was this moment where I was like, wow, I should have been more worried, and I should have probably been taking much more caution than I was.

GM: What do you make of all this happening on the Fourth of July of all days and at a you know, at a park where the celebrations are happening and little kids?

AP: I mean, it's just so, so sad that we have such despicable people in the world that would do something like this, especially on a day where it’s supposed to be celebrating our country.

GM: Does it feel like it's just unending -- the gun violence? You know, you can't even go to a parade without worrying about what might happen?

AP: Yeah, I mean... I mean, before this parade, I honestly, really didn't worry about any of this stuff. Because, I mean, I was at a Pride parade in my hometown just a little bit before, like a few days before, and it was completely safe. We had a great time. So, I really wasn't under the impression that anything was going to happen. But, I mean, I don't even know what I think or how I'll react to other parades. And, you know, I hope that when I get older, I can go to a parade without feeling like this will happen. That… that's my hope for the future.

GM: Just hearing that people were actually killed. And as you say, that number is still rising, and realizing the gravity of the situation, how are you feeling?

AP: Initially, I just thought they were just spraying, you know, bullets in the air or something because I… we were very lucky to have run in the opposite direction of where this was. So at first, I was under the impression that it was… nothing fatal was going to happen out of this. But now that the death toll is rising and it's starting to get national attention, it's just so surreal. It's so… I mean, I never thought I would have to go through this. And now I am, so.

GM: Anand, thanks so much for taking the time to speak with us.

AP: Yeah, thank you.

CH: We reached Anand P. earlier today in Highland Park, Illinois.

[acoustic guitar]

Missing Luggage

Guest: Lezlie Grossman

TS: Cancelled flights, long delays and luggage missing for days. As you've no doubt heard on this show, and elsewhere, it's all part of the chaotic new normal at Toronto's Pearson International Airport. This past weekend, the tracking service FlightAware ranked the Airport second globally for late takeoffs. Lezlie Grossman found herself in the middle of that chaos when she arrived back home in Toronto without her luggage. For a week, Air Canada listed her luggage as "missing" even though she knew exactly where it was the entire time. We reached Lezlie in Toronto.

GM: So Lezlie, you were travelling back from Milan to Toronto. And what happened when you landed at Pearson?

LEZLIE GROSSMAN: Well, it was really… it was quite the adventure. My husband and I were travelling back. We stopped… we touched down in Montreal and checked if our bags were on board because we had a Tile in our suitcase. And our bags did make it to Montreal. We were delayed in Montreal for a few hours. And then, when we arrived in Toronto, we checked our Tile again, and my bag was still in Montreal. My husband's bag was in Toronto. So, we got off the plane knowing that my bag had not arrived. And then we reported it and was told that the "good news" -- I put in quotes -- is that because it was in Montreal, it would likely come to Toronto the next morning and then be delivered to my home. Well, it did come to Toronto the next morning because we could check again with this Tile, but that's when the adventure really began because no one could locate the bag. So that was Sunday, and then Monday, and then Tuesday, and then Wednesday. And Thursday morning, I decided because I could still see the bag was at Pearson to go to Pearson myself, which was a very odd experience because the council that I was given by the attendants there was basically just walk around and look for it.

GM: Hmmm.

LG: And when I said, well, I know it's here because… because they said, well, maybe it's been shipped to a different city. And I said, well, I would think that you would have records of that because you scan the bags, and I do have a Tile in it, and I can tell you it's at Pearson. They basically told me that my technology was superior to theirs, which is a bit concerning [chuckling] given I had a $25 Tile in my… in my suitcase. Then, we went back on Friday. My husband actually went back and looked for it, and went through the exact same process I did. And then, about… after he was there for about three hours, it seemed to disappear, the Tile seemed to disappear. And I shortly thereafter got an email saying that a third party had picked it up and was delivering it to my home. Interestingly, once the third party had it, I got updates galore. But from Air Canada, none.

GM: Can you just explain what a Tile is?

LG: It's just a small location device that anyone can buy, you know, at any tech store or on Amazon or anywhere like that. And it links up to your phone. You hook it up to your phone, and it's almost like a "find my phone" app. But the Tile is there, and it sends out a little beacon to say this is where it's located. They're very common. People put them in their wallet, their suitcase, that kind of thing.

GM: Yeah. What made you have the foresight to think, let me put this in my luggage? Is it something you regularly do, or was it prompted by all this chaos you've been seeing?

LG: Actually, it's something that we had before, and we've had them in the house. You know, we'll… they'll have them in a wallet or this or that. But when we… just before leaving, we started to hear about all these issues of lost luggage. So we said, you know what, let's just put it in the bag just in case. So, I guess it was a bit preemptive because it just seemed like suddenly everyone was losing their bags.

GM: Hmm. So, how frustrating was all of this?

LG: Well, you know, what was enormously frustrating is I understand bags get lost. What was particularly frustrating was the fact that there was no recourse, there was no update online, there was no phone number to call. And in the midst of this, I'm getting, you know, an email from, you know, the CEO of Air Canada that went to all of the AEROPLAN members saying, you know, we're working so hard to correct all these issues. We're, you know, cutting flights so that you can have better service. And yet, there literally was nobody I could call. There was no way to reach anyone online. And even when I went to the airport, those poor attendants were so overworked, but they had no access to information. So, it was enormously frustrating because I just wanted… I knew it was there, and I… and I couldn't access it.

GM: You eventually got your bag back after about a week.

LG: I did.

GM: But you spent a lot of time trying to track it down. As you say, no recourse. Do you feel like there should be some sort of compensation or something for all your troubles?

LG: Well, [chuckling] it's actually funny that you said that, because I eventually wrote a letter to Michael Rousseau, who is the CEO of Air Canada. And I basically said, look, I'm sure you'll agree that my… my time is as valuable as yours. And based on what your published salary is, this is what the hourly rate would be for you. And I think I should have that. And this is the amount of time I spent on it. And could you please pay me for it? Now, I don't have any hope that that will happen, but my point is that everybody's time is valuable. And, you know, when you're buying tickets with an airline, they're very quick to take your money, and they're very quick to charge you for any little thing, whether it be a seat selection or a snack on board. But yet, when someone else is… when one of their clients is inconvenienced, they seem to be devoid of any type of service or compensation.

GM: Did you get any sort of response?

LG: I did not.

GM: So, now that you've gone through all of this, any more plans to travel this summer or?

LG: [chuckling] Well, it's funny because we have a wedding in Philadelphia and have just decided that we will be driving there.

GM: Oh, wow.

LG: Yeah. Which is not convenient, but it's one of those things that's both time-sensitive in I can't afford to be delayed a couple of days if my flight is cancelled.

GM: Right.

LG: Nor… and I… and I want the clothing that I bring with me, I want it with me. [chuckling] So, that's… that's what we'll be doing.

GM: Fair enough. Safe travels, Lezlie. Thanks for speaking with us.

LG: Oh, thank you so much. Take care.

GM: Lezlie Grossman is one of thousands of travellers affected by the many operational issues at Toronto's Pearson Airport over the last few weeks. We reached her in Toronto.

[industrial beat]

Minions Suit Mobs

Guest: Daniel Philips-Smith

TS: They’re wearing suits. They’re wearing ties. And they’re flocking to see the animated children's film “Minions: The Rise of Gru”. It’s a trend being spread over TikTok… and it's good for a laugh or at least for a viral post if you're into that sort of thing. But some cinemas are very much NOT into this sort of thing. Daniel Philips-Smith is the manager of the Mallard Cinema on the island of Guernsey. We reached him at his home above the cinema.

GM: Daniel, just describe to me what happened this weekend when you screened “Minions: The Rise of Gru”?

DANIEL PHILIPS-SMITH: Basically, the screens were very suddenly overrun with lots of young boys and girls attending in suits and all sorts of fancy dress.

GM: And it didn't seem to be that the suits were the problem or how they were dressed, but rather the size of the groups and their behaviour?

DPS: Well, at first it was things you typically expect from high-spirited kids. They were excited, a bit stuck on their phones, talking a lot, cheering. But, you know, once the film got in, they didn't stop. They didn't settle down. It just got louder and louder. They were starting to throw things to each other, throw things past our regular customers, past families sat there with children. And then, they couldn't sit still any longer. They were up and around the screen. The language was appalling and very offensive, especially, again, for the younger ears in the audience. And when staff then tried to settle them down, that just seemed to antagonize them further. And the staff were then even subject to abuse.

GM: Was this just one screening over the weekend or did it happen over and over again?

DPS: Unfortunately, I think it happened in every performance, bar two, perhaps the two very early morning ones. And then, the later the day went on, the more rowdy and unpleasant it got.

GM: I suppose as a cinema manager, you're used to maybe rowdy teens at the theatre, but was this like anything you'd ever experienced before?

DPS: [laughing] No. I can very, very easily say it's not like anything I've experienced before. Of course, we have nightmare films where it's a very popular, you know, subject or story, and suddenly it gets a 15 or even an 18 age rating. And all the children are trying to sneak in, their parents are trying to sneak them in, and we'll have plenty of confrontations and issues there. And, of course, just in general in kids films, the children are a bit more rowdy than… than, you know, in a grown-up film. This, you know, just where it's been every single performance and the scale of the misbehaviour has just been mind-blowing.

GM: And I understand it's not just your theatre affected by this. You're hearing about this across the U.K. as well.

DPS: Yeah, absolutely. It's completely across the U.K. With that first screening, none of us had any idea this trend on TikTok even existed. So, we were completely baffled [chuckling] by all these boys arriving in suits and sitting in a darkened cinema with sunglasses on and swimming flippers on. And we were like, What's going on here? And then, you know, with the behaviour issues that kind of took all our attention. But this morning, when we were sort of sitting down trying to decide what to do about the situation, we started to see online that all the cinema chains across the U.K. have been seeing similar things happening and taking similar action regarding bookings.

GM: Right. Tell us about that. What are you doing to try to curb this?

DPS: Well, you know, when we sort of reached the worst possible time yesterday with the worst screening we had, we just said, right, that’s it. This is unmanageable going forward. So we took every screening completely off sale. We had to apologize to our customers on Facebook and say, sorry, you know… we will be showing this film. We're dying for everyone to see this film because it's so, so good. But until we can figure out a way to manage who's coming in to see the film, we've just got to take it off sale and stop anyone else booking. And then, what we've now decided to do this morning is we've gone back to the old-fashioned way where the screenings are scheduled and they're going ahead. But people can only pay in-person when they arrive for that screening so that we can see who's going in and check that we're not having any more large groups trying to go in and cause any more disruption. It's very, very confusing and very antiquated [chuckling] for people that are used to just booking online at will. But it is the only way we can see that we can manage it at the moment.

GM: And are you essentially banning the suit and tie dress code or banning folks of a certain age or banning large groups? How are you managing that or deciding who can come in?

DPS: Well, we never want to ban anyone. We want everyone to feel they can come to the cinema. You know, it's a family venue. Everyone should be able to come. But, unfortunately, simply because of the behaviour and it's been the vast majority of the young people in these suits and outfits that have been causing the problems. So we have temporarily at least had to put a blanket ban on anyone coming in dressed up that's evidently dressed up for, you know, the TikTok trend. We've also put a limit on the size of groups that we're going to admit for the time being. We're not going to ban any age groups, ‘cause I'm sure there are plenty of very, very well-behaved 14- or 15-year-olds that are dying to come and see the Minions film. And, you know, we welcome them with open arms. So we don't… we're not basing anything on age group at all. But if it's clear someone's coming in because of this trend, we are turning them away for the time being.

GM: And what do you make of this trend? Did you see other videos online and sort of the motivation behind it? What do you think it is about it that, you know, makes people latch on to this?

DPS: Oh, I think it's barmy. But the original idea was… was fine. People that obviously grew up with the Minions films, similar to myself and my… my brothers, wanted to show that grown-ups, you know, adults can still go to these films and enjoy them. So, I believe the motivation initially was to go dressed in all these beautiful grown-up suits and outfits, sort of show mature people enjoying a children's film, which is fine. But, unfortunately, it has backfired when other people have latched on to it and are causing absolute mayhem, which has been a real, real problem.

GM: And what's the message to… to folks who, you know, maybe they’re thinking it's just a bit of fun with their mates or, you know, having a laugh in the theatre. But it does impact your… your patrons and it impacts… you know, you're on a small town on an island. If you're not screening these movies, there's not much other option.

DPS: Absolutely. We’re the only new release cinema on Guernsey. So if we don't show it, unfortunately, people do have to wait until it's out on DVD or streaming somewhere. So, you know, the main message is we want everyone to come and have fun. And I've seen this film, it's superb. And my four-year-old son just sat and beamed all the way through it. He loved it so much. So for all the people that have now ruined it, I just think it's very short-sighted and immature and, you know, very, very selfish. Just for a few seconds of a laugh, they're damaging our business, you know, the only cinema on the island available to them. But they're also ruining the experience for all the families that are coming to enjoy the film for genuine reasons, you know? And it's not necessarily a frequent thing to come to the cinema. For some people it's a very rare treat. And if they've been looking forward for weeks, like some of the children have been, to see this film and it's ruined by some very inconsiderate individuals, it's heartbreaking.

GM: Daniel, we hope you have a better time this week with the film screenings and people heed your advice. Thanks so much.

DPS: Thank you very much.

TS: Daniel Philips-Smith is manager of the Mallard Cinema. We reached him at his home on the island of Guernsey, in the United Kingdom.

[jazzy beats]

Patrick Watson Obit

TS: For a man who started out making $1 an episode at the CBC, Patrick Watson did pretty well in the end -- becoming the corporation's first independent chair of its board of directors. But it was a journey that was as controversial as he was. Mr. Watson has died. He was 92. Mr. Watson gave up the pursuit of a PhD for a job in broadcasting, working in front of and behind the camera on a number of CBC shows, including The Four Corners, The Watson Report and The Struggle for Democracy. However, it was at This Hour Has Seven Days that Mr. Watson exerted arguably the most influence on Canadian broadcasting. The Sunday night program, which he hosted alongside Laurier LaPierre, offered an aggressive, opinionated style that drew in viewers -- but also criticism from CBC management. In 2004, Mr. Watson spoke to Michael Enright on The Sunday Edition about the pressures he faced during his tenure at This Hour Has Seven Days.

[sc]

PATRICK WATSON: So members of the establishment would be phoning up their friends who were vice-presidents at the CBC and asking them, couldn't they tone those guys down? And we'd been able to navigate the head office management shoals fairly well until some of the early pieces in Seven Days really blew them away, and they started issuing absolute fiats. You will not do anything about this. You will not do the Queen's visit to Quebec City when we were very newly on the air. You will not do a report on the Queen's visit to Quebec City. We did. It was very funny. It was a satirical piece. It was brilliant. It was not intended to arouse Quebec separatists or anything like that. But, anyway, we did it, and management blew their top. There were a number of other much more serious conflicts, and the one that brought it all to a head was in the fall of 1965, when we were about to have a federal election. And we proposed… we had a format called "The Hot Seat" in which Laurier LaPierre and I would double-interview somebody. And a lot of what you got to know about Seven Days is that we, Liderman and I, who were the producers and directors, and I the host in the second year with LaPierre, we were fascinated with the lens and with lights and pictures, and we found ways of making the interview situation look really aggressive through lighting and shooting. I mean, we would put a couple of very tight, tightly-focused, narrow-beam spots, backlit, you know, to pick up the light on the hair. But just before we went on the air, we were too poor to afford smoke machines. So we'd get everybody… we all smoked then, to go into the studio smoking cigarettes just before the show, turned off the air conditioning so there'd be that lovely haze, and so you could read the light coming down on the guy's head. And then we would set the two people interview slightly higher than the guy, and they would have a desk, and he wouldn't. Management hated it. And when we proposed in the fall of '65, we proposed that Laurier and I would invite the four leaders of the political parties to phone in live on the show and accept our invitation to be on "The Hot Seat". Management said you can't do that. We said, why not? We're going to phone them privately anyway. Why not do it publicly? This is public television. They said you're interfering with the electoral process. We said, if you won't let us do that, we're cancelling the show. This Hour Has Seven Days was the then biggest audience earner on the whole network, even bigger than hockey. No, it wasn't. I'm sorry, I lie. Don Messer's jubilee at 7:30.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: Right.

PW: Had slightly more viewers than we, but we said that doesn't count. It's not prime time. Prime time starts at 8. Management gave in. At the celebration party, our supervisor of current affairs, Reeves Hagon, as he toasted us for our victory, said, however, I do want you to know you never win an ultimatum against management. And they will, and I quote, they will have their pound of flesh.

ME: And it did.

PW: And subsequently, it became clear that it was at that time they said, we've got to get those guys.

[/sc]

TS: From September 2004, that's host Michael Enright speaking to legendary broadcaster Patrick Watson on CBC's Sunday Edition. Mr. Watson has died. He was 92.

[ambient synth]

Part 2: Jayland Walker Lawyer, Fourth of July Flag Inventor

Jayland Walker Lawyer

Guest: Bobby DiCello

CH: Police in Akron, Ohio, are trying to explain why officers fired dozens of shots at an unarmed Black man after a car chase. Jayland Walker was killed and left with over 60 wounds. Body-camera footage released yesterday shows officers running after Mr. Walker and firing dozens of shots at him. Mr. Walker was unarmed at the time, but police say he fired a gun at them earlier in the car chase. After the videos were released, protestors marched through the city. Bobby DiCello is the lawyer for Mr. Walker's family. We reached him in Cleveland. And a warning: this story contains some graphic details.

GM: Mr. DiCello, that video that was released is extremely difficult to watch, but it's also very revealing. Take us through what stood out to you from this body-cam footage that was released yesterday.

BOBBY DICELLO: What I first noticed about the press conference yesterday was that they set us all up with a presentation that shows my client wearing a mask of some sort. And then, there is a picture of a gun in the seat, and we see an empty gun at that because we see the cartridge with the bullets there. And we see a ring. And they set us up with this imagery. And so now, when they play the video, the viewer, if they're not careful, if they're not mindful of the bias that is trying to be seeded into their mind, believes that somehow the officers know any of this. The officers know none of this when they start the pursuit of my client. [chuckle] They only know that they have encountered him at a traffic stop. There's no indication that my client was wearing anything at the time he was at the traffic stop. And then, we hear the… what happens next, which is that my client is being followed. They think they hear a shot. They say shots fired. My client eventually stops the car. He runs from the car and is just barraged with over 90 bullets flying at him and over 60 wounds, you know, as a result of that, which take his life virtually instantly.

GM: One of the things that was raised was the concern over the fact that he was handcuffed before being provided with medical attention. Can you… can you talk a little bit about your concerns there?

BD: My client's body hit the ground on the video, and by the time he did, he was probably dead. His heart was beating, they said -- someone felt a pulse. And according to the chief, they tried to provide medical attention. I will tell you. My client was shot all about the head, the face, the back, the front, both arms, both legs. He was hit with over 60 rounds, so there was never going to be a life-saving measure. He is handcuffed because the protocol at the city of Akron is that once someone is arrested, albeit with bullets stopping them, they are still… their limbs, their arms are still seized or locked up. It was absurd, but it is, I guess, their protocol.

GM: Does anything in the video explain to you what prompted that barrage of gunfire?

BD: Oh, that’s such a good question. I have struggled for the last four nights in bed, wondering, staring at the ceiling, what caused them to do this? And my only conclusion every time I go through it is just to remember first the facts that the chief has told us. Two officers first arriving use tasers when my client exits the car. That means those two officers perceived no immediate lethal threat to their safety. They would have used guns otherwise, but they used tasers. Then the officers behind them, who are seeing my client run away from the guys with tasers, open fire. There is only one reason for that, and that is called the excitement of the chase. And it's a known thing. It's not the technical term, but it's the known condition that happens when there's a pursuit, and then a foot pursuit, and a person failing to comply. And so someone decided he'd run far enough, and that one person shot, and then the others heard the shots, and then they heard shots. And soon, eight were shooting. Eight were shooting all the bullets they had.

GM: Do you believe race was a factor?

BD: Absolutely. Look, I'm a white civil rights trial attorney. I have to point out to my friends, both in Canada and in the suburbs of the United States in distant cities from where this shooting happened, that it might seem unimportant that this happened. You know, my client had a gun at one point. He ran from police. And the easy thing to say is, you know, he got what he deserved. It's a gross mischaracterization. And it's a horrible thing to even hear me say as I speak to you. But that's what many people will quickly say. And that's the easy thing. That's the inhuman thing. That's the, you know, thing that comes from a lack of understanding. Because just a few days ago, a white man barricaded himself in his house in Kentucky and, with a long rifle, killed three police officers and is in custody today in a jail cell. Now, if my client did, and we're not saying he did, but if he did have a gun on him at any point, and if he did fire around at any point, the objective facts on that video show five minutes or so went by before he again encountered police. And when he was again encountered, he had no weapon on him. And that is at the admission of the chief of police himself. He was unarmed at the time. So what accounts for the view? We've got a white guy in Kentucky alive today, and my client is Black, and he's in the morgue. And I'll tell you why. Institutional racism is real. And fear of the other is real in America.

GM: And what would you like to see happen with the officers involved in this? They're on administrative leave now during this investigation.

BD: We would love to see the officers first tell us, for God's sake, what did they do? We haven't even heard from them yet. They haven't done that. And I'm going to say why. It's very simple. The legal teams for the city have put together a video that we all saw. And they've given a reason to blame my client. And now those officers, who were home “sequestered” in quotes, at their houses will now watch that video and get their story straight. And they'll all say the same thing. And so, now we've polluted the investigation because we have conclusory statements made by the chief who leads them. And they who have not given statements will echo those conclusions. So, that is our big concern right now. And we want those officers to tell the truth, not say what was being prepared for them. The other thing we want is we want them to sincerely and utterly account, which means as they are explaining the facts, show us some substantive evidence, not some bald claim, but evidence that your life at the time was in danger. And they'll have none. And so, they'll have to pay, we hope, with compensation and the loss of job because they don't deserve to be in the force if that's what's going to happen.

GM: Mr. DiCello, thanks so much for your time.

BD: Thank you.

TS: Bobby DiCello is the lawyer for the family of Jayland Walker. We reached him in Cleveland.

[sombre instrumental]

Canadian Medicare Anniversary

TS: This month marks 60 years of medicare in Saskatchewan. The province's plan would become the model for all of Canada within a few years. But, at the time, it faced bitter opposition from doctors in the province, who went out on a 23-day-long strike when it was introduced. All these years later, a new part of the story has been uncovered. Journalist Dennis Gruending has discovered that the RCMP spied on people organizing to support the new system. He told the story to CBC Saskatchewan.

[sc]

DENNIS GRUENDING: The RCMP was very fixated upon what it considers to be a threat from communism. So, the RCMP chose in 1962 to confuse support for medicare with support for the Communist Party. So in July 1962, the police opened a file, and that's in the information I received. And they called it the “Medicare Plan Saskatchewan: Communist Activities Within”. So that was their mindset at the time.

SHAUNA POWERS: [chuckling] Wow! It really takes you back in time to think about a file with that kind of name. What was in those documents?

DG: I would say two basic things about the documents. Number one, when the government realized there was going to be a strike, they started to recruit doctors from Britain, doctors who were sympathetic. And in Britain, of course, they had tax-financed health care quite soon after the Second World War, and many or most doctors became comfortable with it. And some of them decided to come to Saskatchewan to help care for patients when services were withdrawn in 1962. The RCMP was keeping those doctors under surveillance. In fact, the RCMP liaison officer in London, England, was instructed to get information on some of those doctors and probably with the help of police in Great Britain and maybe the British intelligence service. So that's number one. And the second thing is when it became clear that there was going to be a strike, people who supported medicare said, okay, well, we're going to set up our own consumer-led health clinics, and we're going to hire sympathetic doctors to work in them. And at those organizing meetings, the RCMP had informants. There's a secret report in the information I received. It's 10 pages long. It was prepared by the RCMP detachment in Saskatoon. And it outlined what was being discussed at the meetings, the names of the people at the meetings and who the leaders of the community clinic movement were. So there were two things being done: spying on doctors in Great Britain, or at least collecting information about them and looking and providing surveillance on those people organizing community clinics.

[/sc]

TS: Journalist Dennis Gruending speaking to Shauna Powers on CBC's Saskatchewan Weekend.

[ ambient instrumental]

Fourth of July Flag Inventor

Guest: Alec Nevala-Lee

TS: For anyone listening in the United States, today -- July 4th -- is a day of red, white and blue. Red, white and blue balloons, red, white and blue cakes. And flapping off of buildings, cars and people -- the red, white and blue of the American flag itself… complete with 50 stars. But an Illinois writer is hoping that this year, people look harder at the flag. And maybe revise what they think they know about it. Alec Nevala-Lee is the author of a recent article for Slate called "False Flag." We reached him in Oak Park, Illinois.

GM: Alec, what can you tell us about the story, as most people know it, of Robert Heft and how he came to be the designer of the 50 state American flag?

ALEC NEVALA-LEE: So Robert Heft claimed that as a 17-year-old high school junior in Ohio in 1958, that he designed the 50 star U.S. flag as an assignment for a high school history class. This is before Alaska and Hawaii had joined the union. So, it was at a time when the standard U.S. flag only had 48 stars. He claimed that his teacher gave him a B-minus for the assignment, and that he said that if Heft could get the government to accept his design as the official U.S. flag, that he would change the grade to an A. And Heft claimed that this is what happened. That he got President Eisenhower to officially recognize him as the designer of the 50 star flag. And until last week, if you went on Wikipedia and a lot of other sources, you would see Heft credited as the flag’s designer. But the truth is, that is not what happened. That Heft lied about this. He embellished the story for decades. And he was able to convince a lot of people that he was telling the truth.

GM: So, you went on this deep dive, this fact finding mission. How did that even start for you? What made you suspicious about this story and want to uncover the truth?

ANL: So in April, I was browsing on Reddit and one of the posts that day was a post about Robert Heft, and it repeated his story that he had designed the flag as a high schooler, had gotten a B-minus and so on. And it seemed off to me. So I’ve spent a lot of time as a writer thinking about people who invent aspects of their life stories. I just finished writing a biography of Buckminster Fuller, who was an architectural designer, who was a genius, but who did embellish aspects of his biography. So, I've become very aware of the possibility that when a story like this seems too good to be true, it actually might be too good to be true. So I went online, I did some searches in archived newspapers, and within five minutes, I found evidence that Heft’s story was false. You know, it was very clear very early on, based on the primary sources I was finding, that the story could not be true.

GM: Hmm. So there were a number of… of reasons that you outline in your article as to why this story is not plausible. But what's the big smoking gun?

ANL: Well, one is that Heft was not the first person to make a flag that had these sort of familiar alternating rows of six and five stars. You know, those flags had been in existence for years before he made his flag. He lied about the date on which he made his flag. It was in 1958, which is before Alaska or Hawaii joined the union. But, in fact, if you look at the evidence, it was in ‘59 after Eisenhower signed the Hawaii Admission Act. So it was much less impressive for a high schooler to, you know, decide that, you know, there is a need for a new flag with that point. It was… it was pretty obvious. If you look at the actual documents that relate to the ways in which the flag design was selected by the government, it's clear that there is no competition. No one like Heft was named, you know, as the designer, it was purely done internally. And finally, really, the big smoking gun is that Heft always claimed that, you know, he was invited by Eisenhower to go to the White House on July 4th, 1960, to witness the ceremonial raising of the flag. But if you look at the sources, it's very clear that Heft was not there on July 4th. Eisenhower was not there on July 4th. There was no ceremonial raising of the flag in D.C. that day. So, every single aspect of that story is demonstrably untrue.

GM: So, you said you were able to debunk this pretty quickly with some research. So why do you think this story became so widely accepted for so long?

ANL: It's a very entertaining fable, right? It's a kind of story that people like about the small town kid who proves the experts wrong. It's the kind of thing that looks good on a list of facts, you know, that you see shared around on days like July 4th.

GM: And it was on Jeopardy! as a question, I think.

ANL: Exactly. Yeah. And the other issue, right, is that, you know, if you're a Jeopardy! writer, let's say, you are looking at reference books. And these reference books are citing new stories, and these new stories are citing other news stories. And ultimately, they all go back to Heft and his claims. But no one ever went back to look at the actual sources to say, is there any evidence here at all that what this guy is saying is true?

GM: What does this tell you about the way a story or even misinformation… you know, we're in the era of… of fake news, of people sharing information online. What does this tell you about the way misinformation can become fact and is spread so quickly if it's repeated enough and unchallenged?

ANL: So Heft, I don't have a lot of insight into his motivations. It's very clear he lied deliberately at various points, and I think he did it because it satisfied a need for attention, right? He benefited in some ways financially from giving talks about the flag, but he just liked feeling respected and important. And you could see it evolve over time. You know, the lie expanded. I think it expanded in kind of a feedback loop because he was talking to audiences who were patriotic and they loved the flag and they liked the story. And so, they laugh at certain lines or they applaud, you know, at certain details. And he embellishes those details the next time he gives the same talk. And so, gradually it becomes this totally invented story. But again, it appeals to a certain kind of American myth. And I think people were willing to accept it uncritically because it was the kind of story they wanted to believe in.

GM: So, we should mention, Robert Heft died in 2009. He never married. He doesn't have children. But is anybody pushing back on this story? Have you heard from his family? Is anyone trying to refute what you've written? I mean, I believe it's on his tombstone --

ANL: Yes.

GM: Crediting him as the designer of the flag.

ANL: Yes. So his headstone, you know, credits him. There is a monument or like a… like a marker at his high school, identifying his high school as the birthplace of the 50 star flag. And, yes, I've spoken to some of his family members, and I think it's difficult, right? I think it's difficult to come to terms with the idea that someone you thought you knew may have been deceptive. And some of them have been more willing to consider the possibility that he was lying than others. And I understand that. You know, it's something that I would find very hard to get my head around if it was someone that I knew.

GM: Alex, thanks for your reporting. And happy 4th of July to you.

ANL: Same to you. Thanks so much.

TS: That was writer Alec Nevala-Lee. We reached him in Oak Park, Illinois.

[acoustic guitar]

FOA: Unesco Borscht

TS: Revenge may be a dish best served cold. But in Ievgen Klopotenko's case, it's best served steaming hot -- with a sprig of dill and a dollop of sour cream. For years, the Ukrainian chef has been on a mission to have borscht recognized as part of his country's cultural heritage. Naysayers have claimed the beet root soup is a Russian or Polish dish. But chef Klopotenko says history shows the soup was made first -- and best -- in Ukraine. And now, the United Nations has made it official. On Friday, the cultural agency placed borscht on its list of protected Ukrainian cultural heritage -- adding that the soup needed “urgent safeguarding” because of the risk posed by the Russian invasion. From our archives, here's chef Klopotenko speaking with former host Carol Off about why he thinks the soup is a distinctly Ukrainian dish.

[sc]

IK: We don't much dish which are really Ukrainian. Or better to say we have a lot of dishes but when USSR came to our territory, it took everything. It took our religion, took our language, and they took 90 percent of our food. And when I discovered that information, when I discovered a lot of our almost dead dishes, I found out that we should fight for our -- not fight, but okay, we should save our dishes, which are part of us. But Russians, they want to take that because they think that there is no such a nation as Ukrain. You know, it's like, funny, ha ha, who is that? Ukrainian? It's just about nothing.

CO: There are, though, some people quoted since you have launched this campaign with UNESCO to recognize borsht, there are Russians who are saying that, you know, Ukrainian borscht is the best. So some Russians are admitting that this is really a Ukrainian dish, right?

IK: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because it is so. And you can find a lot of historical documents. Where the Russians write down about that. But it's 100 percent that it is Ukrainian. But if Russia will recognize and will say, yeah, okay, this is Ukrainian borscht it will mean that a lot of Russians will eat something Ukrainian and then we'll understand and say, okay, now we feel that we eat something Ukrainian and Ukrain is a nation. So it's a very philosophical thing of why I want to do this.

CO: Ukrainians also brought borscht to other places because in Canada, especially in a city called Winnipeg, where there's a big Ukrainian population, anyone who has been there knows borscht. But maybe for those who don't know the essence of this tremendous soup, what are the most important ingredients to make borscht?

IK: It's actually beetroot soup. And we should do very nice bullion from veggies or from beetroot. There is no more of the classical recipe, but what it should be intense taste of beetroot. It should be some sourness. You can put vinegar, you can put some pickles, you know, some pickled everything, pickles, you can put in the borscht. It should have some sweetness -- in Ukraine, we use honey, or sometimes we jam or sometimes just sugar. And it should have like this wooden aroma. So before these elements are should be in borscht. And in the borscht, the authentic one, we should add some beetroot -- like there is ginger beer, but in Ukraine we have beetroot [inaudible].

CO: Right. And in Winnipeg I know that people often have sour cream on top of their borscht, is that traditional as well?

IK: Half of Ukrainians say that if there is no sour cream, there is no borscht. And the other half says that we can eat without sour cream and it's okay.

[/sc]

TS: Ukrainian chef Ievgen Klopotenko speaking with Carol Off in November 2020. On Friday, the United Nations added borscht making to Ukraine's protected cultural heritage list.

[jazz]

Georgia Strait Humpback Whale

TS: Here's a little bit of what summer sounded like on the Georgia Strait over the weekend.

[sc]

LAUREN LAN: He is really close, Sonja.

SONJA SCHUM: [whispering] We found this whale.

[a splash]

LL: Oh, my gosh. We're here, buddy. Don't knock us over.

[/sc]

TS: B.C. residents Lauren Lan and Sonja Schum watched as a humpback whale appeared from beneath the small boat they were steering to a friend's cabin. They hadn't intended to chase the whale, but the whale had other thoughts on its mind.

[sc]

LL: Because it was such a nice, clear day and flat water, quite far away, we could see the blow of a whale. And it was quite far away, but we thought, well, let's go see if we can see it. And so, we started boating… boating over towards it. And then before we actually got anywhere near close, we were still probably about, I don't know, like 1,000 metres away or something. We saw its tail and it did a deep dive. And it was at that time right beside another boat. And so, we just stopped where we were and thought, well, we'll just wait, because sometimes they come up very far away and sometimes they come up in the same spot. So we just waited. And, yeah, about five minutes later, he came up like right beside the boat. And, you know, my friend screamed. And so, then I jumped and smacked my hand. And anyhow, [chuckle] and then, yeah, this one solitary humpback just was very curious with us then spent about the next sort of 10 to 12 minutes just right with us. And he would, you know, kind of go under the boat. And as he was going under, I don't know if he was trying to scratch himself or what, but he was definitely making contact with the boat. Like, very silly. But, you know, I was concerned about that whale. I didn't know why it was so close. And, yeah, it was pretty exciting.

[/sc]

TS: That was Lauren Lan speaking to CBC reporter Akshay Kulkarni.

July 04, 2022 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing