Local News
Jewish Heritage Centre to present talk on Western Canadian Jewish anarchists, including Feivel Simkin
By BERNIE BELLAN Maria Tarasova-Chomard is a young (24 year old) student, originally from Russia, now living in Paris, who will be presenting a talk on Western Canadian Jewish anarchists for the Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada on Sunday, October 3rd.
In the September 1st article I noted that I would have more about my interview with Maria in our September 15 issue, including some detailed information about certain Jewish individuals who were leading anarchists in Winnipeg in the early part of the 20th century.
I should also note that Maria is the first student winner of the Switzer-Cooperstock prize, given for an original essay on a subject relating to Western Canadian Jewish history. The Switzer-Cooperstock prize is awarded biennially, with the new student prize awarded in alternate years.
Returning to my conversation with Maria, which occurred over Zoom on August 24 while Maria was in her Paris home, I asked her “whether there were any names of well-known Jewish anarchists from Western Canada that” she could “throw out for the benefit of readers”?
Maria responded: “Yes, there were the Prasow brothers – Zalman and Israel – they were the leaders of the movement actually. Then there was Feivel (Frank) Simkin.”
Saying the name “Feivel Simkin” certainly triggered a greater interest on my part, since the Simkin name is so well known within the Jewish community. While I don’t want to preempt anything Maria might have to say during her talk on October 3rd, I’m sure reading the name “Simkin”, followed by the word “anarchist” might come as a bit of a surprise to at least some readers.
Following my conversation with Maria, I sent an email to Stan Carbone, curator of the Jewish Heritage Centre, in which I noted that Maria had said that Feivel Simkin was a leading anarchist in Winnipeg – which came as a surprise to me. I had known that Feivel Simkin had been the publisher of the Israelite Press, but beyond that, I knew nothing about the man.
So, Stan sent me a transcript of an interview that Roz Usiskin had conducted with Feivel Simkin in 1977, in which he tells his life story – also how he defines “anarchism”. Here is what he said at one point in the interview: “They believed that you should educate yourself, and then you didn’t need government to look after you.”
I said to Maria that I’d always been a little unclear how to define “anarchist”. I said to her that I thought the anarchist movement had begun in the late 19th century, but she said it actually began earlier than that – “in the beginning of the 19th century”, but the “period of the flourishing of the movement was really toward the end of the century”.
I asked Maria to give me “a Cole’s Notes definition of ‘anarchism’”.
Maria answered: “The most important aspect is that it’s a movement that believes in a society based on community, based on unity, and denies constraint and privilege.”
I asked: “But doesn’t it reject most forms of government authority?”
Maria responded: “Yes, but that comes from a rejection of constraint and privilege. Every state, every government (according to anarchists) is based on constraint and privilege – and hierarchy.”
As our conversation continued, I asked Maria how easy is it to actually identify individuals in the early 20th century in Winnipeg as “anarchists”?
She said it is difficult to do because “there are very few records and since the movement was essentially clandestine, they were actually paying attention not to keep evidence as to who was an anarchist, but when I talk about the ‘anarchist’ movement’ in my work, I talk not only about those who were directly involved in the organizations and activities of the organizations, but also everyone who was interested in the ideas – who called themselves radicals or libertarians.
“We can distinguish two circles. There was the core – the actual activists, the organizers – and there were those who participated in events, were sort of around”, but who couldn’t necessarily be described as ‘anarchists’.”
I asked what documentation might have existed that would have led Maria to conclude that the Prasow brothers and Feivel Simkin were the leaders of the anarchist movement?
Maria said it was mostly through “correspondence” among those three figures, especially correspondence between the Prasows and the leading American anarchist at the time, Emma Goldman (who actually stayed with the Prasows in their house at one time when she visited Winnipeg, Maria noted).
I wondered though, whether that correspondence would have been conducted in English or Yiddish – since Yiddish would have been the mother tongue of those early 20th century anarchists.
Maria explained that English was the preferred language of the anarchists, especially since Emma Goldman had insisted that anarchists’ writing be in English, so that it would be understood by “the generation born in America”.
As a result of this emphasis on the next generation, “a lot of their effort went into education,” Maria said.
Given the anarchists’ objection to governmental authority, I wondered whether there was a convergence between anarchism and the kibbutz movement, for instance, which was also predicted on a rejection of authority?
Maria suggested though that there was a fundamental divide between anarchism and Zionism. For anarchists, “the nation should either not exist or should only exist until there are not any nations at all. The Zionist movement (in contrast) was about Jewish nationalism. For anarchists, building the nation or an ethnic movement was not important at all.”
But, just how many identifiable anarchists were there in Winnipeg in the early part of the 20th century, I wondered? “Would they have been in the hundreds?” I asked Maria.
“Oh no,” she answered. “I’ve been able to identify only five or six of them.” (And yet, in Roz Usiskin’s interview with Feivel Simkin, he referred to Emma Goldman filling a hall with 700 attendees when she spoke in Winnipeg, so surely that must have been more than a passing interest in anarchy among a great many Winnipeg Jews in the early 20th century.)
Still, as Maria pointed out, “they may have been people who were simply interested in going to a talk.”
Was anarchism more than a “fringe movement” then? I asked.
“Oh yes,” Maria responded. “They were noticeable in the ideological landscape of the time, especially before (the Winnipeg General) Strike, in 1919. They were bringing about real change in the sense that their influence, their contribution to real projects, to social education was pretty noticeable –and pretty impressive, for the time. It wasn’t just a marginal group, even though it was a lot less numerous than some of the other currents.”
During our entire conversation, the discussion was confined to Jewish anarchists. I wondered, however, whether Maria had come across any references to non-Jewish anarchists during that period in the early 20th century?
“It’s not something I have found a lot of mention about,” Maria answered. “I know there was quite a lot of cooperation in the United States between Jewish and Italian anarchists – and with Spanish anarchists toward the 1930s, and with German groups” as well, “but in Canada it’s truly hard to say (whether there was much involvement by non-Jews in the anarchist movement). “I have not been able to find any mention of that.”
Local News
Epic court battle shaping up between Etz Chayim Congregation and two former members who are now barred from setting foot in Etz Chayim
By BERNIE BELLAN Introduction: This story had originally been posted Friday morning, August 14, with a photo of Etz Chayim Synagogue. Then we received an email from Morissa Granove, COO of Etz Chayim Congregation:
“Hi Bernie.
“This request is not about the article itself but the safety of our shul. We have been advised not to post the address or photos of our Jewish organizations publicly for some time for security reasons. Can I please ask that you change the image posted online (and planned for print if needed) and that in this be kept in mind for the future?
“Thank you so much for your understanding,
“Morissa”
We replied:
“Gee Morissa – I’ll do that but maybe you better ask Google to remove any mention of any Winnipeg synagogue because all anyone has to do is do a Google search and they’ll come up with a complete list of Winnipeg synagogues and their addresses – also photos! Do you want me to contact Google for you? Can’t be too careful, can we?
Now, here’s the story as it was originally posted:
The date October 7 carries a huge amount of significance for Jews around the world: It was the date that members of Hamas and other terrorist groups launched a murderous attack on innocent Israelis (and members of other nationalities) that resulted in the deaths of more than 1200 people and the abduction of 251 others.
But it is also a date that may have a significance of a different sort come this October 7 when a Winnipeg courtroom will be the scene of a court case in what is shaping up to be a momentous legal battle between Congregation Etz Chayim and two former members of the congregation who have been barred from attending services – or even setting foot inside the building that houses Congregation Etz Chayim.
Before publishing this article I had sent copies to both sides in the dispute – and offered both sides the opportunity to correct any mistakes they might have found in what I had written. I did receive responses from both sides and have incorporated their suggested corrections into what follows.
The two individuals involved at the heart of this dispute are both former longstanding members of Etz Chayim – and before that, Rosh Pina Congregation: Dr. Emet Eviatar (previously known as Hadass), who had been the Torah reader at Etz Chayim for many years, and who had also led Sunday services; and her husband, well known scientist Dr. David Hoult (who played a leading role in the development of MRI technology and was also very active in the congregation). Drs. Eviatar and Hoult have filed suit against CEC over what they claim was the illegal termination of their membership.
In response, however, Congregation Etz Chayim asserts that it was not a question of membership when CEC exercised its right to refuse entry on the advise of the WPS and security experts who were consulted after a deeply concerning letter was received from one of the plaintiffs by the synagogue.
The filings in this particular case are in the hundreds of pages. I spent two recent afternoons at the Law Courts poring over the filings, and photographed pages of what I thought were some of the most relevant issues at hand so that I could quote accurately from those filings.
While the case may seem hugely complicated, given the number of pages of documents that have already been filed, it seems that it boils down to two essential issues: Did CEC violate its own bylaws (or its own constitution, as the case may be, because at the time of the events in question a bylaw which would have governed who might be excluded from belonging to the congregation had not yet been passed) by terminating the memberships of Dr. Emet Eviatar and Dr. David Hoult? The argument advanced by the plaintiffs is not that a congregation cannot decide who can belong to that congregation. Rather, it is an argument that CEC did not properly adhere to its own bylaws in the manner in which it has excluded the plaintiffs from attending – or even setting foot inside Etz Chayim.
But, a second issue in play – and one which is argued forcefully by CEC in one of its briefs is that the argument Emet Eviatar and David Hoult are advancing has no place in the courts in the first place. As is noted in one of the briefs filed on behalf of CEC: “The dispute is, at its core, about the internal governance of a religious congregation. It concerns who may participate in communal worship, who may participate in communal religious life, and how a synagogue governs itself in response to legitimate security concerns. If it is accepted that the dispute was about ideological differences, as alleged by the Applicants, then these are fundamentally religious questions. The court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters, and ought not to intervene.”
How the parties arrived at this situation is a complicated – but very interesting story.
I, myself was first made aware that something unusual was going on between CEC and David Hoult when I received this email from Dr. Hoult on Friday afternoon May 30, 2025, at 12:42 pm:
“Hi Bernie,
“I have just had a pair of police officers at the door telling me that we are now banned from Etz Chayim and if we show up the police will be called, no reasons given. I suspect it was an accumulation of things, including a letter I sent.
“Shabbat shalom,
“David.”
Later that afternoon I received another email, this time from a member of CEC, who forwarded me an email that had been sent to congregation members by Morissa Granove, Chief Operating Officer of CEC. That email had a letter attached, which said, in part:
“On Tuesday, May 27th, we received deeply troubling correspondence from a member of our community. The nature of this communication raised serious concerns about the safety of our congregants and staff. After careful and deliberate consultation with our Board of Directors, Clergy, the Winnipeg Police Service, the Jewish Security Network, and the Secure Community Network (in partnership with the USCJ), and on their recommendations we have made the difficult but necessary decision to terminate the membership of this individual and all members of their household, effective immediately.
“These individuals are no longer permitted on the premises of Congregation Etz Chayim, nor may they participate in any of our synagogue’s programs or activities.”
The letter was signed by Morissa Granove, Chief Operating Officer of CEC, and Allan Cogan, President of CEC.
What the heck was going on? I wondered. So, I emailed Morissa Granove that same afternoon:
“Hi,
“I received an email from David Hoult telling me that he is now banned from the Etz Chayim. I assume Emet Eviatar is also banned too, judging by the way your email is worded.
“I don’t know David at all – other than having received a piece he wrote about Israel and Gaza that I published to my website. I can’t begin to imagine what he might have written, but in the interest of fair reporting and fuller disclosure, can you say anything more about what he wrote in his letter?
“-Bernie Bellan
“Publisher,
“jewishpostandnews.ca
“also Associate Editor,
“The Jewish Post Winnipeg”
But, Morissa Granove did not offer any more information as to what might have been contained in that “troubling correspondence” which was received by CEC.
It was only when I went down to the Law Courts on August 10 that I was actually able to see what was in that “troubling correspondence.”
But, before I get into what was in that particular communication, even more background to this strange case is necessary.
In an email I received from CEC COO Morissa Granove following my having sent her a draft of this article, she wrote: “Congregation Etz Chayim …has never taken action based on political views. Further, CEC argues that other members, congregants, and guests share Dr. Eviatar’s views and yet there has never been an issue with their behaviour and as such, Congregation Etz Chayim has never taken action against anyone, revoked a membership, or refused entry to anyone based on their political stance.” Dr. Eviatar, in her own words, notes that she had already provoked the displeasure of some members of CEC, including staff members, by certain of her behaviours while, according to Morissa Granove, “volunteering in a leadership role and officially representing Congregation Etz Chayim. CEC …is ‘a Zionist organization’.”
Yet, according to CEC, Dr. Eviatar’s family’s attendance at Etz Chayim was never in question – until a letter was received from Dr. Eviatar’s husband.
As is noted in a brief for the plaintiffs, the following is taken from an affidavit given by Emet Eviatar, which might suggest that her membership in CEC had been called into question long before May 2025:
“In July 2024, I co-founded Manitoba Friends of Standing Together, a chapter of the international support network created by Standing Together. Standing Together is a grassroots joint Jewish and Palestinian organization in Israel which was originally created in 2015 to fight for equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel. Since the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas they have pivoted to protesting the war in Gaza.
“On October 6, 2024, I appeared as a guest on the local CBC Radio Weekend Morning Show, together with Mr. Ramsey Zeid, president of the Canadian Palestinian Association of Manitoba to discuss the importance of having local conversations between Jews and Palestinians…
“Later that week, I received a phone call from CEC Rabbi Kliel Rose and Cantor Tracy Kasner. They informed me that I would no longer be allowed to lead Sunday services. The rabbi also suggested that ‘for my own peace of mind’ I might want to consider finding another congregation (that aligns with my views.”)
“On November 4, 2024, I received an unsigned letter from CEC which was provided to me by the then executive director, Jonathan Buchwald…
“While the letter contains various false statements, and is clearly a reference to my having contact with Mr. Zeid and others in the local Palestinian community, the assertion that I was aligned with an ‘ideology which is mutually exclusive and contrary to the existence of the Jewish people and the state of Israel’ was extremely offensive and hurtful to my being an Israeli citizen, having family who live in Israel, and having served in the Israel Defence Forces.”
Later, on March 3, 2025, Emet Eviatar appeared a second time on the CBC morning weekend radio show, again with Mr. Zeid.
In an affidavit taken from Morissa Granove, Ms. Granove explained the CEC’s objection to Emet Eviatar’s publicly associating with certain individuals while officially representing Congregation Etz Chayim (noting that CEC’s objection bore no consequence to Dr.Eviatar’s or her the family’s membership.)
“This public alignment with parties opposed to Israel raised concern within CEC about potential risks surrounding the Synagogue, especially in times of heightened safety risks and awareness of antisemitic vitriol. These concerns were brought to the attention of Dr. Eviatar. She took no action to mitigate these concerns. As a result, she was removed from a volunteer leadership position she held with CEC. CEC took no action regarding either of the Applicants’ ability to attend the Synagogue as congregants.” In the email I received from Morissa Granove in response to a draft of this article, Ms. Granove added: “Still, her family’s membership was never in question.”
But, in May 2025 something happened that led the CEC to take drastic action against Emet Eviatar, David Hoult and the other members of their household. It should be explained that, according to an affidavit taken from Morissa Granove, who had stepped into the role of Chief Operations Officer of CEC in January 2025, in May 2025 CEC announced it would be adding new security measures, based on a “site security assessment from the Winnipeg Police Service. Officer Constable Justin Remillard (who) attended the Synagogue and provided guidance on improving security.
“Among other things, he advised:
“a) access to the Synagogue should be controlled;
“b) registration and entry lists should be used for programs and services at the Synagogue;”
On May 5, 2025 CEC held its Annual General Meeting. According to an affidavit taken from Ms. Granove, “During discussion relating to security protocols…David Hoult expressed opposition to security procedures such as locked doors at the Synagogue, registration requirements, and screening of visitors.”
The following is taken from an affidavit taken from Ms. Granove: “On May 22, 2025, CEC received a letter from Dr. Hoult. The most significant concern with the letter was that it stated:
‘If, G-d forbid, I wanted to attack the shul on Shabbat morning it would be trivial. A stolen motorbike, onto the lawn, Kalashnikov to shatter the windows, gun down the congregation, drive away, ditch the bike, gun, mask and clothes…” (Emphasis added)
The same affidavit states that, “In that correspondence, he again expressed opposition to security measures and described them as ‘hysteria,’ ‘paranoia,’ and ‘psychologically stupid.’ “
According to an affidavit taken from David Hoult, “My wife and I received no direct communication from CEC advising of the termination of our membership until a cheque with no accompanying letter was received in the mail on June 9, 2025.”
In an email received from Morissa Granove after I sent her a draft of this story she asked that this sentence be inserted: “Congregation Etz Chayim was interviewed extensively by the WPS before going to the home of Dr. Hoult for the service call and had all of the details which were required in order to qualify their actions.”
On September 16, 2025, Hadass (Emet) Eviatar and David Hoult filed an application in Court of King’s Bench to have the termination of their membership declared “null and void,” also seeking an “order to comply with bye-laws” (of the CEC).
In response, CEC asserts that it “has never terminated the Applicants’ membership. Rather the applicants were advised they were no longer permitted to attend the synagogue.” Morissa Granove asked that this be added: CEC “exercised its right to refuse entry on the advice of the WPS and security experts.’
Did it boil down to semantics? I wondered. CEC was saying that it hadn’t “terminated the Applicants’ membership,” yet it returned the cheque they had sent in to pay for renewal of their membership.
However, if it is the CEC’s position that, based on the plaintiffs’ claims as written, this matter is not one that should even be considered by the courts – as is noted at the beginning of this article, then arguments over whether CEC abided by its own bylaws would be moot.
Yet, if the courts might be willing to consider the issue whether CEC did not properly follow its own rules – as set out in its bylaws, then the Eviatar-Hoult case becomes more compelling.
For instance, the issue whether CEC “terminated” the memberships of Dr. Eviatar and Dr. Hoult might take on added importance.
As is noted in a brief for the plaintiffs, the letter sent out by Morissa Granove to members of CEC on May 30, 2025 states quite clearly that “We have made the difficult but necessary decision to terminate the memberships of this individual (Dr. Hoult) and all members of their household effective immediately.”
In this case the plaintiffs (Drs. Eviatar and Hoult) are arguing the nowhere within CEC’s governing constitution (which was adopted in 2014) were there “provisions for the termination of membership.” Therefore, their argument goes, “CEC had no authority to terminate their membership.”
Morissa Granove asked that this be added: “The defendant (CEC), however, argues that the CEC’s governing constitution says that “directors ‘may pass by-laws’ regulating, among other things, ‘the suspension and termination of membership by the corporation and by a member.’ The word ‘may’ is permissive.”
“Thus, CEC is arguing, therefore, that it had no obligation to actually pass a by-law governing the termination of a membership.”
As it was, the by-law was never voted upon, as, according to an affidavit given by Dr. Eviatar, CEC leadership “had not complied with the correct procedure, including giving proper notice.,
However, in her email to me Morissa Granove wrote that “the very same bylaw was passed at a Special General Meeting of the members when Congregation Etz Chayim and its lawyers provided clarity on the proposed changes, which was requested by the members at the conclusion of the AGM to clear up any issue or confusion.”
Further, the letter to CEC members that was sent on May 30, 2025, which said that “These individuals (i.e., Dr. Hoult and any members of his family) are no longer permitted on the premises of Congregation Etz Chayim, nor may they participate in any of our synagogue’s programs or activities” was signed only by the COO and President of CEC.
Whether or not CEC followed proper procedure in whatever happened to Dr. Hoult, Dr. Eviatar, and their other family members will be up to the courts to decide.
But, there is a larger issue at hand. Are there are any rules that might govern how a private organization such as a synagogue should govern itself? And, perhaps even more important, can the courts intervene at all in such a situation?
This case is shaping up to have some fascinating implications.
Local News
Ami Hassan returning as owner of Falafel Place
By BERNIE BELLAN In a surprise move – and after more than a six-year absence as owner of Falafel Place (Corydon at Wilton) the legendary Ami Hassan has decided to return as owner of one of Winnipeg’s most famous eateries.
Long known for his sometimes irreverent attitude to his customers, e.g., “If you’re finished, get out!”, Ami decided to return to running Falafel Place after having retired years ago (or so he thought) from running the Corydon Avenue restaurant.
We asked Ami whether he’ll be sending a special invitation to Julia Roberts to come visit him at Falafel Place. He asked again: “Who’s Julia Roberts?” (Just kidding – he really does know how Julia Roberts is.) Read the story how Ami told her to leave the restaurant and come back later at Julia Roberts turned away from Falafel Place
Ami did note that when customers saw him inside the restaurant one recent day as he was getting it ready for the reopening Monday, August 10, over 20 of them came in asking him if he was open already.
We asked Ami whether the menu will be the same as it was when he last ran the place and he said everything will be the same.
Falafel Place will be open 7 days a week from 7 am – 2 pm. Remember, if you’re finished – get out!
Local News
Bark Mitzvah at the Simkin Centre August 13, 2026
By BERNIE BELLAN On a beautiful summer day at the Simkin Centre residents and family members – along with staff, were treated to a delightful “dog day afternoon” when scores of dogs were brought to the front courtyard outside the centre to celebrate what was titled a “Bark Mitzvah.”
Now, no dogs were called up to the podium to read from the Torah – or even to bark out a blessing, although as I canvassed many owners of dogs that were there – inquiring as to whether their dogs had received any special training for the day, I was pleased to hear that many dogs came from good “Jewish homes” and were good “Jewish” dogs. (I would suppose, in the case of our own dog that would mean that she’s been spoiled rotten.)
Some owners though maintained that their dogs had been brought up quite disciplined – although to be honest none of the dogs that I saw seemed to be be rigorously paying attention to any commands. Most were of the Goldedoodle, Yorkie variety. There was one rescue dog in the midst. It seemed quite confused, surrounded as it was by all those lap dogs.
The entire event was presided over – with great humour, but also a certain amount of seriousness, by Rabbi Matthew Leibl, who explained to the very large audience why having a special day celebrating dogs was entirely consistent with Jewish tradition.
Following is part of the transcription of an interview I conducted with Rabbi Lebil following his remarks explaining why he thought holding a “Bark Mitzvah” would be a good event to have. (You can watch the entire video at the end of this story. But where there was a great deal of laughter coming from people who were listening to my interview YouTube inserted the word “laughter” – which should give you an idea how fun an interview it was.)
As Rabbi Leibl explained to me, “I’ll tell you a serious story. When I was training – and I trained with Rabbi Annabal Mass… our teacher, Rabbi Steven Glade, encouraged everyone to consider a blessing of the animals ceremony because he said it’s a monster event. Just look around. It brought out so many people. It’s one of those events you can tie in loosely to a Jewish event – which it is. I mean we did it on Rosh Chodesh Elul- the new year of the animals and this whole idea it’s very similar to Tu B’Shvat- reimagining something old from Mishna to do it like this – but look at the attendance. I mean everyone wants to bring their dog and at a personal care home they say that music, babies, and dogs are the three biggest things that get through to everyone.”
I had to ask about kashrut, however (as I’ve been told repeatedly that kashrut is an essential element of the Simkin Centre – no matter how few residents may care about kashrut. Look – if I’m sent to cover something as frivolous as a “Bark Mitzvah” you can hardly expect me to refrain from going after my pet bugaboo at the Simkin Centre – and how ridiculous it is to require that the centre remain kosher when most of the residents could care less about kashrut), so I said to Rabbi Leibl: “No milk bones here, I hope. I expect that this is a strictly kosher event.”
His response: “I’m not sure. I wasn’t put in charge of that, so I can’t say. But no one’s going to be serving them any of the food that we eat. I can tell [laughter] you that.”
I said: “I’m not sure how to read that. [laughter].”
I asked whether there were Jewish dogs mixed in with non-Jewish dogs? (Dog assimilation is a serious issue.)
Rabbi Leibl replied: It’s inter denominational. [laughter] . I guess I don’t think we check to see if the dogs were uh circumcised. “
I asked: “Are we… [laughter] Are we mixing Jewish and non-Jewish dogs?”
Rabbi Leibl: “I don’t know that dogs have a faith. I’m not sure. I think they do. I think they’re of all faiths. ”
I asked: “Okay. And you know where bark mitzvahs originated?”
Rabbi Leibl: I’m sure it’s probably something silly.
Me: “It was gay guys in New York.”
Rabbi Leibl: ” Really?”
Me: ” Yes. Because they didn’t have kids. They started having bark mitzvahs.”
Rabbi Leibl: “That was probably more of an individual dog thing. This is a communal thing. It’s just a catchy title for publicity, Bernie. It’s the blessing of the animals. That’s the real thing.”
Me: “I was told that some of these dogs are on medication – as are many of the residents.”
Rabbi Leibl: “That’s low hanging fruit, Bellan. Low hanging fruit.”
Here’s the complete video of my interview:
