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 2018

The AIH Transcript for November 22, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

CAROL OFF: Hello, I’m Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

JD: Tonight:

CO: A life sentence for his life's work. His PhD supervisor tells us British academic Matthew Hedges was in the U.A.E. doing research. But yesterday, a court there sentenced him to life for spying.

JD: A prison of his own unmaking. A Brazilian druglord murders a young woman in his cell to stay in a VIP facility in Paraguay — but his cold-blooded plan backfires when he's sent back to Brazil.

CO: Pride cometh before a fall. After documents show that the FBI has classified the Proud Boys an "extremist group," Gavin McInnes abruptly drops out of the organization he founded.

JD: Nickname-dropping. Their toddler is a budding athlete with dwarfism, so one family asked a basketball league in Ontario to stop using the term "midget" as an age category, it agreed.

CO: Doesn't ring a belsnickeling. A Canadian airline's in-flight magazine reveals a popular Nova Scotia Christmas tradition that no one knew about — including Nova Scotians.

JD: And...his life is nasty, brutish, and shorts. When a Winnipeg man swore not to wear long pants until the Blue Bombers won the Grey Cup, it was 2001 — and for the 18th season running, he finds himself out on two bare limbs.

JD: "As It Happens", the Thursday edition. Radio that guesses this winter could really be a gam changer.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Imprisoned academic, Proud Boys founder leaves, Blue Bomber fans

Imprisoned academic

Guest: Clive Jones

JD: His wife says he's an "innocent researcher." A court in Abu Dhabi says he's guilty. And yesterday, that court sentenced Matthew Hedges to life in prison for "spying for or on behalf" of the UK government. Friends and family say he's not a spy at all, but a British PhD student who was doing research in the UAE. Daniela Tejada — Matthew Hedges' wife — spoke to the BBC this morning.

SOUNDCLIP

DANIELA TEJADA: He was very, very scared when he was standing in front of the judge just because we knew that the possibilities of there being an arbitrary judgment were there. I asked him to look at me if he was feeling too nervous. And he tried to do so on a couple of occasions, but was asked to face the judge. And he started shaking when the translator told him the sentence. He actually had to ask to double check if he had heard right. And yeah, I mean I can imagine he's just as distraught as I am.

HOST: The Attorney-General in the Emirates has suggested that this isn't necessarily the final sentence, that there are appeals and things that can be done. How have your lawyers there talked to you about what happens now?

DT: I've only been able to speak to Matt’s court appointed lawyer once since the hearing. He said that there is possibility for appeal, and that they will be working on it. However, I feel that it shouldn't have had to get this instance. His innocence is evident. And every evidence against him is completely fabricated. And he was put through so much training for six months that absolutely nothing that he said or did could be used against him.

JD: Daniela Tejada is Matthew Hedges’ wife. In that interview, she also accused the UK government of, quote, "stepping on eggshells instead of taking a firm stance" on the case. Later in the day, however, after a meeting with Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, Ms. Tejada said he'd assured her the government was doing everything in its power to get her husband home. Clive Jones is Matthew Hedges' supervisor at Durham University, where he was doing his PhD. We reached Mr. Jones in North Yorkshire, England.

CO: Professor Jones we just heard Matthew Hedges’ wife, Daniela Tejada. And she sounds justifiably very, very distraught. Do you share her deep concerns about Matthew Hedges today?

CLIVE JONES: Yes, we do. We were utterly shocked at Durham University, where Matt was reading for his PhD, at the severity of the sentence. And indeed, we've always maintained throughout his absolute innocence at the charges of espionage which have be laid before him. And I would echo Daniela’s sentiment that really the only just course of action is for Matt to be immediately released. The Emiratis have passed sentence on a totally innocent man.

CO: Now, can you just tell us how all this began? What sort of research was Matthew Hedges doing in the Emirates?

CJ: Well, Matt was no stranger to the Emirates. He had lived there on-and-off since the age of nine. His parents are expats who have worked out there. His research was actually looking at civil military relations in the United Arab Emirates post-Arab Spring. And what he was doing was to take an existing body of theoretical literature, which explains the ideal type of civil military relations, and looked at how the various political tides, the various political eddies reshaped much of the Middle East since the Arab uprisings of the Arab Spring had impacted upon the United Arab Emirates.

CO: And they consider this spying. How did he go about his work? Was he doing anything clandestine?

CJ: Nothing whatsoever. Before we allow our students to conduct field work, they have to pass what's called an Ethics Committee. And at the Ethics Committee, they have to submit the questions they will be asking their interviewees to ensure that there is nothing that could be seen or appear to be interpreted as being untoward or in any sense shape or form necessarily offensive or risky. So the questions that Matt had prepared have to also be given in advance to his interviewees. And I should also add that most of the people that Matt was going out to interview he had he knew. And this included senior Emirati military officers, who he had actually written speeches for. So as far as we were concerned at Durham, all the research, the questions, were all above board. I mean it's quite obvious that if we thought there was any sense shape or form of risk to him, we would never let him go in the first place.

CO: But the topics themselves — civil military relations in the post-Arab Spring United Arab Emirates. I mean that is sensitive, is it not? I mean military post-Arab Spring people were arrested during the Arab Spring in the UAE — including some academics. Was that not some risk involved?

CJ: We didn't think so. Again, if you look at all the material that Matt had gathered, it was all based upon secondary source material. The whole literature on military civil relations, not least in the Arab world, is based upon a well-known literature — at least well known to academics. And again, I repeat that the very people he was going out to interview had agreed to be interviewed. It wasn't as though he had just sort of turned up and doorsteped them.

CO: Do you know how he is doing? You know Matthew Hedges. How is he responding to the conditions? I understand he was in solitary confinement for some time.

CJ: That's absolutely correct. I mean we now know that the Matt has suffered from severe anxiety, from panic attacks, he's had fits of vomiting because of his nerves. And I think this has taken a very, very heavy toll him mentally. We were concerned that he was not getting the right or adequate medication. And, moreover, that medication was not being administered by trained doctors. And we were concerned that perhaps the medicines that were being given to Matt were creating a form of addiction.

CO: I want to ask you about the trial itself because the UAE says that it was a fair and transparent process and that Matthew Hedges they'd found espionage material on his computer. And he had confessed to the crime of spying. So how do you respond to that?

CJ: Well, first of all, I don't see how a trial can actually be fair when it's ultimately a five-minute hearing. And Matt’s lawyer was not in attendance. So the basis on which it's fair, I would like the Emirati authorities to properly explain that. As regards sensitive material being found on his computer and the confession, well first of all, given the conditions under which he was held in solitary confinement for the first six weeks, and very, very limited access to consular officials, which is contrary to normal UN conventions. And the conditions in which he was held. He was only allowed irregular use, for example, of toilet facilities and washing facilities. He was given absolutely no access whatsoever to reading materials, be they newspapers or apolitical novels, books, and so on and so forth. So after six weeks of those conditions, and with very limited contact, I think most people would confess to being anything. I mean I’d probably in those conditions confessed to be the pope. I'd say one thing as well on these charges of spying if I might? Traditionally, the Emirates and the UK had a very, very close security and defence relationship. Britain could get most of the information, if not all of the information, on defence issues simply by asking the Emirati authorities. So this idea that they would have to recruit Matthew as a spy to somehow uncover some deep dark secrets is fanciful. Matt was wandering around the Emirates, go to his interviews with pre-prepared questionnaires, a Dictaphone, and in some of the interviews he conducted, his mother was in tow. So please tell me what kind of spy is that?

CO: All right, we'll be watching. Professor Jones, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

CJ: My pleasure. Thank you very much indeed.

JD: Clive Jones is Matthew Hedges' PhD supervisor. We reached him in North Yorkshire, England. Today, the UAE denied claims that Mr. Hedges "was asked to sign documents he did not understand" — and said it was hoping to find an "amicable solution" with the UK in the case. It has previously said Mr. Hedges was treated "in keeping with obligations under UAE law and international norms." To hear this interview again, and see a photograph of Matthew Hedges, visit our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Sombre]

Proud Boys founder leaves

Guest: Barbara Perry

JD: "An extremist group with ties to white nationalism". That's how the FBI categorizes the group known as Proud Boys. We learned that earlier this week, when an investigative document produced by Washington state law enforcement — which references the Proud Boys and their activities — came to light. The renewed focus has provoked a stunning about-face from Proud Boys founder, Gavin McInnes. Yesterday, in a video posted to social media, he announced he was quitting the far-right group. Professor Barbara Perry is the director of the Centre on Hate, Bias, and Extremism, at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. We reached her in Toronto.

CO: Professor Perry, when you heard the news that Gavin McInnes had quit Proud Boys, what did you think?

BARBARA PERRY: Initially, before I read more about it, I thought that perhaps he had become disenchanted by the aggressive stance that the movement had been taking in recent years. Because it seemed to me like the movement started… I’ve described it as a bunch of frat boys. They really were hard to take seriously in early days. But have become increasingly aggressive and violent, in fact, in their stance. So my thought was well, perhaps he’s stepped away. But yeah, that's clearly not the case now that I've seen parts of the video.

CO: You don't believe this is about disavowing the violence that took place in New York in October, which is what it seems to be rooted in?

BP: No, I think it's distancing himself from those who've been accused, as he said, so that will play favourably for them when they go to court. And I really think that that is his motivation here. I really feel that he will continue to be a thought leader for the movement, regardless of whether he says he's part of it or not.

CO: In fact, he says this in this rambling YouTube video that he hopes that by him stepping down that it will mitigate things for the Proud Boys who have been charged in the United States with the violence that took place after one of his talks.

BP: Yeah, he’s trying to protect them. And you know these references to being a gang, and the assumption being that you know if there's no leader, it can't possibly be a gang or an organized group of any sort. You know gangs and groups — violent or nonviolent — don't need to have a leader to succeed and to prosper and to share a worldview. So they'll continue in their Western chauvinist vein, if you will, regardless of whether he comes and whether he describes himself as a leader or not.

CO: You use the term Western chauvinism, which is how he describes it. Others say it's a white nationalist or white supremacist organization. Would you agree with that?

BP: Yeah, I think it's a white nationalist, and I would say even you know a sort of patriarchal nationalism as well. I think you know I've got to say it's quite clever to combine Western and chauvinism there because you know it highlights their valuation of you know Western values relative to all others. But also, that chauvinist piece we tend to associate that with male chauvinism, don't we? And so it also implies that misogynistic thread that runs through the Proud Boys specifically.

CO: The FBI has now classified the Proud Boys as, quote, “an extremist group with ties to white nationalism”. Do you think that's an accurate classification?

BP: I think they're an extremist group, and that they are certainly tied to white nationalists. He's tried to deny that again and again. They've been present at many events with others who are self-identified as nationalists — Charlottesville for example, and other rallies across the U.S. and Canada as well.

CO: Gavin McInnes gave the speech in New York in October, after which there was this altercation with protesters and Proud Boys. And now, nine of the Proud Boy members have either been charged and arrested, or are being sought by New York police. But during that event, Gavin McInnes did a kind of re-enactment of the assassination of a Japanese socialist leader. And he says he wasn't intending to promote violence, but did he, and does he, play a role in inciting violence like we saw in New York?

BP: Yeah, perhaps he didn't call for violence. He didn't say you know go out and beat an Antifa. Although, that is one of their there are levels of initiation is to beat up a member of the Antifa, so we mustn't forget that. But you know he's very careful I think in his speeches — his public statements — to not incite to violence explicitly. It's more about sort of riling up emotion, riling up hatred and vitriol directed towards particular groups that then is easily read as an invitation, or at least permission, to engage in violence. You know that's a standard trope in narrative of the far-right and the alt-right in this era is to say we don't condone violence. Well, at the same time, being involved in violent interactions, and being involved in violent assaults.

CO: What classification do the Proud Boyd have in Canada? If the FBI regards it as an extremist group with ties to white nationalism, how is it classified here?

BP: It's not classified. It's not considered officially or unofficially I think as a far-right group or as an extremist group. We have a national list of terrorist entities. But the way that they are listed, there has to be already evidence and engagement in terrorist violence. So we don't have that sort of extremis category. And, of course, the way that terrorism is defined there would probably not include the sort of violence that the Proud Boys have been involved with. We tend to draw very different lines around far-right terrorism or extremism and other forms, and in particular, Islamist-inspired extremism and terrorism. They're rarely equated in the eyes of public officials.

CO: The former chief of Australia's border force said that their government should refuse Gavin McInnes a visa for a planned tour because he poses a greater threat to community safety than some Muslim preachers who have recently been denied visas on character grounds. How do you think Canada should respond to Gavin McInnes?

BP: It's interesting; I just read that this morning. And I was a little taken aback because it's rare that you hear that kind of equation being drawn between you know the two types of extremism. You know, I would like to see our leaders make a similar statement that you know these sorts of groups and this sort of rhetoric is not in line with our values, and does not have a place in our culture. Now, you know in legal terms, our legislation is so weak that we are in you know an untenable position I think in those terms. You know our propaganda legislation is weak. We really don't have hate speech legislation or the sorts of restrictions that we had under Section 13 around hate speech in the human rights code. It’s a difficult legal challenge.

CO: Do you think anything will change for people who are charged? Will make a difference for them that Gavin McInnes has seemingly stepped down?

BP: No, I don't think that will make a difference. Their actions or their actions, and the rhetoric that inspires them remains the same, regardless of whether there is a putative leader or not.

CO: We will leave it there. Professor Perry, thank you.

BP: Thank you.

JD: Professor Barbara Perry is the director of the Centre on Hate, Bias and Extremism, at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. We reached her in Toronto.

[Music: Indie rock]

Blue Bomber fan

Guest: Chris Matthew

JD: In this Sunday's Grey Cup Final, the Calgary Stampeders will face off against the Ottawa Redblacks. And that is especially disappointing to one fan of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers: Chris Matthew. Chris Matthew wasn't just hoping his football team would make the championship. He was also kinda hoping he could put on some pants. You see, a long, long time ago, Mr. Matthew made a bet: until the Winnipeg Blue Bombers won the Grey Cup, he would not wear pants. We reached Chris Matthew in Winnipeg.

CO: Chris, this seems like such a personal question. But may I ask are you wearing pants right nowÉ

CHRIS MATTHEW: No, I'm not actually. I don't know how you knew that wasn't the case. But no, I'm in shorts.

CO: It is quite cold out. So are you wearing just shorts around the house, or would you wear them out?

CM: Well actually, right now, I'm sitting in my car on my way home from work. So I wear them all over the place.

CO: May I ask how long have you been pantsless?

CM: I've been pantsless now going on 17 years come this Sunday.

CO: There is a reason for that, isn't there?

CM: There is. This Sunday, as most people will know, is the Grey Cup. And 17 years ago, in this same week, I was wearing shorts because it was a very nice November. And someone asked me how long I would be wearing the shorts? So I said just off hand well, until the Blue Bombers win the Grey Cup. They were 14 and four playing Calgary at eight and 10 that Sunday and they proceeded to lose. So I've been waiting for 17 years for them to actually win the cup.

CO: What gave you confidence that day 17 years ago that you would actually be wearing shorts only for about six days?

CM: Winnipeg was by far the better team statistically. And I'd actually talked to a couple of the Bombers the previous week, and they were pretty much guaranteeing the win. So I went with that.

CO: Why would you not believe them? They told you that they were going to win.

CM: Absolutely! I mean I'm a trusting person; they hadn't lied to me before.

CO: So for 17 years, all year, you wear shorts?

CM: Yes.

CO: We’ll point out at this point, in case people didn't notice this, you don't live in Dallas, or Seattle, or Arizona. You live in Winnipeg.

CM: Yes, I do.

CO: And I think it's known to get somewhat chilly there in the winter.

CM: Well, we've had already this year we've had minus 20s with windchills closer to minus 30. So yeah, it can get a little cool.

CO: And do you ever give in? Do you wrap yourself in blankets? What do you do in that cold weather?

CM: Well, during the winter, I'm not an outdoors kind of guy anyways, so it's just going to work or going to a specific destination. So it's house to car, car to destination, and then reverse it going home. But if I have to go out and shovel the snow or something like that, then I put on long johns, and I put the shorts over the top of them.

CO: Okay. So this pantsless lifestyle you have had for 17 years, how does it work when you have to do like social things? Well it depends on what the social thing is. I have made an exception, and this isn't a bet with anybody, so I don't lose anything, this is what I said I would do. So I could go back to pants at a time. But I've made about a dozen exceptions, and that's the go to funerals. I will put pants on to go to funerals. But other social occasions, because of my Scottish heritage, I wear a kilt, so I get away with it that way.

CO: You're a teacher, and I think you still sub as a teacher, right?

CM: That's right.

CO: What do the students think of you?

CM: Depends on how old the students are. The kids when I was in junior high I thought it was really neat. And, no pun intended, thought it was cool. As I started teaching older students, they started to look at it a little skeptically. But I did point out that if I tell you I'm going to do something, I'll do something. So they took it from there.

CO: And what does the administration think of this dress code?

CM: As long as they weren't like catty cut off, they really didn't have a problem with it. Nobody has ever said as far as administration or my bosses that I couldn't wear them.

CO: I understand you did have a job interview in the course of this. How did that go?

CM: It went well. Hiring in Winnipeg happened in May and June, so it was the summer anyways. So it was warm, and I went in for the interview in a fairly nice pair of shorts, and so I guess we thought it was just casual. But after they hired me, and they asked me, I told them that this is what they were gonna get for the entire year.

CO: And they're cool with that?

CM: Yeah, they were I. The only time I've ever been turned away for anything for wearing shorts, and this is the most ironic, it was a restaurant in Mexico. They said I couldn't come in because I didn't have pants.

CO: Now, as you spend all these years freezing your whatever off. Is there ever a day when you're out there freezing that you think I just got to go in and get pants on?

CM: Maybe in the first couple of years. But I'm so used to it now. I mean you'd be surprised how used to it you get.

CO: Yes, I would be.

CM: I mean I see women wandering around in winter with dresses and nylons, and it's kind of the same thing. I don't have the nylons, but it's kind of the same thing. So yeah, you get used to it.

CO: What does your wife think of this?

CO: Chris, it's good to talk to you.

CM: Well, thank you.

CO: Bye.

CM: Bye.

JD: Chris Matthew is a diehard Winnipeg Blue Bombers fan. It has been 17 years since he has worn pants. We reached him in Winnipeg.

[Music: Instrumental]

Part two: Brazil drug lord, ‘midget’ term sports

Brazil drug lord

Guest: Santi Carneri

JD: It seems cartel boss Marcelo Pinheiro was willing to do anything to avoid being extradited from a jail cell in Paraguay to a jail cell in Brazil — even murder. Last weekend, an 18-year old woman was allowed to visit Mr. Pinheiro alone in his cell. He murdered her. Then, his lawyer demanded he be tried in Paraguay for the crime — presumably to keep him in his VIP jail cell in the country. It didn't work. Marcelo Pinheiro has been whisked away to Brazil to face more homicide charges — as well as charges for arms smuggling and drug trafficking. Santi Carneri is a freelance journalist. We reached him in Asuncion, Paraguay.

CO: Santi, what do you know about how this young woman ended up in the jail cell of Marcelo Pinheiro?

SANTI CARNERI: Well, she was a very poor worker. And she was in the city taking care of an old woman. That was what the lawyer of the family said to the press. We don't know nothing else about her.

CO: How was she killed?

SC: Well, she was killed inside a jail in the high-security prison of Asuncion. She was inside the same cell in the same jail where was Marcelo Pinheiro. He killed her. He murdered her with a little knife that can be used for desserts. It was inside Pineiro’s cell.

CO: It was like a little butter knife or something, and he stabbed her repeatedly?

SC: Exactly, first, he hit her in the head, and then he used the knife like 16 times in her body to kill her.

CO: Oh my! And how could the authorities in the prison allow this young woman to be in the same jail cell as this notorious drug lord?

SC: That's exactly what every single person is asking here in Paraguay. What we think, because this is what the authorities said, is there is so many corruption in the Paraguayan prison system that these kind of things can happen easily every day. All the inmates that were inside the jail have different privilege and that are not allowed by the Paraguayan law.

CO: Now, as soon as she was killed, Mr. Pinheiro’s lawyer immediately said that he should be charged with her murder. Why is that? Why did he want so quickly… he wanted to be accused and charged with this murder? Why is that?

SC: Apparently, Marcelo Pinheiro was trying to stay in Paraguay. He's like leader of a very big organization from Brazil. And he's afraid to go back to Brazil because he can be killed there by the other organization from Brazil also that is in a fight against him.

CO: So he killed this woman in order to be charged in Paraguay, and then stay in Paraguay, and not have to go back to Brazil? That's the only reason why he murdered her?

SC: It looks like the main reason. He was trying to stay and not go back to Brazil, where he is condemned to 26 years of jail for other crimes.

CO: I understand it's quite comfortable for people like Mr. Pinheiro in the jails in Paraguay, is that right?

SC: Yeah, it's right. I mean most of the Brazilian narco are happy to stay in Paraguay because they can buy all the things that they could need from the prison. They can get a TV, they can get a good bed, they can also pay to get prostitutes inside.

CO: Because it's completely corrupt?

SC: Completely corrupt, yes.

CO: What will conditions be like for Mr. Pinheiro now that he's been extradited to Brazil? Because his efforts to not go back have failed, and so what will it be like now that he's in Brazil?

SC: Well, the first news that I write from Rio de Janeiro, from Brazil, yesterday, after he was extradited is that he's in a very high-security prison in Brazil; one of the most important prisons. He have no access to cell phone, he have no access to other inmates.

CO: But at the same time, OK Back in Paraguay, there is a family of this young woman who has been murdered. There’s been a crime committed in Paraguay. How are people reacting to the fact that the murderer of this young woman is has left the country?

SC: Well, the Paraguayans for sure are in shock. But the government didn't take care too much about this woman and her family because the funeral was without any help from the government. The family was alone taking care of the girl inside their little town. But the president of Paraguay said yesterday that he is like supporting a new law to try to fight the international crime organizations.

CO: It sounds like they have quite a free ride. I mean and I also just want to ask you about Mr. Pinheiro’s attempts to escape from jail in Paraguay. How did those go?

SC: Pinheiro was trying to free from Paraguayan jail. So he contact many different sicarios, or commandos, soldiers from his own organization to try to free him. And the last one, they were planning to exploit the car in front of the door of the jail.

CO: Good heavens! And now I guess now what we're seeing in Brazil is that the new president is going to he says he's going to be tough on crime, he's going to crack down on the drug cartels and the drug lords. Do people in Paraguay fear that you're going to have even more of these characters who are going to come into Paraguay and start running their operations in your country?

SC: I don't know what to say because we don't know if this can be worst. So we think that this is going to be a very long fight.

CO: And it can't get worse. Santi, it’s just a very, very depressing story about what's going on. But I appreciate…

SC: I’m sorry.

CO: No, we asked you, and we need to know. Thank you so much for speaking with us.

SC: Thanks to you. Thank you. Bye bye.

JD: Santi Carneri is a freelance journalist. We reached him in Asuncion, Paraguay.

[Music: Hip-hop]

Vince Carter dunk

ANNOUNCER Carter gets it back to him. And Vince dunks it for 25,000. Welcome to the Pantheon of the greatest stories in NBA history.

JD: That was the moment last night when Vince Carter slammed down a milestone. In the final seconds of the game, the All-Star dunked — making him one of less two-dozen NBA players to score scored 25-thousand career points. Mr. Carter plays for the Atlanta Hawks, and yesterday's game was against his former team the Toronto Raptors, where he played the first seven seasons of his NBA career. Mr. Carter is now in his 21st season. Here's what he had to say, after the game.

VINCE CARTER: What a way to accomplish it. You know, it got to the point I was just pressing because I just wanted to get it over with. It's a special moment. I definitely knew about it. You hear about it; you can't help. But I just try to play for the good of the team, and not worry about that. I've always said if you stick around long enough, you start to pass people, you start accomplishing wonderful things like this, and you know, of course, to be an elite group is what you always wish to be. But my job more so is just to be a leader and support the team, and not really worry about the points. I've had my time when I was putting up big numbers. But I'll tell you what, it's a huge weight lifted off my shoulder. Man, this is awesome.

JD: Vince Carter, speaking with a Fox Sports Reporter, After reaching the 25-thousand career point mark.

[Music: Up tempo]

‘Midget’ term sports

Guest: Regina Scott

JD: The terms are so common in youth sports that, when we register our kids, we barely even register them. There's atom, peewee, bantam, and midget. The nicknames for age classifications in youth sport leagues, whether it's hockey, baseball or basketball. That last age division — midget — struck a nerve with one Guelph family, who are members of a local youth basketball league. And now, that league has agreed to drop the term entirely — and the Ontario Basketball Association has followed suit. Regina Scott is a mother of three in Guelph. That's where we reached her.

CO: Regina, what was it about your own family that made you want to get this term “midget” drop from the age groups in basketball.

REGINA SCOTT: So we are parents to three kids, and our youngest was born with achondroplasia, which is the most common form of dwarfism. So as we were learning about our son's condition, we are also educating ourselves, and came to the realization that the word midget is very derogatory. It's hurtful, it's offensive, it has a history of only negative connotation towards people of short stature. And it was confusing for us because we said oh, I had no idea. As we assumed so many other people didn't know. But one thing that kind of sparked our attention was that it is commonly used in sports.

CO: And your son who has dwarfism is Jeremy? How old is he?

RS: Jeremy is two and a half.

CO: Your husband is a coach at the basketball league?

RS: Yes, he is — for several years now.

CO: So what was it like for him when he was continuing to coach after you got this diagnosis for Jeremy? And for Chris, it must have been quite something to see this term midget turn up in all age groups?

RS: Yeah, yeah, it's hurtful. Because when you're referring to a person with dwarfism as a midget, you're forgetting that they're a person with a condition. They're not a midget. They're not their condition. That's not what defines them. And so when it's constantly tossed around in sports, and in those circles, it's one of those things where it has now a personal meaning.

CO: Now, when you approached the basketball league in Guelph to drop the word, did you get any pushback from them when you ask them hey, do you think you could do this?

RS: No, not at all. It was it was amazing. It goes to show how progressive the association is, and you know just what a positive impact they want to have on all kids. They said we thank you for bringing us to our attention. We had absolutely no idea. And you know a lot of the problem is it's just been that way for so long. You know people get into habits, and they just never really thought to look into it, or of course not. Why would you, right? Until you're affected by something, it doesn't have any meaning to you.

CO: What's interesting is that decision in the part of the Guelph Basketball League is now the Ontario Basketball Association has also said the same thing. Well, it’s kind of a no-brainer; let’s drop midget from the vocabulary. Did you expect that to happen?

RS: No, but honestly, we were so grateful — like so overjoyed. It does a lot for a community of people and their families and their siblings. And I think of my older children in a couple of years being in that level, and I know that it would be one of those things that they're cringing every time they're hearing a word that is essentially you know belittling their little brother, or dehumanizing his condition. It could be called anything. The English language is rich of vocabulary. And I think the classification that they came up with is you know so simple; it's minor.

CO: And where does it come from? I mean just looking at it, there's novice, atom, bantam, midget. How did that actually become a category?

RS: I don't know. I have no idea. A lot of the feedback we're getting is it's been like that forever. In fact, when my husband played basketball, he was in that level you know when he was 14 and 15. And again, he said same thing to me it’s like I never I never gave it a second thought. I didn't know you know. For the people it has no effect on, it doesn't change anything. It's still going to be the same caliber of basketball. It's still going to be the same game. It just has a different classification level.

CO: Do you think it's possible it will spread to other sports? Because most of them use this term, don't they?

RS: Yeah, and that's what our hope is that you know it sets a precedent for other age groups changing all the names to either like you know by age level like youth 17, youth 16, 15, going down, which would be great. It would be to be wonderful if other people followed suit, other sports. I know that this change has brought on people to say well, I'm going to check my son plays this sport or my daughter plays this sport, and I'd like to see that change happen all across the board because there's nothing positive about that word. And there's nothing meaningful about it.

CO: So you got a lot of positive feedback, positive reaction. People say this is a small thing we can do to make a big difference. I understand you also had negative responses. Some pretty nasty things. What kinds of what kinds of reactions?

RS: Really surprising. But again, I think you know you have to take in consideration that when you're hiding behind a keyboard, it's easy to try to be vocal, and say everyone's too sensitive. And people just have to grow a thicker skin. But I would love to tell those people that until you're affected by anything, whether it be a condition, whether it be mental health, or you know someone, or personally your eyes have been opened to it, then you're always going to say oh, everyone complains. But it's easy to sit back and criticize behind a keyboard rather than we did a positive thing for a group of people and their families. And I just have to keep focusing on that. But yeah, there's been some hateful things said. It doesn't make any sense. It shows how much more education needs to be done. Like, the fact that we have to almost justify that it would be great if you could just respect these people as people instead of labeling them, and getting rid of these labels that have negative connotation for that specific group of people. The language has changed over the years. There's word that you know I'm sure ten-20 years ago were flying around even on the radio. And now, people wouldn't think of saying them. And it's progress. And it's wonderful.

CO: Well done, Regina. And thanks for speaking with us.

RS: Thank you.

CO: Take care. Bye bye.

RS: Thanks for your interest. Take care. Bye.

JD: Regina Scott has a young son with Dwarfism. Her family convinced a local youth basketball league in Guelph, Ontario, along with the Ontario Basketball Association, to drop the term "midget" from their age classifications. For more on this story, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: World music]

Belsnickeling

JD: Ah, Christmas — that time of year when you put on a mask and travel from house to house lugging a chain and praying someone will figure out who you are so you can get hammered. My fellow Nova Scotians know what I'm talking about — or at least according to Porter Airlines, you do. Now this came to our attention via a Twitter user by the name of Emily who tweeted: “Could the Nova Scotian who fed this hilarious lie to Porter please show yourself.” Attached was a photograph of an article called “Tis the Season” from the porter in-flight magazine. And the section in question reads as follows, and I quote, “When it comes to sharing Christmas treats, most of Nova Scotians will gladly braved the frigid temperatures belsnickeling around the icy streets of their hometowns. The tradition introduced by German immigrants in the 1750s sees folks donning Santa costumes to visit their neighbours jangling chains and bells. Revelers challenge on lookers to guess the identity of each belsnickel. Get it right, and you'll be rewarded with a piece of Christmas cake and a hot drink — preferably a toddy, to wash it down.” Unquote. What fun! And yet, what fun. I mean I'm from Nova Scotia. I grew up there. I have never jangled chains in a Santa costume for a shot of schnapps — at least not at Christmas. But belsnickeling is a real tradition in some places. Here's a clip from a YouTube video, in which Nick Powers of the Museum of the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia explains its origins.

SOUNDCLIP

NICK POWERS: Belsnickeling is a tradition that came from Germany with German emigrants. Think of Belsnickel as the kind of stern equivalent of Santa Claus. Children didn't see Santa Claus, obviously. He comes in the night to deliver presents. But Belsnickel would come to your house, knock on your door, the kids would admit him into the house, and depending on their behavior throughout the year he would either give them treats like little candies, cakes, or he also carried a switch.

JD: Yeah, a switch. If you were judged Naughty by Belsnickel back in the day, he would give you a lashing. Delightful. Now that was a long time ago. Now, belsnickeling is just a fun night out in disguise. But do Nova Scotians actually do it? Well, various websites say belsnickeling is a tradition on Nova Scotia’s south shore, but they all say it in almost exactly the same language — suggesting they are all working from the same possibly incorrect source. There is definitely still belsnickeling in Halifax though… Halifax, Pennsylvania. on December 1^st, the Halifax area historical society — again in Halifax, Pennsylvania — will hold its 16th Annual Belsnickel Christmas Parade. And after that parade, Carol Stoneroad of the society might once again read the "Belsnickel Night Before Christmas." As she did in this video, from 2013.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sorry, this is really hard to transcribe]

JD: Carol Stoneroad from the Halifax Pennsylvania Area Historical Society, reading a Pennsylvania Dutch version of "The Night Before Christmas" — after the community's annual Belsnickel Parade in 2013. In Halifax, Pennsylvania. So did that in-flight magazine writer see one of those websites claiming — with zero evidence — that belsnickeling is common on the south shore of Nova Scotia? And did that writer — who lives in Paris, incidentally — then seemingly confirm that by mistaking the Halifax, Pennsylvania belsnickeling celebration for a Halifax, Nova Scotia belsnickeling celebration? Or are we wrong? Are you an avid Nova Scotia belsnickeler who's belsnickering at my ignorance? If so, email us: aih@cbc.ca, or call us: 416-205-5687. Together, we'll yank the Santa mask off this story together. And, most important, I'll never have to say the word "belsnickeling" again.

[Music: Guitar]

Part three: media funding, B.C. child advocate

Helicopter rescue

JD: At first, the skies are blue — maybe a bit smoky. But as the helicopter descends, the blue turns to an unsettling orange. A video released by the Los Angeles Fire Department shows a daring rescue from a mountain peak, as the massive Woolsey wildfire spread earlier this month. The pilots were making a water drop when they were asked to divert course, but they had a hard time finding a safe place to land. The video is accompanied by radio chatter by the rescuers. Here's a condensed version.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: We're trying to find a location. Once you get in here, you can assess where you can get in. I’m trying to determine how many folks are up here.

SPEAKER TWO: OK. And just so you know — just add to it — we're getting pretty close to our bingo fuel.

SPEAKER: All right. Copy that.

SPEAKER TWO: All right. This is a rapidly becoming very ugly. It is okay.

SPEAKER THREE: Yeah, it is. Oh man.

SPEAKER: Yeah, this isn't looking good.

SPEAKER THREE: Yeah, this is gonna be too tight.

SPEAKER: Okay, I’m going to go straight up, and we’ll go with the nose in.

SPEAKER THREE: Don't come any more left.

SPEAKER: Okay. How about if we just land sort of here?

SPEAKER THREE: What about right there on the dirt?

SPEAKER: That's what I’m thinking.

SPEAKER THREE: Okay. Let's do that. I'm more and more comfortable with that.

SPEAKER: All right. Remember fuel is critical.

SPEAKER THREE: Yeah, I gotcha.

SPEAKER TWO: You’re coming down. You’re kind of in the bushes, but we’re good.

SPEAKER: I'm not gonna go flat pitch.

SPEAKER TWO: OK. I’m going to keep the door open. I'm going to go run out. All right. Godspeed.

SPEAKER: Yes sir.

SPEAKER FOUR: We are down. This is our best landing spot. I sent my co-pilot out to grab the individuals.

SPEAKER TWO: Copy that. I believe it's to plus a dog.

SPEAKER FOUR: OK, two, plus a dog. And then as soon as we're here, we're going to head direct to the closest fuel.

SPEAKER TWO: Copy that.

SPEAKER FOUR: Yeah, just an update. We actually have three individuals and two dogs. There's one dog here. English Mastiff; he’s a little apprehensive, but we're getting him on board.

SPEAKER THREE: All right let's get the hell out of here.

SPEAKER: FOUR: Good job, Joel.

SPEAKER: Let me know as soon as you're ready.

SPEAKER THREE: We got everybody on board, and we'll be lifting here momentarily. That was close.

SPEAKER: Yeah, it was.

JD: That was an excerpt of the radio chatter of Los Angeles Fire Department helicopter pilots rescuing three people and two dogs from a fiery mountain earlier this month. For the extraordinary video to go along with that audio, go to our Twitter site.

[Music: Ambient]

Media funding

Guest: Lisa Raitt

JD: The Canadian taxpayer is getting into the news business. In yesterday's fiscal update, the Trudeau government announced more than half a billion dollars for Canada's struggling news outlets. The plan has some newspaper owners sounding hopeful, which hasn't been the case for quite some years now. But in the House of Commons today, the Conservatives were accusing the Liberals of trying to buy the next election. Lisa Raitt is the Conservatives' Deputy Leader. We reached her in Milton, Ontario.

CO: Ms. Raitt, the finance minister says this is about defending journalism because it's essential to our democracy. Why do you doubt his words?

LISA RAITT: The issue that we're having with respect to the bailout that we're seeing is that there are so many other things that need attention in the country as well. And one of them I submit is what's happening in Alberta and Saskatchewan. That a including in this economic financial update, such targeted measures for the media, it does make us concerned about what is the purpose of it? And whether or not this is going to impact how media is going to be putting together their reports. But that's something that's going to remain to be seen.

CO: But you're concerned that this is happening just before the next election. Is that your issue?

LR: Well, the timing certainly would point to the fact that as we have many discussions right now about the fact that we're concerned of news on our internet being either created by some foreign actors, or just completely misinformation. And now we have a situation where half a billion dollars is being put into media by a government. And it is of concern. And it does seem to point to the fact that friendly coverage may come because the government has been favourable to the people who are writing the news.

CO: But it seems that what they're going to attempt to do. They're going to have an independent panel comprised of news and journalism industry people, who will choose which organizations get the benefit of this package. So that's an arm's-length relationship, is it not?

LR: Well, you can say that it looks like it. Certainly, it seems to say it is. But we do have an example of committees like this being set up to give us that kind of non-partisan Senate that we were promised. And we have a reality where the independent senators actually vote with the government more than the Conservative senators ever voted with our government. So you know you have to put an eye on exactly who is going to be appointed to this kind of committee, and who the individuals are going to be. And that will guide what the results will be I think.

CO: Well, the board of directors of the CBC and its president are chosen by the government. And this is Crown corporation, funded by taxpayers, is it not possible that arm's length agencies can't be trusted to be free of political interference in their journalism?

LR: You know, I had a lot of experience with respect to making appointments to Crown corporations. And everybody does everything they can to ensure that they're getting the best directors. CBC is different. CBC is fully funded by the government, and that's how the money flows through. So it's not necessarily a function of a board appointment. It's the fact that there is already money that's coming by appropriation from the federal government. And this committee that this government is saying that they're going to be setting up you know we don't know who is going to be on it yet. And they’re going to have a lot of latitude in giving out a significant amount of money. And it's not going to be going through a bureaucracy in Ottawa; it's going to be going directly upon the advice of this arm's-length committee, which means it's not responsible to anybody. Like arm's-length may seem that they're going to be objective, as opposed to subjective. But the reality is it also means that they’re are arm's-length away from accountability.

CO: McLean's journalist Paul Wells once warned the Liberals that before setting up a fund for journalism, they should imagine Pierre Poilievre running it. Do you think that there is a way of doing this that there is a way to have a board or a committee — a panel — that you wouldn't worry was going to be subjective in its selections?

LR: Yeah, it's interesting. So I will point out that in 2009, when we had the great recession, we did set up some media funds as part of ensuring that after the revenues dropped, we were there to help during the recession. And we did that. But we worked through bureaucracy. And that was we found the best way in order to ensure accountability. So I don't you know I'm not going to comment on Paul’s comment. I think Pierre would do an interesting job for sure if he was in charge, but you can insert anybody's name in there and realize these kinds of decisions do take on different complexions I guess when you change the figures who are in charge in Ottawa. So it is a good way of pointing out. For me, it would be a good thing. For others, it could possibly be scary that Pierre’s in charge.

CO: But I mean do you not concede that there is a real issue for journalism in this country? That the economies of scale are not delivering, especially in the smaller communities, especially in the regions where journalism has really suffered, and you're not having the kind of coverage and the kind of accountability that we used to have in those regions. And this is a way to address it.

LR: You know what? I grew up in Cape Breton, where we listened to the local news. And I agree with you completely, Carol, that kind of accountability is really important in smaller towns across the country. And it is something incredibly important. I don't know if this is the crisis under which to do that, or is it something where you take a bigger look at what's going on in in the world of media, in the world of journalism, and where it's going? This is a fundamental change I think in how people are receiving their news. And it may go through yet another iteration in a couple of months just as a result of people now distrusting where they're getting their news from, as we get concerns about Facebook, and Google, and everybody else who's providing content.

CO: And just finally, a lot of discussion as to who would be defined as a journalist, and who gets to have access to this? Just a question, do you think that Rebel Media should be included in it?

LR: Well, I'm going to leave the definitions and all that to the people who are going to be determining what the project looks like. But what you point out is exactly the issue, right? It's picking winners and losers, who you deem to be appropriate, who you deem not to be appropriate based upon what kind of content they may be giving out or what kind of perspective that they're given. Now, if you put Ezra Levant on that committee, maybe you'll end up getting a more fulsome concept of where the money is going. But that's just simply not going to happen. That appointment's not going to happen.

CO: Ezra Levant and Pierre Poilievre, do you think that would be a good committee for this panel?

LR: I can guarantee you that is not a committee that Prime Minister Trudeau will put together.

CO: Okay. You've said it here; we can quote you on that — hold you to that.

LR: I feel very comfortable with that. And if the Prime Minister chooses to change that, I would be very interested in knowing why.

CO: Ms. Raitt, It's good to talk to you. Thanks.

LR: You as well, Carol. Thanks a lot.

JD: Lisa Raitt is the Conservatives' Deputy Leader. We reached her in Milton, Ontario.

[Music: Up-tempo]

FOA: Date and dasher

JD: Paul Guadalupe Gonzales still has a few free dinners to look forward to, but not of the kind to which he's grown accustomed. They'll be pretty basic fare, served up courtesy of the L.A. County Jail. Mr. Gonzales became known as the "Dine-and-Dash Dater", after he was charged with accompanying women he'd met on dating apps to dinner — and then skipping out just before the cheque arrived, leaving them to foot the bill. Yesterday, the 45-year-old was sentenced to 120 days in county jail and three years' probation. He has also been ordered to keep off of popular dating sites and apps, like "Plenty of Fish" and "Bumble". Back in August, “As it Happens” spoke with Marjorie Moon, one of Mr. Gonzales's victims. Here's some of what she told guest host Helen Mann.

SOUNDCLIP

HELEN MANN: Marjorie Moon, is it fair to say this was your worst date ever?

MARJORIE MOON: It's fair to say yes.

HM: Thank goodness, huh?

MM: Yeah, exactly.

HM: How did you actually meet this guy?

MM: I met him on a dating site called Plenty of Fish. He wasn't physically my type necessarily, but he seemed to be witty and charming. So I kind of went with it.

HM: Right.

MM: And what did you think when he asked you to dinner?

HM: We had talked about food. He enjoyed his food, so he told me. I had told him about this nice steakhouse in Glendale, California. And he then the next day asked me to go with him, and I hesitated at first, and then decided I tried by the babysitter, and then went and met him there. He had said he was going to go with or without me. So I decided why not.

HM: Why did you hesitate?

MM: You know, looking back, I think I had gut instincts that I just didn't listen to.

HM: So what did this guy order?

MM: So we ordered some wine, and then he ordered a chicken dinner, and then they had a side of two lobster tails, so he ordered that as well. And then once he was done with those, he ordered two more lobster tails.

HM: What's going through your mind, besides this guy really like a lobster?

MM: That I can't believe how small he is in that he's putting all this food away.

HM: And what did you eat?

MM: I had a prime rib.

HM: So you eat the main course, and then what happens?

MM: He did excuse himself to go to the restroom at one point, but he did return to the table. And then he ordered coffee and a chocolate soufflé, which took about 30 minutes to cook there. At which point, after a bit of more conversation, he excused himself to make a phone call. And that's when the maître d at the restaurant noticed he'd been gone and was concerned.

HM: What did the maître d say to you?

MM: He asked me where he went? I told him that he had left to make a phone call to check on his children. He then went out front and came back and said no, the hostess had seen him leave. I've never had anything like this happen before, so I think I was just more embarrassed and shocked at the fact. The wait staff there was amazing and wonderful. The waitress actually cried; she felt so bad for me.

HM: How much was the bill. I mean did she have reason to feel bad for you?

MM: It was two hundred and fifty dollars.

HM: That's a lot.

MM: Yes, it was a lot. But I paid it. I just wanted to get home and get out of there. So I paid the bill, and I left and went home.

JD: From our archives, that was "As It Happens" guest host Helen Mann, in conversation with Marjorie Moon, a victim of California's so-called "Dine-and-Dash Dater". Paul Guadalupe Gonzales has been sentenced to 120 days in county jail and three years of probation after pleading no contest to the charges against him.

[Music: Horns!]

B.C. children’s advocate

Guest: Jennifer Charlesworth

JD: Nearly fifteen hundred people died of drug overdoses in British Columbia alone last year. And of those fifteen hundred, twenty-four were children, ranging in age from eighteen...down to ten. Now, B.C.'s representative for children and youth is calling for major changes to protect children from drug-involved injury and death — including supervised consumption sites, specifically designed for youth. Her report is called "Time to Listen: Youth Voices on Substance Use". We reached Jennifer Charlesworth on Bowen Island, B.C.

CO: Ms. Charlesworth, what did you learn as to why children are using hard drugs?

JENNIFER CHARLESWORTH: Well, this was one of the most heartbreaking parts of this study, Carol. Was that we learn from young people that they were using substances to numb the emotional pain that's attached to their trauma, their chaos in their lives and their living circumstances. This is a coping strategy.

CO: And what they're involving themselves in is very risky and dangerous. And I know you examined critical injury and death reports concerning children. What did you learn from that?

JC: We track whether we've ever heard of these young people in previous reports that come to us of critical injuries. And in many cases, we are seeing these young people with multiple injuries over a period of time. So that says something to us about these kids continuing to be in harm's way. Not just overdoses, but also suicide attempts, sexual exploitation, violence, et cetera. So we heard about the complexity in these young people's lives; the multiple things that are going on that when you think about it, if we put it onto ourselves, we start to think well how could we cope? You know if you don't have an array of people that are around you, or if you are dealing with this kind of trauma and you don't have people in your court, then maybe substances does look like a good alternative for coping.

CO: What you discovered is that so many of these of these coping mechanisms end in the death of that young person. You have two-dozen children between the ages of 10 and 18 died of drug overdoses last year. And so what do you recommend? How do you would reduce the harm and the potential harm?

JC: We recommended that, first and foremost, that we look to developing youth-specific array of services and support. So, as I mentioned, a lot of these kids were known to the system earlier on in their lives. They needed some mental health support, they needed some early intervention, their families needed support. So really trying to get ahead of it before they’re in a very dire situation and provide them with the support that they need. We also talked about the need for harm reduction. So fundamentally, we need to keep these young people safe, and especially while they're using. And that means that we have to open our minds up to the importance of harm reduction, which might include safe consumption. The other piece that's important is that there's a vast overrepresentation of Indigenous children and youth, and we have to think of new ways of making sure that there's strong connection to culture and services are culturally relevant. And then the final area that we were exploring was importance of having the foster caregivers that are in these kids lives to be able to have those difficult conversations when they see young people kind of on that slippery slope. So as one young person said, and I love it, less fear; more family.

CO: When you talk about harm reduction services and supervised consumption sites. When we're talking about that for four adults you know that it's controversial — there is pushback from the public, from governments. How do you convince the public that you should provide supervised consumption sites for kids?

JC: I would say Imagine a young person who is using. So think of someone that you care about that is a young person that you think is really special, and for various reasons they now have an addiction, and they are using substances. Where would you want them to be if they were continuing to use substances? Would you want them to be in an adult site, or in an SRO hotel somewhere, or in the back alley? Well no, we wouldn't. We wouldn't want that for our kids. So let's imagine instead that there is a place that young people can go, it's non-stigmatizing, it's non-shaming there's the nurse practitioner there, there's access to medical care, there's access to somebody who's going to be there when you are using to help you out if you need to. And also, people that understand mental health care, you know a warm meal, a place to shower. Those kinds of things that would be the wrap around that would be necessary in order to shift from young people being in unhealthy environments into a place where at least we're connected to them.

CO: You know that's a difficult sell, isn't it? For a government say that they should facilitate in making them safe, but facilitate them using hard drugs.

JC: I know. And I tell you I spent a lot of time taking a look at the evidence, listening to the young people's stories, and I've been in this field for over 40 years. And so lots of sleepless nights thinking what's the right thing to do? So I like to reframe it from facilitating their use to ensuring their safety so that we can keep connected to them. The young people said to us that the most important thing was relationships. And for many of these kids, because of what's happened to them, there's a lot of trauma and they don't have those healthy relationships. So we have to build the threads of connection. And I'll tell you one more when I was up north recently, listening in to 13 and 14-year-old girls who… so think about the 13 and 14 year olds in your life. They’re injection heroin users. They’re in incredible risk for sexual exploitation. And they are 13 years old. So we have to disrupt our normal sense of what's the right thing to do, and say hey, we've got to think differently than we've ever thought before in order to help these kids.

CO: How hard is this on you to do this research? I mean it's harder on the kids to be involved in this. But what's it like when you investigate this? What impact does it have on you?

JC: Well, frankly, even you asking that question brings out emotion in me. It never gets easy to hear tragic stories. And I hope it never does because I don't want to numb out on what's going on. But, of course, it does impact you. And the way I cope with that is to say so what are we going to do?

CO: Your report and all of this is done under your title as child advocate in British Columbia. Ontario just eliminated that position of child advocate. What do you think that means for children in Ontario?

JC: Well, my immediate reaction — because that came the same day as we released the report of substance use — and my immediate reaction is this is a very dark day in Ontario. I think one of the most important things is if a system is not taking a look at itself, and if there isn't an oversight body, it can't learn. So, for me, I was just shocked and saddened to hear that. I think it's a very dark day for advocacy in Canada.

CO: We will leave it there. Ms. Charlesworth, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

JC: Thank you so much.

JD: Jennifer Charlesworth is the B.C.'s Child and Youth advocate. We reached on Bowen Island, B.C.

[Music: Ambient]

Danny Michel

JD: "Music fans deserve to know how this all works, and why the artists they love may soon be gone." That's the second-last line of an essay by Danny Michel, published in "Vancouver Weekly." The last line makes his point very clear. Quote: "This new model of 'free music' simply can't last much longer." Mr. Michel points out that he's been a full-time musician for 25 years. And that this year is the first time he's worried about continuing to be one. After selling albums steadily his whole career, he says they dropped in 2018. And they didn’t drop a little. They dropped a lot. They dropped 95 per cent because of music-streaming services. He's hardly the only artist pointing this out. And the numbers are deeply discouraging. At the beginning of this year, the site Digital Music News calculated how much musicians earn from streaming sites. It found that Spotify — by far the most popular site — pays zero-point-zero-zero-three-eight cents per stream. THat means a million streams will get you...3800 U.S. dollars. Danny Michel describes an industry where everyone is scrambling for a lot less money. He writes, quote, "Studios are losing business. Session musicians, techs, administration, grant writers are all losing work. And with every band in the world back on the road, venues are clogged and ticket prices have tripled. For me, it means being away from home and taking on more work than I ever have." Something for all of us to keep in mind: if we really love someone's song, four thousandths of a cent isn't much incentive for them to make another.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

November 22, 2018 episode transcript

More Stories Like This