Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The AIH Transcript for September 3, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello I'm Carol Off.

CHRIS HOWDEN: Good evening. I'm Chris Howden. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

CH: Tonight...

CO: Going nowhere fast. For the third day in a row, Hurricane Dorian continued to pummel the Bahamas -- and while it lingers, our guest is out on his jet ski rescuing as many people as he can.

CH: Her sense and sensibility. In its report the inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls included a significant miscalculation -- but our guest says it's a mistake to dismiss the findings because of one mistake.

CO: Acting in shelf defense. After two major shootings in its stores, Wal-Mart announces new limits on selling certain guns and ammo -- one employee greets that decision on arms with open arms.

CH: The voice of region. After spending a decade talking to people in Ontario a linguistics professor shifts from conversation to conservation and starts working to get some provincial slang into the OED.

CO: Spell check. The pastor at a Tennessee Catholic school has banned "Harry Potter" books -- warning that students could actually do magic spells with them. I guess he'd rather they focus on Quidditch.

CH: And cutting him down to size. After a German writer spends part of his article body-shaming female opera singers, an American soprano is not singing his praises. As It Happens. The Tuesday Edition. Radio that knows sometimes you can recognize a jerk just by reading his body language.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: This contractor has been rescuing people on his jet ski in the Bahamas

Hurricane Dorian rescuer

Guest: d’Sean Smith

CH: Hurricane Dorian is moving slowly. Painfully slowly. The storm has dumped 30 inches of rain on the Bahamas in the last three days. And as it steadily creeps towards the US coast, residents of the Bahamas are just beginning to get a handle on the devastation left in its wake. Thousands of buildings and homes are completely destroyed -- and five people are confirmed dead. But many fear that death toll could be higher. d'Sean Smith is a local contractor who's been rescuing residents trapped in their homes with the help of his jet ski. We reached him in Freeport on the Grand Bahama Island.

CO: d'Sean we know how treacherous this storm was yesterday. No one could ever should have ventured out. What are the conditions today where you are?

d'SEAN SMITH: Today it is a little bit better. Still a lot of high winds and a lot of constant rain that's on and off.

CO: And so you have been out and about -- what are you seeing?

d'SEAN SMITH: I am seeing a lot of destroyed homes. In this area I think pretty much 100 percent of the homes are destroyed. You have a lot of windows gone. You have a lot of structures where they've been totally under water so the entire interior of the house is pretty much just destroyed. I think that nothing is salvageable about the homes. A lot of roof damage I think on this side because there was a lot of water from the ocean. You had walls collapse. You had pretty much into your walls just gutted -- you know all of the drywall just missing.

CO: As people have pointed out these are buildings that can be repaired or are rebuilt. It's the people that are of the greatest concern right now. You have been out trying to help people what are you seeing. Who are you finding that needs your assistance?

d'SEAN SMITH: By and large a lot of families -- most of them in good condition. When I did my initial rescue most people were held up pretty well and pretty safe. There were some in the worst conditions and others being they were up in their roof -- their roof crawl space. And those are just the roof trusses. So it is pretty much just a piece of 2 by 4 wood that they had their kids on -- crunched in there. And I could only imagine you know no food, no water, and then you have your kids that you have to comfort. I could not imagine being in that circumstance. And that's one of the things that motivated me to go out and help.

CO: You have been going about trying to reach them on your jet ski, is that right?

d'SEAN SMITH: Yes. Yes. Me and a buddy.

CO: Where were you able to find the people you were able to rescue?

d'SEAN SMITH: Most of them had contacted family and relatives who reached out after they heard that we were rescuing people. And so we were working based on the locations that they had sent them.

CO: When you're out doing this -- going out and looking for these people -- what are the conditions? It's still raining and windy I guess.

d'SEAN SMITH: Yeah very. I mean the rains feel like small pebbles just kind of pounding at you.

CO: And some of these people have medical conditions, is that right?

d'SEAN SMITH: Yes some of them -- I know there was a diabetic and there were some elderly people. So it was a very big challenge. And lots of small children.

CO: And including -- you had a pregnant woman.

d'SEAN SMITH: Yes. She was in an area we call the back of town. And I actually had went to rescue a cousin and when I got there, there were a lot of guys that were pleading for help for women and kids that they had with them. And so I decided to do additional rescues once we realized that there were more people in dire need of getting out because the water levels at that point were getting to the top of most of the doors.

CO: How are you getting to them? You get to a house, it's under water, water is up to the second floor in some places -- up to the roofs -- how do you get at the people who are inside these houses, who need rescue?

d'SEAN SMITH: Pretty much we had to pull that jet ski up to the door. I had two of my guys -- because I'm a contractor -- I had two of my guys give me assistance. So one of them went out with me. He had a system with putting on a life vests and we'd pretty much just pull them up on the back of the ski.

CO: And do you have to get in through windows in some cases?

d'SEAN SMITH: Yes. Yes I know one family in particular -- their windows are boarded up with plywood. And they were unable to get out through the door because the water levels were so high. We were able to get one of the woods off and let them exit through the window.

CO: And they must be really panicking at this point.

d'SEAN SMITH: Yes. Yes. I tried to keep the kids calm you know -- assure them that they would be safe. There were a few that we met in terms of families just sitting on car roofs waiting to be rescued but there was really no help in sight. You know we just happened to be there.

CO: You're getting phone calls as well.

d'SEAN SMITH: At least 200 phone calls or messages on WhatsApp in the past two days. A lot of them asking if we could help or they heard that we're doing rescues and they have so and so that are stuck in a specific place. You know they are sending new addresses and locations. And obviously you know that's a challenge because I'm not officially a rescuer.

CO: And you're just a guy out on a jet ski -- I mean there's not much you can do with those kinds of numbers.

d'SEAN SMITH: No. There's nothing I could do. A lot of the help lines are pretty much just overwhelmed. It is very nerve racking.

CO: We know that there are people lost. There are kids who they are looking for. There are people that are missing. And certainly there are people who have died at this point. Is there anybody you're hoping to find out their fate?

d'SEAN SMITH: Nobody I know as yet. But I was on the jet ski early in areas that are closer to the northern shore and those houses you can see that they were totally destroyed like walls had collapsed and pretty much from the ocean pounding against it. You know areas that just flooded was a different situation versus you know total collapse and I would have to assume that some people would have attempted to ride out the storm in those places because the homes tend to be a little more elevated. But it proved to be no match for what happened during the storm.

CO: How are you holding up?

d'SEAN SMITH: I'm good. You know my business was flooded, my home was flooded, but my family's safe so I'm pretty well.

CO: You've been doing this for hours, you've been doing this without a break...you must be beat.

d'SEAN SMITH: I am. I am. In fact I just stopped about 20 minutes ago because like I said I was pretty much on the road from 7 o'clock this morning. I was out all day yesterday -- and I'm going give my wife a heart attack if I keep at it.

CO: I know you're exhausted, I know you need a break and you don't need to be talking to me all this time. And so I will let you go. And I really appreciate what you're doing down there. Thank you.

d'SEAN SMITH: Thank you as well. I mean I'm happy that people kind of highlight what's going on here because you know this is an apocalyptic event that's occurred here.

CO: Please take care.

d'SEAN SMITH: Thank you.

CH: d'Sean Smith has been rescuing people trapped in their homes in the Bahamas with his jet ski. We reached him in Freeport on the Grand Bahama Island. And there's more on that story on the As It Happens website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Walmart guns

Guest: Thomas Marshall

CH: The world's biggest retailer is changing its position on guns. Wal-Mart's CEO made the announcement this afternoon. The company's US operations will stop selling certain types of ammunition. And openly armed people will no longer be welcome in their stores. The decision follows two shootings in Wal-Mart's stores in Texas and Mississippi that left a total of 24 people dead. It was the Texas shooting that prompted Thomas Marshall to launch a petition calling for his employer to do more to stop gun violence. Mr. Marshall is a category specialist at Wal-Mart's e-commerce facility in San Bruno, California.

CO: Mr. Marshall did you ever expect that your petition would have such an effect on a corporation the size of Wal-Mart?

THOMAS MARSHALL: Well really when we started the petition we hoped that it would. They from the very beginning have said that they take into consideration the opinions and the thoughts and ideas of every associate no matter which level so we always had hope. But the fact that this really happened in such a quick timeframe and that the changes have been so monumental is just a testament to the fact that this is the company that we really believed we were working for and that we hoped they would be able to change and we're very glad that you know we are moving in the right direction.

CO: So this petition that you had signed by almost 130,000 individuals that calls for Wal-Mart to stop the sale of all remaining firearms and ammunition and ban the public carry of firearms. You get a letter back from the CEO -- Doug McMillon -- who says that we've been thinking a lot about this and we have to play our role to help make the country safer. It's clear the status quo is no longer acceptable. So what exactly has Doug McMillon decided to do?

TM: So currently Doug McMillon has actually decided to ban completely the open carry of firearms in their stores by any members of the public -- so not including law enforcement or security. They've decided to stop the sale of all handgun ammunition, stop the sale of handguns in Alaska, and stop the sale of certain pieces of ammunition that could also be used for high capacity magazines. And that really was something we were trying to get implemented especially because the shooting in Florida about two years ago that killed 60 people in a gay nightclub -- even though those weapons were not purchased at a Wal-Mart the ammunition actually did come from a Wal-Mart. And so these changes will hopefully have a very concrete and tangible impact on really the horrible amount of mass shootings we've been experiencing in this country.

CO: And the other examples you give in addition to the bullets coming from Wal-Mart for the nightclub in Orlando you know of course we have this this horrific mass murder in Wal-Mart in El Paso, Texas. 22 people killed, 27 injured. And then another one that's less well-known it is another Wal-Mart where a former associate murdered two other associates at a Wal-Mart in South Haven, Mississippi. So the decision is that they will discontinue the sale of rifle ammunition that can be used in the military style weapons, handgun ammunition, they'll discontinue handguns sales themselves in Alaska -- the last place where they sell them. But they will continue to sell other kinds of ammunition, right, for hunting...

TM: Correct. Well we understand that the position of Wal-Mart has very deep ties from the very beginning to America's long tradition of you know the Second Amendment right to carry arms for protection and hunting. And so even though you know our petition what we were calling for was far more comprehensive, we do very much understands the position that Wal-Mart is in -- you know especially with a lot of their base and especially with the lineage dating back to Sam Walton actually being an avid hunter. So even though this is you know a step behind where we would hopefully be at some point, this is still a wonderful step in the right direction and we very much understand Wal-Mart's position that they are currently taking.

CO: You say that they have banned the open carry in their stores but in the letter Mr. McMillon is saying we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer openly carry and that they will post signs to that effect. How effective do you think that will be?

TM: Well I hope that will be effective. You know there's no way to ban that in stores in terms of you know physically implementing that unless they have metal detectors or security but having those signs up and being very clear about that will help them actually be able to identify anyone walking in openly with a firearm to hopefully be able to de-escalate any possible situation before anyone enters the store.

CO: But they have they're citing that there are people who have already walked into the store very sort of openly carrying their weapon in order just to challenge the staff and you say in your letter how intimidating this has been.

TM: Hopefully that will help curb that behaviour. And especially because you know a lot of -- the fact that customers were not feeling safe inside of our stores you know that's a heartbreaking thing for anyone to go through. You know I'm sure the ideal is to make it a very safe place -- to make it a place where people feel comfortable. And hopefully this will help alleviate some of those concerns and really curb that behaviour of certain individuals that are trying to make a stand one way or another.

CO: Wal-Mart and CEO Doug McMillon responded very quickly to your petition. You telling him that customers no longer feel as safe as they once did in our stores. Do you think that Mr. McMillon is doing this because he thinks it's the right thing to do or just that he's recognize it is bad for business?

TM: Well I have no doubt that this will impact business very much and I'm sure that was one of the reasons why this took a considerable amount of time to really consider and take action on. However I do believe and you know I have every hope that this was done out of good faith in the best intentions and you know with pure intentions from a man that we hopefully can rely on as a leader for this company. You know this is an incredibly unique and important thing that one of the largest -- you know the largest retailer in the world and one of the largest firearm retailers in the country is taking a very defiant and very concrete stand on where they choose to see themselves in the larger history of this country and our country's history with gun violence.

CO: So what does it tell you -- it took the deaths of 24 people in its stores before it made that decision.

TM: I mean it's heartbreaking that we still have to have these conversations but really any step in the right direction is a good one and we hope that this honors the people who have you know who can't speak out against gun violence anymore because they were tragically killed in these acts of mass homicide. And so we really hope that this brings some amount of healing as well to the communities that have been effected -- especially surrounding our stores in the country.

CO: Mr. Marshall thank you.

TM: Thank you. Thank you so much for having me and for covering this important topic.

CH: Thomas Marshall is a category specialist at Wal-Mart's e-commerce facility in San Bruno, California. That's where we reached him.

[Music]

Ontario slang

Guest: Sali Tagliamonte

CH: Sali Tagliamonte is never at a loss for words. Largely because she's spent the last 10 years collecting them. Ms. Tagliamonte is a professor and the chair of the Department of Linguistics at the University of Toronto. She's also the driving force behind the Ontario Dialects Project. That's a database full of Ontario slang words -- words she's now working to have included in the Oxford English Dictionary. We reached Sali Tagliamonte in Toronto, Ontario.

CO: Sali as you know we've got listeners from across the country -- actually around the continent -- so help them out. Give us your best Ontario slang.

SALI TAGLIAMONTE: I might say "Hey bud! Do you want to go to a bush party Friday night? Better bring some fly dope because the bugs are going to be bad out on the slime."

CO: All right I can guess most of that. Give us the definitions -- what is slime? What does that refer to?

ST: Well the slimes are areas in northern Ontario that were produced quite a few years back when if you had a mine you had to put the materials that were taken out of the mine somewhere and they used to put them in the lakes and of course the lakes would fill up and become this glutinous mass producing slimes. And we always call them the slime.

CO: And you're heading out there to have a bush party?

ST: Yeah. Bush party you know in the north there really weren't that many places to hang out. So you just put a case of beer in the back of a truck or car and head down one of the many dirt roads and find a spot and park your car and open the trunk and have a party.

CO: And what are you going to do about the bugs?

ST: Oh there's so many bugs up north. Mosquitoes, black flies, all kinds of bugs. And you put on fly dope.

CO: [Laughs] Okay. You have some other ones. Now people may hear these and say oh we we use those same terms in other parts of the country so...

ST: Exactly. So that's the whole point of the project. Like where are these words unique to particular communities, where are they more widespread -- you know we don't know. Much of the work that's been done in Canada in particular has been on the urban centres -- all middle class you know relatively mundane standard Canadian English. But what about when you go to the small communities -- places that you don't hear about that often. What kinds of words and expressions do people use there?

CO: You also wonder some of the words that you have listed are words said I wonder if people have not heard. People use the word "arse" and you have listed that as one of the words. I mean everywhere I've ever been "arse" is a word that gets used.

ST: But what about arse over kettle.

CO: That's an expression just in Ontario, do you think?

ST: [Laughs] Yeah. And that's exactly right. So one of the things that this is bringing to the surface is where are the words used? How widespread are they? Are these expressions part of you know North American dialect or are they particular to certain places? And trying to sort that out is a really murky problem.

CO: Do you have a favorite word that you discovered?

ST: My favorite is soaker because it was the one that was the tip of the iceberg that alerted me to the fact that there were unique words in different places. I mean I should have known that...

CO: Well before you go on -- what is soaker? For people who don't know what that is, what does that mean?

ST: Well for me a soaker is what happens when you step in a puddle and get your foot wet. So the water soaks into your shoe and you have a wet foot.

CO: Okay. So we'll find out from people when they respond to this interview who has heard and not heard soaker.

ST: Exactly. And I thought it was more or less Ontario but I've heard recently that people down in Nova Scotia use it, and in Newfoundland use it is.

CO: It is always a question that the word 'chesterfield' because this is some word that people will look perplexed if you use it in some places but they will use it freely elsewhere. How often do you find people use the word chesterfield?

ST: Well I can assure you I have heard the word chesterfield in the wild in a natural flowing conversation and that's not something that most people can say. But in the north of Ontario where you have you know small communities and 3 person furniture in the front room people will say come on in and sit in chesterfield.

CO: Elsewhere you call it a couch or sofa.

ST: Yeah.

CO: How did you go about collecting these words?

ST: We do what we call oral narratives -- oral histories. We just sit down with people and get them to talk about their life, what it was like growing up, their favorite pastimes, anything about their life. And in the course of conversation when you least expect it people will use typical words and expressions of their community that are typical of where they grew up. Those words can tumble out of their mouths without them even realizing it.

CO: Why do you think these words deserve a place in the Oxford English Dictionary?

ST: Well I use the Oxford English Dictionary a lot. It's one of the most amazing resources for language scientists that there is. It's extraordinary. But I started noticing that some of the words I was finding in Ontario were not in the Oxford English Dictionary. One -- the word just isn't there. Secondly -- we look and we find the word in the dictionary but it doesn't have the same meaning. So for example soaker would mean you step in a puddle and get your foot wet. That meaning isn't in the OED -- the Oxford English Dictionary -- but other meanings for soaker are.

CO: How receptive have they been? Has Oxford responded to you?

ST: Yeah, I've been in discussion with the editors over the last six months actually. And of course they welcome people helping to contribute to the dictionary and we've got a plan in place and I will give them the information they need.

CO: So we might actually through you see words in the Oxford dictionary like "bejeebers" and "boondoggle" and "bum-hill."

ST: Exactly.

CO: Have you got a word for goodbye in Ontario slang term?

ST: [Laughs] See you later? Later? I don't know if we have a unique word for that but the thing is when you ask people specifically as you just did of course no one really knows. And then the next sentence they'll do it.

CO: All right see ya.

ST: So long. [Laughter]

CH: Sali Tagliamonte is the chair of the Department of Linguistics at the University of Toronto, which is where we reached her. In addition to "soaker" "bush party" and "chesterfield" -- we'd love to hear the regional words and phrases that you grew up with or still use today. Call talkback at 416-205-5687. You can tweet us @CBCAsItHappens. Or send us an email at aih@cbc.ca.

[Music]

Harry Potter Book Ban

CH: Wingardium Leviosa! I said, Wingardium Leviosa! It's not working. I can't seem to make this coffee mug levitate with that Harry Potter spell...must be the wand. The guy at the bus station who sold it to me said it was a wing bone from a magic seagull but now that I look closer it looks almost exactly like a straw from McDonald's. Yeah it must be the lousy wand though because the spell is totally real. Reverend Dan Reehil says so. Reverend Reehil is a pastor at St. Edward Catholic School in Nashville, Tennessee. And recently he banned all the Harry Potter books from the school library. For one thing, he's against magic. And for another he said, quote, "The curses and spells used in the books are real curses and spells; which when read by a human being risk conjuring evil spirits into the presence of the person reading the text." Now you could say but Reverend if that were true couldn't they just have had the actors do the actual spells in the movies and saved tens of millions of dollars on special effects? You could also say wouldn't everyone who ever read a Harry Potter book be doing spells all the time such as Wingardium Leviosa? But you're forgetting "obliviate" the memory erasing spell. That's why you don't remember all those spells happening. Someone wipes your mind every time. And now -- sorry everyone -- but you know too much so..."obliviate." Sure hope that worked. I paid 140 bucks for this magic McDonald's straw.

[Music]

Part 2: Opera singer calls out body shaming after critic makes 'derogatory' remark about her size

MMIWG errors

Guest: Dawn Lavell-Harvard

CH: Three months ago today the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls came out. Hundreds of witnesses had testified and Canadians were faced with searing accounts of violence against Indigenous women in this country. Now CBC News has learned that the inquiry quietly corrected an error in that report which overstated the number of Indigenous women killed in homicides. The offending statistic said Indigenous women and girls make up almost 25 percent of homicide victims -- when in fact they make up almost 25 percent of female homicide victims. Dawn Lavell-Harvard is the President of the Native Women's Association of Ontario, and the head of the First Peoples House of Learning at Trent University. We reached her in Oshawa, Ontario.

CO: Ms. Lavell-Harvard what was your reaction when you learned about this mistake?

DAWN LAVELL-HARVARD: Well when I initially learned about the mistake I was really concerned that people were going to be so focused on the fact that there was a mistake that they were going to be questioning the validity of the entire report and that would be a real tragedy because this kind of mistake should never have happened -- but you know those stories of the families, the experiences of the women, there's so much content in that report that is still valid and we were really very concerned that people were going to be questioning the validity of the entire report based on those few mistakes that had been made.

CO: But facts do matter, don't they? And this one to say in the report that the 25 percent of homicide victims in Canada are Indigenous women and girls -- when it's 25 percent of female homicide victims, it's a considerable difference. The estimate is is that the entire homicide group is probably about 6 percent are women and girls. It's a pretty significant difference and 25 percent isn't it?

DAWN LAVELL-HARVARD: Well it goes to show you how much difference one word can make. It's interesting though that if you look at what the real statistic is that Indigenous women make up 25 percent of the all female homicides across Canada -- that in itself is still appalling. That in itself is still really significant when you consider that Indigenous women make up less than 5 percent of all females in Canada. So that's still an absolutely appalling rate.

CO: But does it concern you how the report has gone about acknowledging the mistake? I mean the corrected version of the inquiry report appeared online just very quietly back in June -- some weeks after the CBC had asked about this fact not being accurate. There are still uncorrected copies in circulation. The one on Amazon is the original one with the wrong fact in it. And there is still the existing website with the wrong fact in it -- though it hasn't got an active link to it. Why do you think it's taking so long to get this corrected?

DAWN LAVELL-HARVARD: Well this is really unfortunate. What needs to happen here is some clear accountability. People make mistakes. Obviously there was a mistake made here. It needs to be openly acknowledged, to have a recall of those printed copies, and a reissue. It needs to be reprinted with the correction and that needs to be reissued. Especially when you consider that this report was given to the Prime Minister, was given to MPs, was given to MLAs in provinces. You know this report is an important historic document that is going to be used not only by governments to make decisions but also by generations of researchers now and into the future. And it's important that any of those copies with mistakes that they do their best to sort of pull them out of circulation but also do an appropriate amount of attempting to mitigate the damage that was done by this mistake by having a reprint and having it reissued in a larger formal apology for the mistake -- have it acknowledged.

CO: The original report also stated that Indigenous women are 12 times more likely to experience violence than non-Indigenous women. But the data in Stats Canada says that Indigenous women experienced violence 2.7 times the rate to the general population -- considerably less than 12 times. Is that something that the original report got wrong as well?

DAWN LAVELL-HARVARD: I'm not sure where they went wrong on that because it was actually the phrasing that was changed. It went from Indigenous women experiencing violence to more likely be missing and murdered. So because I can't draw a direct line to where the new statistic is coming from I can't say where the mistake was made or how they've drawn that. But again that's why it's important to have open, honest, transparent corrections that show where this new information has been sourced from. And the biggest problem with all of this conversation about these statistics is that we as researchers and we as Indigenous women and girls at the grassroots level know that the statistics only tell a very small part of the story because so many of our women and girls don't ever even make it into the official statistics -- whether it be problems of the process of identifying whether a victim is Indigenous or non-Indigenous -- if it's an investigating officer who's guessing based on the victim's physical attributes, their last name, you know all of those things can be very subjective and leads to a lot of Indigenous women and girls who have experienced violence, who have gone missing, who have been murdered, not being included in the official statistics.

CO: The report as you know was highly criticized by parts of the Canadian population -- and of media and commentators -- that said that the use of the word "genocide" was wrong. A lot of pushback on that term and on that claim. What happens now? Do you think this gives ammunition, gives support to those who want to dismiss this report and say that's an exaggeration?

DAWN LAVELL-HARVARD: Well I think even the conversation about whether this qualifies as genocide or not was an appalling distraction from the real question. People were spending so much time debating about the definition of genocide when if one looks at this in a sophisticated way and sees that yes this is integral to a larger process that includes residential schools, that includes sixties scoop, that includes smallpox blankets and reserve systems, and you know an entire system that for hundreds of years now has been a genocidal process against our people. So I really hope that this again we don't have another distraction, another ammunition in the hands of those who want to just dismiss this problem because if you look at even with the correction these numbers are still appalling, there's still massive overrepresentation and we still need to act on this.

CO: Ms. Lavell-Harvard I really appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

DAWN LAVELL-HARVARD: Thank you so much for your time.

CH: Dawn Lavell-Harvard is a member of the Wikwemikong First Nation, and past president of the Native Women's Association of Canada. She's also the head of the First Peoples House of Learning at Trent University. We reached her today in Oshawa, Ontario.

[Music]

Joe Biden

CH: Joe Biden wants you to know the details are irrelevant. At least when it comes to the dramatic story he recently told a New Hampshire crowd. In the story the former vice president traveled to Afghanistan to pin a Silver Star on an American hero who had rappelled down a 60-foot ravine wall to retrieve the body of a fallen soldier -- under fire all the while. The way Mr. Biden told it, the hero didn't want the medal. He felt like a failure. His friend was dead. It's a moving story obviously. And as the would-be Democratic nominee put it "God's truth." Except according to reporting by the Washington Post -- it wasn't. Reporters at the Post interviewed more than a dozen US troops and their commanders and determined that Mr. Biden appeared to have conflated at least three separate events into one. Now Joe Biden has addressed that apparent conflation in conversation with Iowa Public Radio and NPR.

SOUNDCLIP

JOE BIDEN: I stood up and talked about pinning a medal on a young man who did not want the medal and was a brave brave young man. I also talked about up in the upper Kunar Valley of a another young man who engaged in a very brave act. Turns out I believe it was Gen. Rodriguez was up on that where they call forward operating base with only six or eight people up there. And he pinned the Bronze Star on the young man up there. It wasn't the young man who got the Medal of Honor from President who in fact was in a different place -- that was in Afghanistan, but not where I was. And so the fact that the whole purpose of what I was saying did not in any way affect my point -- they're incredibly brave decent honorable men and women in the military who in fact are like any other generation only even have done more. They've saddled up, they've gone out, they've wiped the blood off of these Humvees, they've got back out, they get out again, they go out again and again again. I was making a point about a generation -- that has nothing to do with a judgment of whether or not you send troops to war. The judgment of whether you bring someone home, the judgment of whether or not you decide in a health care policy.

ASMA KHALID: Not judgment but details. Is something I've heard from some voters maybe not at your events, but details.

JOE BIDEN: But the details are irrelevant in terms of decision-making if in fact I forget that it was Rodriguez -- of all the times I've been in and out of Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Bosnia, and Kosovo as much as anybody except maybe my deceased friend John McCain and maybe Lindsey Graham. And so the fact that I would forget that it was Rodriguez who was pinning -- I believe this is the case -- pinning a bronze star on a young man -- it's irrelevant to the point. It's like saying I had this very bright reporter and I think her eyes were blue, what difference would it make about whether you were a bright reporter, your eyes your brown. It's irrelevant and you know it.

CH: That's Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden speaking with NPR's Asma Khalid about a seemingly fabricated war story he shared at a recent campaign stop in New Hampshire.

[Music]

Opera body shaming

Guest: Kathryn Lewek

CH: Kathryn Lewek is an American soprano. Just last month she was in a series of performances of the Opera "Orpheus in the Underworld" at Austria's Salzburg Festival. And most of the reviews were great. But Ms. Lewek was unpleasantly surprised by some articles that commented on female performers bodies -- including one that used the words "thick" or "fat" to describe them. We reached Kathryn Lewek in Kansas City, Missouri.

CO: Ms. Lewek first of all just tell us what role you are playing in Orpheus in the Underworld?

KATHRYN LEWEK: I was playing the role of Eurydice.

CO: Who's pretty sexy, right? Well she has a lot of sex in this show, doesn't she?

KL: Oh absolutely. It's a very sexually liberal show and that's how it was meant to be when Offenbach wrote it. I mean we're talking the world of Moulin Rouge here. I mean that famous melody that we all know that [sings the tune]. That's from Orpheus in the Underworld by Offenbach.

CO: So you had pretty good reviews for this. It was a pretty hot show in most respects. But you did have some -- well not just the bad reviews or negative reviews or comments -- but some personal ones as well. Can you tell us what really bothered you?

KL: Yeah. There were several papers -- one in particular that kind of bothered me the most because kind of used me and my colleague as symbols of what he I guess doesn't like to see on stage and that is what he referred to as "dicke Frauen" which means thick women or fat women. That just really didn't sit with me correctly. And I stewed on it for about a week. I had long conversations with my husband and also with my parents who were in Austria with me to help with childcare. I just had a baby 10 months ago and I'm obviously you know I mean I think any mother at this point in the first year of postpartum is vulnerable about her appearance. And I've been very public about the fact that I had a baby. It's not a private thing. And I just kind of...I mean it's never okay to comment on a woman's body. But it felt like the sting was extra sharp I guess because I'm in what feels like a very vulnerable time.

CO: This reviewer -- we're talking about Manuel Brug -- who writes for Die Welt the German newspaper -- very very established newspaper. And he said that the criticism of the show was the well-oiled marionette mechanisms run quickly empty while all the while fat women -- he's actually trying to say thick women -- in tight corsets spread their legs in private rooms. That's the line that was really disturbing to you, isn't it?

KL: Yeah -- I mean again yes this is a very sexualized show but it just felt like a very derogatory way of describing you know my character and of just everything that was going on on stage.

CO: You've had an exchange of mail with the paper. What response have you had to saying that you felt this was really just personal and not the way a woman to be described who was doing a role on stage?

KL: Manuel Brug's first response to me -- I mean it's almost laughable. I just had to sort of brush it off with some laughter because it was so hurtful. He said in response to Mark Brown who reached out to him for his comment before he wrote an article for The Guardian he said 'well if she's so sensitive why is she showing herself the entire show in this corset on stage? It was very interesting to me that the thin women were in dresses and the-not-thin women were in corsets that show too much of her weight.' I just thought this was an appalling response. To respond by saying that somehow it was my fault because I allowed myself to be in a certain type of costume -- this is the same type of thing that we hear now about women getting raped and people saying well she had a glass of wine or she was wearing a sexy outfit so she was asking for it.

CO: The editor has responded now to you as well saying that what Mr. Brug was trying to do -- according to the editor -- was not to criticize you or your body type which was to criticize the director for creating a burlesque, for using a theatrical stereotype, and this is a quote, "a certain type of female stage character in order to achieve an atmosphere of cheap laughter like an English pantomime or Italian commedia dell'arte. And that it was the aesthetic stereotype that was being criticized, not you. What do you say to that?

KL: The thing that I have to say about that is if he truly was displeased with the aesthetic of the commedia dell'arte idea with theater then why doesn't he go after other elements. It just seems ludicrous to me that he uses you know the one example that is extremely offensive when he could be talking about a myriad of other things that might have displeased him as well. Like how about the Swarovski crystal covered genitalia that are everywhere on stage? How about the completely nude man with his real penis out onstage running around with a chorus? I mean he's grasping at straws.

CO: You have heard from other opera women -- not just women -- you've heard from other opera singers, performers, who have encouraged you in your response to Mr. Brug and you've heard how they have been treated. The men don't have these experiences, do they?

KL: I don't think that's necessarily true. Of course I think that the scale is definitely no pun intended -- the scale is definitely tipped toward judging women's bodies. But I have heard from male colleagues as well who have complained about the treatment they've gotten through both from critiques but also from companies and casting directors and teachers. Some of the most appalling things I've heard that have been said to young singers are from teachers themselves. This is an absolutely horrendous practice to call yourself a mentor to young singers and then to be telling them that they have to lose weight or else they're not going to get jobs. My main objective of this entire mess and obviously it is a huge mess but I mean I knew that there would be backlash but I also knew that it would be worth it if the message that I could get across is that singers need to focus more on their craft. Of course being healthy is an important thing but health isn't necessarily reflected in a person's shape. So the bottom line is craft over body and that young singers need to know that despite any way that they look or you know a body image issues that they might have that there is a place for them in the arts.

CO: Ms. Lewek it's great to talk to you. Thank you.

KL: Thank you very much.

CH: That was soprano Kathryn Lewek in Kansas City, Missouri. If you'd like to see pictures from her performance at the Salzburg Festival visit our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Jay Keystone

CH: Dr. Jay Keystone was fascinated by malaria and yellow fever -- and passionate about educating medical students and patients about tropical diseases. He was one of Canada's foremost experts in tropical and travel medicine. Dr. Keystone died today. Colleagues are remembering the Toronto doctor as a man who inspired generations of students. Dr. Zain Chaglas tweeted the Dr. Keystone "improved the care for tropical diseases and life in general for so many." Jay Keystone was the director of Travel Health at Medisys Toronto. He worked in Africa, India, and South America during his career and was a physician at Toronto General Hospital's Tropical Diseases Unit. In 2015 when he was awarded the Order of Canada he was described as, quote, "a renowned clinician, (who) raised the standard of care for individuals infected with exotic pathogens." Back in 1991 Dr. Jay Keystone spoke with the CBC's Vicki Gabereau about a book he'd edited called "Don't Drink the water." Here's part of that conversation.

SOUNDCLIP

VICKI GABEREAU: After having read your book now I think that if I ever go anywhere tropical which is more and more unlikely after having read this book I'm definitely coming to you. This is a book that would make a lot of people not go across the street.

JAY KEYSTONE: You're kidding. The whole idea of writing this book was in fact to take away some of the fear in the health problems for travel.

VICKI GABEREAU: Not me man. [Laughs]

JAY KEYSTONE: Well you can't please everyone.

VICKI GABEREAU: I guess not. But don't you think you could become a little bit -- how do you say that -- become a hypochondriac reading this book? I mean I never thought about -- I had forgotten about yellow fever to be frank.

JAY KEYSTONE: And I think there's a good reason to forget about yellow fever because it virtually never occurs in travelers because we have an immunization that's virtually 100 percent effective. So it isn't really a problem for travelers but it is for the local populations in certain parts of Africa and South America.

VICKI GABEREAU: Where would this world be without the mosquito? Would we be much better off and I'm sure that some insect fiend is going to get down my neck about this but I think we'd be a lot better off without that beast.

JAY KEYSTONE: Well you know as with any other thing in nature there are pros and cons. I think you have to understand that the mosquito can be a very important source of food for small animals particularly birds and other insects. But what it does to humans is a major problem. And I think the most important disease worldwide of course is malaria followed possibly secondly by dengue fever.

CH: Toronto doctor Jay Keystone speaking with the CBC back in 1991. The tropical diseases expert died today.

[Music]

Part 3: Teacher says she feels 'betrayed' as classes start under Quebec's religious symbols law

Bill 21 schools

Guest: Nadia Naqvi

CH: It's back-to-school time and for students across the country that means back to class, back to buses, and back to the routine. But for teachers and schools in Quebec it's anything but routine since the passing of Bill-21 in June. The controversial religious symbols law bans some public servants in the province including teachers from donning kippahs, turbans, hijabs and the like. When the bill was introduced, three Montreal school boards vowed to oppose it. But as the school year begins they have changed that stance and will now comply with the law. Nadia Naqvi is a high school teacher in Montreal and the co-founder and president of the Muslim teachers council of Quebec. She also wears a hijab. We reached Ms. Naqvi in Montreal.

CO: Ms. Naqvi how do you feel going into a new school year knowing that these school boards in Montreal won't fight Bill-21 as they had promised they would?

NADIA NAQVI: Honestly I can speak for myself and I know a lot of teachers whether they wear religious symbols or not but we feel betrayed. We are quite proud that the school board stood up and said one) that they would fight or two) that they needed a delay. And all of a sudden there is no delay and they're all adhering to Bill-21. So it's sad and it's a betrayal.

CO: And we heard from people in the spring they were determined, they were not going to give in to this. They believed it was a violation of people's rights. What do you think caused these boards to finally cave?

NN: Political pressure that's all it is. The fear of the what's going to happen when the school boards are abolished -- particularly for the English language school board, we have a lot at stake. I am a minority but I'm also a minority when it was in a minority because I worked for an English school board.

CO: When they told you that they would fight it what did that mean for you?

NN: Oh it made me very proud. But I was anticipating this because while I am an idealist, I am also a realist because I've been with my board since 2006 -- I know how it works.

CO: You've been a teacher, what 13 years?

NN: Yep.

CO: You wear a hijab. You are on medical leave right now. But the bill -- Bill-21 is being grandfathered in. So how does it really affect you?

NN: It affects me essentially that I am professionally stuck. Had I not gotten sick, my plan was to in another year or two would begin the works to become an administrator. It's always been on the back of my mind and I know that I would have brought something new, I would have brought something fresh. But now the school board's going to miss out.

CO: But if the idea of this law was that it would not affect those who are already employed who are wearing any religious symbols it would only be applied to new employees who joined -- why is it that this has such an impact on your career?

NN: Because the grandfather clause essentially means we will remain where we are. We're frozen for the next however many years. Does that mean that I am going to -- because I teach secondary science -- does that mean I'm going to remain a secondary science teacher? Does I mean that I cannot professionally develop myself? For sure we cannot get a promotion. So I cannot become an administrator because that is considered a promotion.

CO: Can you change school boards?

NN: No. I cannot change school boards. I cannot you know take a sabbatical to go work somewhere else which I had thought of. That's off the books. I love my job but I am essentially frozen from year 13 to year 18.

CO: You know back in June we spoke with a member of the Quebec English School Board Association Russell Copeman and he described Bill-21 as Kafkaesque. And he said among all the other things that are wrong with it, it will be impossible to enforce. So what is it going to be like in schools like yours as they try to apply this new law?

NN: So it's impossible to enforce so basically they're going to bully us into enforcing it. And this is a really bad example to set for the children that we teach -- it is basically saying that it's okay for your government to be a bully but it's not okay for you guys. It's essentially they're saying do as we say, not as we do. That's the first thing. Second thing yes it is impossible to physically enforce in school. I'm on the shorter side, I look younger -- what's the difference between me and another student who looks older or a substitute teacher or a parent in the building? They've talked about a secular police. Are they going to march in with their badges and say hey you what's your name? Are you permanent? Like how does that work? And what example does that set for me being interrogated like that as if I am a criminal in front of my students. Oh...I get chills even thinking about it.

CO: You know that this law is very popular in the province of Quebec and in fact some parents -- a group of 50 parents signed a letter published in Le Devoir newspaper saying that now that this law is there they want their kids to have a right to a secular education and that there should be a process to allow students and parents to ensure those rights by saying that they could change a class if there is a teacher like you teaching their kids that they could request a transfer. What do you make of that letter?

NN: Just because a bunch of parents got together to write an open letter in Le Devoir is peanuts compared to the thousands who signed on online petitions saying that they did not care whether their teachers wore religious symbols or not. Second of all when parents talk about a secular education they clearly are not paying attention to the actual education that their children are getting. I teach science. I have no time in my classroom to go into any type of dogma with my kids. And if my kids do ask "Miss why do you wear a hijab?" I say that's a good question, I appreciate you asking me, come back at recess. And they do -- off school time because I am a professional. Now these parents somehow they feel like as if we are not at par with our white colleagues, with agnostic colleagues, with our colleagues that are Christian, etc -- those that choose in their daily lives not to show their religion. Respect is something very non-secular. Now these parents need to teach themselves and teach the children that respect is all about human rights. It's not about whether something is secular or not.

CO: Just finally would you ever consider not wearing your hijab in order to further the career that matters so much to you?

NN: Never. I have three parts to my identity: I am a mother, I am a teacher, and I am also a woman and a wife. If someone were to ask me "Well you have to divorce your husband to continue teaching" No! "Would you rather be a mother or a teacher?" No, I will not give up one part of my identity which I love to continue doing something else that I love. I will keep fighting. This is a fundamental human right. The government will not be able to silence me. I'm in a wheelchair due to an autoimmune disorder but I'm still using whatever power I have which is my voice to speak up. The government cannot do anything that will ever persuade me to taking off my hijab. That is not their decision. It is mine. No one forced me. They cannot force me.

CO: Ms. Naqvi I really appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

NN: Thank you for letting me tell my story.

CH: Nadia Naqvi is a high school teacher and the co-founder and president of the Muslim teachers council of Quebec. We reached her in Montreal.

[Music]

Boris Johnson

CH: Today the British Parliament pushed back against Prime Minister Boris Johnson's plan to leave the EU at the end of October "Do or die." MPs voted to take control of the House of Commons agenda. That clears the way for those politicians to bring forward a bill tomorrow seeking to delay Brexit beyond October 31st. Mr. Johnson responded to the vote immediately promising an election if Brexit is postponed and attacking opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn.

SOUNDCLIP

[People shouting]

BORIS JOHNSON: Let it be known Mr. Speaker about the consequences of this vote tonight -- it means that parliament is on the brink of wrecking any deal that we might be able to...

[People shouting louder]

BORIS JOHNSON: ...because tomorrow's bill would hand control of the negotiations to the EU and that would mean more deter, more delay, and more confusion. And it would mean that the EU themselves would be able to decide how long to keep this country in the EU. And since I refuse to go along with that plan we are going to have to make a choice Mr. Speaker. I don't want an election. The public don't want an action. I don't believe the Right Honourable Gentleman wants an election. But if the House votes for this bill tomorrow the public will have to choose who goes to Brussels on October the 17th to sort this out and take this country forward. Everybody knows that if the Right Honourable Gentleman is the prime minister he will go to Brussels and beg for an extension. He will accept -- whatever Brussels demands. And we will have years more arguments over Brexit. And by contrast Mr. Speaker I think everyone knows that if this government is in charge and if I go to Brussels I will go for a deal. And I believe I will get a deal. And we will leave anyway -- even if we don't -- we will leave anyway on October 31st. The people of this country will have to choose Mr. Speaker. The leader of the opposition has been begging for an election for two years. He has crowds of supporters outside calling for an election. I don't want an election but if MPs votes tomorrow to stop negotiations and to compel another pointless delay to Brexit potentially for years then that would be the only way to resolve this. And I can confirm that we are tonight tabling a motion under the fix term parliament Mr. Speaker.

CH: British Prime Minister Boris Johnson speaking today in Parliament.

[Music]

Yemen war crimes

Guest: Melissa Parke

CH: In Yemen yesterday teams of rescuers from the Red Cross were pulling bodies from the rubble. More than 100 people are believed to have died in an airstrike on a prison by Saudi-led coalition forces. It's just the latest violence in years of conflict. The war has left thousands of civilians dead or wounded. Now a United Nations panel of experts is detailing a, quote, "pervasive lack of accountability" for gross violations of human rights by the warring parties in Yemen. And they say Britain, France, and the United States may be complicit in war crimes by arming and providing support to the Saudi coalition. Melissa Parke is one of the UN experts on the panel. We reached her in Geneva. And a warning: some of the details you'll hear are unsettling.

CO: Ms. Parke you were able to find, in your research, evidence of arbitrary detention, disappearances, sexual violence, torture, recruitment of children -- in addition to being able to review what has happened through airstrikes, and shelling, and snipers, landmines. How were you able to do your investigation?

MELISSA PARKE: Well the group of experts on Yemen is far from the first UN fact finding mission to undertake its work without having physical access to the locations. So we used remote interviews with reliable sources, used some of the latest technologies available -- including to ensure the authenticity of open source material. And we also had the benefit of cooperation from United Nations entities, non-government organizations, and other trusted sources with physical access to the locations where the incidents occurred.

CO: So you were able to conduct approximately 600 interviews with victims and witnesses. What are some of the things they told you that stand out the most for you now?

MP: Oh my goodness. We just had the most heartbreaking stories. One person who had been detained in Sana'a and went through detention said they would hang me this time fully naked from a hook on the wall. On two separate occasions they tied a water bottle to my testicles and filled it with water. This was even more painful than being electrocuted. Another said the problem is beyond torture...it's the loss of humanity, I cannot accept. And after the airstrike on the bus where a large number of children were killed last year, we had evidence from a father of one of the children who was killed saying that he was given only his child's foot or what could have been his foot so that he had something symbolic to bury. Incredible stories and incredible suffering and that's why we feel so strongly about our report which was collective failure, collective responsibility. And the collective failure is on all of the parties to the conflict in Yemen. There's no clean hands. And it is also on the international community to respond to those violations.

CO: And this war is between the Houthi rebels principally and the Saudi-led coalition. What you point out and what we have covered in many occasions is the international community that is part of this that is supporting Saudi Arabia and providing it with the weapons it needs to prosecute this war. What do you have to say about the United Kingdom, United States, France -- among others for their complicity?

MP: Well every country in the United Nations is a party to the Geneva Conventions and they have a duty not only to respect international humanitarian law themselves but also to ensure respect for it. And the responsibility to take measures to ensure respect, increases with the level of influence that a specific state has over the parties to the conflict. It's countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, and Iran which are well-known to have particular influence over parties to the conflict that have the most responsibility.

CO: But there's no way that any of the governments of these countries could claim they don't know what's going on. The United Nations and others have been producing a report-after-report of the atrocities going on and the civilian casualties in Yemen. And yet they continue to provide arms and they continue to provide expert licences to companies to produce munitions and arms for Saudi Arabia Coalition. Where is the process of bringing them to account for what's going on in Yemen?

MP: Well this is what we're endeavouring to do with our report. There is no state that can claim not to be aware of such violations being perpetrated in Yemen. And it's not only those countries that we've mentioned in our report, there are many other countries supplying weapons and that includes Canada and my own country of Australia. And indeed our countries have ratified the UN Arms Trade Treaty which imposes additional obligations on states who are parties to it. So it's very clear to us. And we have recommended that no state provide weapons to parties to the conflict -- given the prevailing risk that those weapons will be used to commit serious violations of international law.

CO: I understand you've put together lists of those you hold responsible. Do you now have a list of the people that could be charged with war crimes?

MP: Yes we have delivered today a list to the High Commissioner for Human Rights which sets out those people who we feel -- we have reasonable grounds to believe may have committed war crimes. And that list is being kept confidentially until an accountability mechanism is established by the international community. And I cannot disclose which people might be on that list.

CO: Can you tell us which countries -- do Britain, France, and the United States, or anybody who is included as being complicit in war crimes from those countries?

MP: I certainly can't divulge that. It's a strictly confidential list. So I can't do any numbers or which countries they're from. But I think what's important is that the international community approaches the issue of accountability very seriously. To know that there will not be a sustainable peace without accountability for these serious violations of international law because otherwise the cycle of violence and impunity will continue.

CO: We will continue to follow this story closely. We'll leave it there for now. Ms. Parke thank you.

MP: Thank you Carol.

CH: Melissa Parke is part of the U.N. panel of experts on Yemen. She is in Geneva.

[Music]

Ideas Promo

CH: And, coming up on "Ideas" right after As It Happens, it's a hard look at what may be the most popular and influential theory about the meaning of myths. After 70 years the hero is still on his journey. Joseph Campbell's book "The Hero With A Thousand Faces" turned 70 this year. Its message is simple: at the heart of all ancient mythology, there's just one universal story. The book was a massive hit and eventually found a home in Hollywood where it became a go to guide for creating blockbusters. But now some screenwriters are making a heroic effort to try to break free. Here's a clip with film Professor Sean Hood.

SOUNDCLIP

SEAN HOOD: Not all stories are about heroes. Heroes with even metaphorically who have swords, who solve problems through either literally with violence or metaphorically with confrontation.

[Clip plays]

VOICE 1: Tell him to let her go!

VOICE 2: Oh sorry -- I can't do it bro.

VOICE 3: Stop screwing around and let the girl go!

VOICE 4: Let her go.

VOICE 5: Let her go.

VOICE 6: It's over. Let her go.

[Clip ends]

SEAN HOOD: There's something very egotistical about the hero. The hero is the center of the universe. Everything is about the hero. Everything depends on whether the one in The Matrix is going to be successful or not. The hero is going to save the world or not. And it gives us as viewers a kind of sense of egotistical self-importance. Whereas when you see movies that explore multiple points of view that kind of sophistication is important because otherwise movies just go to reinforce the sense that we are the center of the universe and everything is somehow about us.

CH: That's from a documentary called "Just One Story" on "Ideas" coming up right after As It Happens at 8:00 with new host Nahlah Ayed.

[Music]

Pumice raft

Guest: Scott Bryan

CH: In the video, it looks like the ocean suddenly disappears and is replaced with kilometres and kilometres of rocks. It's a huge island of floating volcanic rock known as a "pumice raft." And it was caught on camera by sailors off the coast of Tonga in the South Pacific Ocean. The pumice raft is slowly but surely making its way towards Australia and the Great Barrier Reef. And that has Scott Bryan excited. He's a geologist and associate professor at the Queensland University of Technology who's been studying underwater volcanic pumice for two decades. We reached him in Brisbane, Australia.

CO: Mr. Bryan what do you see in these pictures of this pumice raft? Can you describe what this extraordinary video looks like?

SCOTT BRYAN: The video is extraordinary. It's amazing. And it's really the first time someone's actually taken a video sailing through a pumice. We've had still pictures before but never a video to sort of really capture what the sensation and the amazing experience would have been. Suddenly the sea turns to a desert of stone all floating on the surface. The waves get subdued. There's all this crackling and crunching the pumice pieces are jostling against each other and then scratching against the boat. The boat slows down -- going very slow. You sort of have a sensation you might be grounding yet your depth sounder is telling you in deep water and then you're sort of smelling this rotten egg gas or sulfur in the air. So it would have been an incredibly surreal experience for these sailors.

CO: It's just otherworldly, isn't it? You think you're going to wake up in a moment and find out this is a dream -- it stretches right to the horizon in these pictures. They wouldn't have been able to know when they would actually get out of it. Can you describe what exactly it is that they were in?

SB: Literally it is just a huge concentration and mass of lots and lots and lots of pieces of pumice ranging in size from sort of marble size -- maybe a little bit smaller -- up some sort of football or basketball sized pieces all sort of floating very closely together and very tightly packed, extending as far as you can see to the horizon once they really got into the raft.

CO: And how often is there this amount of pumice from a volcanic explosion underwater?

SB: For our region here in the south of Pacific surprisingly common. We have these sorts eruptions every five years or so.

CO: What exactly has happened? What has happened with this volcano and underwater and and it's created this pumice raft?

SB: So we had a volcanic eruption and this is from a volcano that is called unnamed and it's volcano that we understand first erupted in 2001 -- it was the first eruption that we witnessed from this volcano. And so it's been 18 years sitting there quietly -- sleeping -- and then it decided erupt again on August 7. So a good analogy to explain the eruption is to think of a bottle of Coke or champagne. You shake it up. Take the lid off. And all that foam that comes out. -- if we could freeze that and harden that, that's basically what pumice is. Pumice is a very light frothy volcanic rock full of air bubbles. We had the eruption that releases the pressure and all that water and gases can come out to make this magma foam which then gets cooled and chilled very quickly in the air to form pumice which can then float on water.

CO: And now it's called a pumice raft because it's carrying stuff, isn't it? What is hitching a ride on this pumice raft?

SB: We've seen in the past that there is a tremendous diversity of life that attaches to this pumice. Each piece of pumice will carry something. It could be a barnacle, could be a coral, a mollusk, a worm, snails. The list just goes on and on. We've documented over 80 to 100 different species.

CO: And what might that mean for the Great Barrier Reef once this pumice raft reaches the coast of Australia?

SB: Well we think it will have real benefit to the Great Barrier Reef because of the diversity of life -- marine life and coral reef dwelling life that hitches a ride on this pumice. That they'll arrive very healthy, quite mature, and in huge numbers. So there's a huge opportunity for the coral dwelling and coral reef building species to find a new home in the Great Barrier Reef next year and help build and restore and restock the Great Barrier Reef.

CO: How much though can it really -- because the Great Barrier Reef is in real trouble as you know and the CBC did an interview with the director of Coral Reef Watch who says that it's not a significant difference it would make on the coral reef given that the bleaching and the problems are so hugely caused by the warming ocean temperatures.

SB: It's a real challenge. And the challenge is that the reef is being confronted by lots of more destructive events: coral bleaching, cyclones have been very destructive in the last couple of years. So the issue is leaving the reef to its own devices. So for example the Australian Government has allocated over 100 million dollars to actively intervene and establish new measures to try and restore the reef from coral seeding and transplanting to capturing slicks and move them to damaged areas to increase the chance of coral larvae settling to restore those reefs. This is just another mechanism of helping to do those sorts of strategies but in a natural way. And one of the key points is this is happening every five years. Every five years we get this wave of corals and other coral reef dwelling species arriving in huge numbers looking and wanting to find a new home.

CO: All right we will leave it there. And it's a fascinating story. Mr. Bryan I appreciate you telling it to us. Thank you.

SB: Thank you very much. Have a good day.

CH: Scott Bryan is a geologist who studies underwater volcanic pumice. We reached him in Brisbane, Australia.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

September 3, 2019 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode