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 December 18, 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: Catching our breath. Police can now administer breathalyzers to drivers without "reasonable grounds" — one defence lawyer says that doesn't seem reasonable.

JD: Alienating invasion. Two new reports reveal that Russia's so-called "troll factory" set out to divide voters in the United States — in part, by specifically targeting black Americans.

CO: Done ordeal. Because of El Salvador's strict abortion laws, a young woman faced 20 years in prison for attempted murder, even after bearing her abuser's baby — but now, she has walked free.

JD: The unmitigated Galt. Galt McDermot was the greatest composer you never heard of. Although there's a nearly one-hundred per cent chance you heard, and loved, his work.

CO: It used to be the butler did it. Nowadays, it's just the butt. An encore presentation of a cautionary tale about a man who got fired for talking smack about his boss, after accidentally butt-dialing him.

JD: And... double — or nothing. After a developer in San Francisco demolishes a 1930s designer home, the city's planning department orders him to rebuild an exact replica of what he bulldozed.

JD: "As It Happens", the Tuesday edition. Radio that feels they're making a big production of it by demanding he make a big re-production of it.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Impaired driving charges, Salvadoran freed, San Francisco house demolished

China: Impaired driving charges

Guest: Scott Newman

JD: Today, it got a lot easier for police to ask drivers take a deep breath and blow. Under Canada's new impaired driving law, officers will no longer need reasonable suspicion to give a roadside breathalyzer test. That's a change anti-drunk-driving advocates have been fighting for for nearly 20 years. But some people are worried that the law goes too far. Scott Newman is a criminal defence lawyer in Winnipeg. That's where we reached him.

CO: Mr. Newman, how much more leeway does this new law give to police in order to get a breath sample from drivers?

SCOTT NEWMAN: Well, under the previous regime for impaired driving, police had to have what's called a “reasonable suspicion”. They had to have some reason for believing that the driver was impaired before they could request a roadside breathalyzer sample or a standard field sobriety test. Under the new legislation, police can ask anyone they want for a breath sample or a field sobriety test.

CO: And what were the conditions? What kind of reasonable suspicion could they use? What would they have to have seen?

SN: Well, for instance, the police — as anybody knows who's been pulled over — nine times out of 10 the first question is, have you had anything to drink today? So if the person were to answer yes, I had a beer two hours ago or well yes, I've been drinking then that would immediately trigger a reasonable suspicion. If the police officer were to make their own observations, perhaps the person was swerving while they were driving, flushed face, slurred speech, the police could still form reasonable suspicion based on their own observations. Now they don't need to observe any of that. They can go straight to a breath sample.

CO: And this is what Mothers Against Drunk Driving say will cut down on the amount of impaired driving in Canada by as much as 20 per cent, and possibly save 200 lives every year. So why do you have a problem with that?

SN: There's no doubt that impaired driving is obviously a scourge, and there's a lot of different ways to fight it. But it's not proper to fight this by taking away constitutional rights, by taking away protections against unreasonable search and seizure, by taking away protections against arbitrary detention. Your rights are your rights. They're meant to protect you from overreach of the state or overreach of the government. And it's contrary to constitutional norms to say well yes, you have control over your body and your expectations privacy, except in this one instance.

CO: Well, we know that the law in many cases is that our rights are not absolute, are they? I mean the law will say there are reasonable limits on those laws if it's for a greater good or if there's a possible benefit to that. Are you saying this is wrong to do this? Or that they just haven't found the right balance?

SN: Well, certainly and I think what they've done is they've removed the semblance of balance, and said we're going to do it no matter what your rights are. You've been suspected of no crime. There's not even a scintilla of evidence that you've done anything wrong, but we're going to pull you out of your car, we're going to put you in the back of a cruiser car, we're going to detain you for five, 10, or 15 minutes, check your sobriety.

CO: But is that such a serious violation of our rights? If it's for the common good or the greater good to have people put in the back of a cruiser for five or 10 minutes, if it catches people who are impaired, if it saves the lives of people, a child that might be hit. I mean these are things that people are considering that maybe this is a reasonable limit on their rights.

SN: Well, and that's really the policy debate, isn't it? One of the ways that this can be kind of dressed up is to say well, it's going to be random. It's going to affect everybody equally. And really what's your concern about if you get pulled out of your car once or twice — once every year or once every other year. It doesn’t really matter. But we know that policing in Canada is differential. At least in some part there's race-based differences. Murray Sinclair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, who is a judge from the Court of Queen's Bench in Manitoba, has said I would get pulled over all the time, whereas my fellow judges would never, ever get pulled over. So we know that it's not going to impact everybody equally. I think it's just ingraining a disadvantage. It's taking a disadvantage for them and making it worse to say well, you know we were we're pulling you over to check license and registration. Perhaps there's the possibility now that that brief detention at the roadside, which already is in a number of cases egregious, now can turn into something more — can turn into a five, 10, or 15 minute detention. And it's well and good to say well you know, what's 15 minutes if you're detained at the roadside for that length of time? But if you imagine for example that it's going to affect a thousand people. How many days in custody does that work out to? I mean we're talking about 250 hours. If you were to lock somebody up for 10 days, and say well but think of all the lives, you're saving, when you look at it from that perspective about how many people and how widespread the impact could be it's certainly disconcerting.

CO: You are a defence lawyer, and this could affect you, right? Because it's going to be a lot harder for defence lawyers to get someone accused of impaired driving to defend them in court. So what does this mean to you?

SN: Well, I think what it means is you're going to see a big shift in impaired driving litigation from sort of the factual nexus that we've relied on for all these years to more of a charter-based challenge to the law. You're going to see a wide divergence of opinion amongst the judiciary, amongst the hundreds of judges that hear these trials each year. You'll have judges and Quebec and judges in Alberta and judges in Newfoundland all with a divergence of opinion, and even divergence of opinions within provinces, and then it slowly works its way up in appropriate cases to the higher courts. And some point in time, a few years down the road, the Supreme Court of Canada will give us an opinion, and we'll work our way through all the different charter defences. But it's going to take a long time to get a definitive, country-wide response from all of our courts as to the constitutionality of these new provisions.

CO: Mr. Newman, thanks for coming on the program.

SN: Thanks very much. Happy holidays.

JD: Scott Newman is a criminal defence lawyer. We reached him in Winnipeg. And we have more on this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ambient]

Salvadorian freed

Guest: Paula Avila-Guillen

JD: Imelda Cortez entered a courtroom in El Salvador facing 20 years in prison. Her alleged crime: attempted murder. The young woman was charged after giving birth to a baby — a child reportedly conceived through ongoing abuse by her stepfather. She didn't even understand that she was pregnant, but she was still charged under the country's strict abortion laws. However, instead of getting two decades behind bars, Ms. Cortez walked free. Paula Avila-Guillen is one of Ms. Cortez’s lawyers. She was at the courthouse in El Salvador yesterday. We reached her today in New York.

CO: Ms. Avila-Guillen, this young woman spent a year and a half in jail facing this very serious charge of attempted murder. What was it like for her to go free?

PAULA AVILA-GUILLEN: it was overwhelming in every level. She was feeling very nervous, but also very anxious about the public attention that she was getting, and also very relieved that she didn't have to spend one more day in prison. She is taking some time off with her grandmother — time away from the media — to be able to figure out how she can reconnect with her mother and her daughter. She was very, very happy, but very nervous at the same time.

CO: She is 20 years old. She has been, as you say, in jail for a year and a half. Has she been able to see the child — the daughter — that she gave birth to before she was taken into custody?

PAG: She was only able to see her from a distance when her mother brought the girl to the trial into a previous hearings. But she has not been able to hold the girl. So it was kind of a very strange feeling. I spent, yesterday, a lot of time with Imelda’s mother and with her daughter. And to think I have spent more time with the daughter, and holding her and carrying her aroud than what Imelda has is just really heartbreaking. But we are hoping very soon they will be completely reconnected and reunited. But there is a lot of healing that needs to be done during this process because this has been a very traumatic experience for the entire family.

CO: We have been covering on this show the issue of El Salvador's abortion laws, where women are charged in this way with murder — charged with various crimes because there's a miscarriage or something happens with the baby. All of this has been taken in to being illegal. How did Ms. Cortez come to be charged?

PAG: So the majority of these cases are related to this stigma that the total abortion ban on abortion has, and how almost every single obstetric emergency becomes under suspicion. So something as miscarriage stillbirth gets under this suspicion that it must have been something wrong. Probably women did something to terminate their pregnancy has to had something to do with abortion. And that's how old cases had to start. So in the case of Imelda, she knew she was pregnant; she didn't accept the pregnancy. It’s very common with victims of rape. She was raped between 12 and 19 by her stepfather. And also, the stepfather keep threatening her day. She was really pregnant. He was going to hurt her mother. So during that time, she kind of doesn't accept it. She is still bleeds because she has anemia, and she's bleeding. Even though there’s no period or menstruation, she's bleeding. And eventually, is the moment that she feels some very strong pain and goes to the bathroom. She describes it as a pain to try to defecate. And then she feels this something comes out of her body. She screams for help, screams to her mother, her mother finds her bleeding, bring her to the hospital, after losing almost two liters of blood, and pass out. And the doctor said you did something to terminate your pregnancy. What is the baby? What do you do?

PAG: The doctor and some of the other health professionals send the police to her house. And they find the baby in the latrine, and the baby is alive and healthy, which is also a miracle. Mother doesn't even comprehend the fact that she just give birth. At that moment, she gets accused of having tried to get rid of the baby, and she gets handcuffed to the bed, and she gets sent to prison. And, initially, they always tried to say abortion. But then when they realize it’s a full-term baby, they say attempted homicide.

CO: The judge said that the court could not have expected Ms. Cortez to have acted differently given her circumstances. This is not what you expected, right? You were expecting a sentence reduced and reduced charges. This was quite a quite a development wasn't it when that judge said that?

PAG: Definitely it was really unexpected because in the first part of the hearing, there was already an agreement — a deal — between the prosecutors and the defence to reduce charges of abandonment. And they presented a deal to the judge, and the judge kind of accepted it. But he said I am going to give my final ruling after I come back. So he sent us all in a break, we come back one hour later, and then he started doing these arguments they honestly have not heard from a court in El Salvador before. They were arguments that made sense for us — for advocates for women's rights attorneys — but it didn't make sense to be in accordion or Salvador is hearing about the trauma of hearing this offer, hearing about the trauma of unexpected delivery, and actually believe in Imelda’s story. And I think that that was what it was the most surprising part of it. And he said that after hearing this people have no respect to someone who passed out. They had suffered so much and trauma, and they also had lost so much blood. Who have any guilt of any crime, and that he was absolving her of all the crimes. So it was a very nice surprise that is really what Imelda deserved. And that is definitely an excellent precedent to have.

CO: Just finally, what about the stepfather, who sexually abused Ms. Cortez since she was 12 years old?

Has anything come of that?

PAG: Well, he's in prison, and he's facing trial. The judge has put a kind of a gag order on his trial. So there is not much information that has been made available. But we are hoping that he will get sentence.

CO: All right, Ms. Avila-Guillen. We will leave it there. We’ll be following this story. I appreciate speaking with you tonight. Thank you.

PAG: Thank you so much.

CO: Bye-bye.

JD: Paula Avila-Guillen is a human rights lawyer with the Women's Equality Center, and part of Imelda Cortez's legal team. She was in New York.

[Music: Horns]

San Francisco house demolition

Guest: Dennis Richards

JD: When a San Francisco homeowner demolished his house a year ago, his neighbours — and people all across San Francisco — were shocked. Because it hadn't been just any house. It was the beloved Largent House, built in the 1930s by renowned modernist designer Richard Neutra — whose work is often compared to that of Frank Lloyd Wright's. Well, the city's planning department was pretty shaken by the demolition, as well. And it's reacted by demanding the homeowner build an exact replica of the house he tore down. We reached planning commissioner Dennis Richards in San Francisco.

CO: Mr. Richards what is so special about the house at 49 Hopkins Avenue in San Francisco?

DENNIS RICHARDS: Well, I mean it was a one of the first homes that Neutra designed as an architect — 1935 I believe. And the interesting thing about it is that it was built for an artist and a teacher. So it’s a small house. It was an early work by him. And it was altered I guess in the last 20 or 25 years. So it didn’t retain all of its original integrity. But you can certainly see the way Neutra designed it was interesting. It's one of only five we have in San Francisco.

CO: And what's happened to it?

DR: Well, the owner pulled a permit to remodel, and he ended up taking the building down to all but I guess the garage door and the frame around the garage door. There's not much there anymore.

CO: That was illegal? He wasn't allowed to do that?

DR: No. No.

CO: And what was his plan?

DR: Well, I guess he wanted to renovate what was left. I think the first floor was supposed to stay, and then build like a 4,000 square foot house around it.

CO: But the original house is about 1,300 square feet, right?

DR: Right. Right.

CO: So this house at 49 Hopkins Avenue it's quite beautiful, but it's simple, it's modest, it's a nice family size for its time. And he wanted to build a mega mansion there?

DR: Yeah, I'd call it a McMansion. And we have McMansion-ing happening in the city. And this kind of thing is happening a lot. And new legislation has been introduced last week to actually try to put a stop to it. Up until now, the only way that we can have a disincentive is this is the fourth one we've done from the Planning Commission putting back a structure with the same square footage and the same massing. This is the first one we've actually said because of the specialness of the house, we want you to put it back exactly like it was originally.

CO: So tell us what he is required to do? He's not going to be able to build his mansion. What does he have to do?

DR: What's interesting what he has to do is actually build the original structure external — not the internal portions of it — they can do whatever they want in that 1,300-plus square feet. But the external portion of the house needs to look exactly like it was built in 1936 — same materials, same form, same function, same massing, same placement on the lot, everything. And, additionally, so the people who look up Neutra in their Neutra catalog…

CO: Sorry, he’s the architect? Richard Neutra was the man who designed it originally?

DR: Right. Richard Neutra has been mentioned in the modernism school second in importance only to Frank Lloyd Wright. Frank Lloyd Wright is widely known. Neutra is not as widely known. But he's just as influential, maybe a little bit less so. In his opus, this 49 Hopkins is listed. So we wanted to make sure that people who were Neutra fans, and wanted to come and look at the house, that they actually know that it's not the original. So we're asking that the owner put a plaque out front in the sidewalk that says this is an exact copy — a replica — of the original house as it was built in 1936. And then tell a little bit about what happened. The original house was added on, and then somebody bought it and it was demolished illegally. And the Planning Commission on this date at required that the original structure be replaced out.

CO: Ouch, so not only does he have to rebuild it, but he has to confess on a plaque in front of the house!

DR: Well, kind of, kind of. We’re not requiring him to put his name on it. We're just requiring him to tell the story of the house.

CO: But this kind of brands him as the person who did it, right?

DR: Yeah. With a little digging, you can find out who it is. But I think over the years, it's going to probably fade. But at least the story will be told.

CO: And you called it something when you were describing — it that was this kind of what the message sends.

DR: Well, it's kind of a scarlet letter on the house. And, originally, that wasn't the intent. It was really to say that it was a replica and tell the story. But the more I thought about it, this house is wearing the scarlet letter it actually it's a kind of a message, you know? Just like the women who wore the scarlet letter because she was and adulteress. This is a scarlet letter based on illegal demolition.

CO: And do you think that message will go out? There’s a lot of people who like to build big houses, and they have deep pockets.

DR: Yeah, I mean it's not the fact that they're building a big house. It's a fact that they didn't play by the rules. I mean the knocking down of homes that are relatively affordable in San Francisco, and I use the word relatively, maybe 10 to 15 per cent of the population here can afford a house like that, and having the median income. But we're cannibalizing our housing stock. We're taking modest homes that some people can afford, and we're blowing them up into McMansions that virtually nobody can afford. And it's happening all over with this district. We've had dozens and dozens of examples of where a developer took a house, piece-by-piece through serial permitting actually created a very enormous house that has no look, shape, feel of the original house. And what's happened is these houses are going for five million, six million, seven million, and they're out of reach of virtually everybody. It's really changing the face of our city. And it's time that we woke up and said you know, I think we've had enough.

CO: I understand this house was purchased by the owner for one-point-seven million dollars.

DR: Right.

CO: Is that what affordable is in San Francisco now?

DR: So here's the here's the issue. Prior to this kind of epidemic of bulldozing things and building McMansions, homes were valued at their square footage. What's happening now these days in San Francisco is the development potential is the driver of these high prices. So somebody buys this lot — basically buying the lot because they want to demolish the house. And they say What can I build here? Well, the height and the bulk limits say that I can build a 4,000 square foot house. I'll get five million for it, so I’ll pay one-point-seven million for the house. If they weren't buying the development potential, I think the prices would probably come down. It’s time that we come back to Earth on what these things are worth.

CO: A cautionary tale. Mr. Richards, thank you.

DR: OK. You're welcome very much.

CO: Bye.

DR: Take care.

JD Dennis Richards is a commissioner with the San Francisco Planning Department.

[Music: Folk]

Part two: Russian election influence, Encore: Butt dial

Russian election influence

Guest: Philip Howard

JD: We knew the point was disruption. We didn't know how pointed the disruption was — and is. Two new reports prepared for the U.S. Senate's intelligence committee provide new insights into just how Russian operatives hijack social media in their efforts to disrupt American elections. The reports show that the Internet Research Agency, which is owned by an associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin, even engaged in voter suppression efforts, often aimed at Black voters in the U.S. Some of the senators who commissioned the report say it's a "wake-up call", and called for legal reforms. Philip Howard is the lead author of one of those reports. He's the director of Oxford University's Internet Institute. We reached him in Oxford, U.K.

CO: Mr. Howard we know that Russian trolls attempted to influence how Americans voted in 2016. But your report shows why people did not vote, and what the Russian trolls did about that. Who was targeted in this way?

PHILIP HOWARD: Well, for the most part, it was African-Americans who were targeted. The targeting was on the basis of race. Sometimes Mexican Americans were the targets. But overall, the goal was to discourage people who were not white from voting.

CO: How did they do that?

PH: Well, there were several common messages we found in our analysis. I guess good examples include the message that if you were a Democrat the voting was not on Tuesday it was on Friday, right? It was at the end of the week. Or if you were African-American, you could actually text message your vote in. You didn't have to show up at the polling station. The November 2016 election was actually a turning point in Russian strategy. Before that election — before that date — most of the targets were actually the far right in the United States — the ultra conservatives. And there, the campaigning was about getting those people to show up and vote. It was actually after the November 2016 election that the race became much more of a salient dividing point for the Russian campaigns.

CO: So it wasn't just that they targeted certain groups as you're describing black Americans, but also that they were specifically trying to increase the agitation or division or the politics on the street. But thirdly, it seems that they were trying to discourage people from voting for Hillary Clinton. Can you tell us how they did that?

PH: Well, that messaging was about spreading some of the lies — what we call junk news, other people call fake news, about Hillary Clinton.

CO: What effect did that have on how people voted or didn't vote?

PH: Well, it's difficult for us to know how many tweets it takes to change a vote. We don't have any models for how this affects particular voters. What we do know is that there is some long-term effects. In the U.K. context, we can still measure the number of British voters who think they'll be saving 350 million pounds a week by leaving the EU. Some of these bits of misinformation last a long time in public life, and they prevent movement, right? They prevent good policy conversations about what to do about major social problems. This is what we do know. We do know that upwards of 30 million U.S. voters saw some of the content that was put out over these Russian accounts. We do know from other research that this misinformation was concentrated in swing states. And the race-based content was actually targeted at cities where there had been shootings — accidental and intentional shootings, police officers picking off young African-American men. Those cities were targeted for misinformation as well.

CO: And which parts of the campaign were the most successful, I guess from the point of view of the Internet Research Agency?

PH: Well, for us, one of the surprises here is that the volume of content didn't diminish after we caught them in 2016. It actually increased — it doubled, and then tripled again over the course of a year. And it moved from Facebook onto Instagram. So I think the success is that they've managed to sustain their engagement program with the U.S. public over an extended period.

CO: It's not new to see voter suppression targeted African-Americans. What's different about this?

PH: What's different is that the foreign government — Russia — sunk significant resources into this messaging. And you know most democracies spend money trying to encourage people to get out and vote. And you know there’s been sensitive moments — the Brexit conversation here in the U.K., and the 2016 election, where having more members of the public turn out and vote probably would have been beneficial for public confidence in our political institutions. And I believe the long-term strategy is about getting us to elect politicians who don't believe in evidence-based policymaking. Who go with their gut on key decisions, and don't accept science or evidence or consensus from researchers. I think that's the long-term strategy in trying to degrade how democracies work.

CO: And you're a Canadian. Where do you see us vulnerable to that message here?

PH: Well, unfortunately, the Russian strategy is often about playing on sensitive issues — subnational issues. There's some evidence that they've supported Scottish independence and Catalan independence. And so Quebec independence it not a hot issue at the moment, but I could see it becoming one if you know there was a moment in which Russian resources were put on this. There’s several sensitive community issues around the country that it could be picked out. Climate change is another example of a divisive issue that the Russians have put some resources behind. I'd say one of the biggest surprises in all of this is to see the Russian strategy of using social media to polarize publics be adopted domestically. And many politicians in the west, U.S., and Canada, and the U.K. have trouble understanding that the current problem is that a lot of this misinformation is now homegrown. It's domestic actors who've now seen the Russian successes and the strategy, and they're replicating them domestically.

CO: All right, quite alarming report. Mr. Howard, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

PH: Thank you.

JD: Philip Howard is the lead author of a new report prepared for the U.S. Senate's Intelligence Committee on Russian election meddling. We reached Mr. Howard in Oxford, U.K.

[Music: Ambient]

Oil

JD: Today, Ottawa announced one-point-six billion dollars for the oilpatch. The money isn't all new, but the Minister of International Trade says that requests from the oil-and-gas sector will now be given special priority. But cash isn't what industry leaders have been asking for. As reporters pointed out to Minister Jim Carr in Edmonton, those leaders want pipelines — so that they can get a better price for oil sands bitumen. Here's Jim Carr's response.

SOUNDCLIP

JIM CARR: Well, the availability of capital at a tough time is essential for the long-term viability of businesses, and particularly in the oil-and-gas sector. So this combination of a billion dollars available through the EDC, and 500 available through the BDC is significant at a time when companies will need it. And this capital can be used to augment their relationship with their commercial banks, which is very important. But it's more access for them than they would have without it. And it can be used to invest in new equipment, it can be used to expand into other export markets. All in all, it has to do with liquidity. It adds to their liquidity. And as a result of that, will go a long way in helping them get through this tough spot.

JD: That was International Trade Minister Jim Carr in Edmonton this morning. Minister Carr's announcement didn't have Rachel Notley sighing with relief. Here what Alberta's Premier said this afternoon in Calgary.

SOUNDCLIP

RACHEL NOTLEY: There's no question that as far as I'm concerned this is only the very first step of what we anticipate had better be many steps. Because it's absolutely not what we went to the federal government identifying to them that the industry needed. As I've said, we've heard from some small producers that this will help them. It will help them get access to capital in trying times, and perhaps tide them over. But it is not entirely what they were looking for too. And you know it is a cut-and-paste. It's so cut-and-paste that it talks about support developing export markets. Well, hate to break it to you, but the whole world wants our product. The issue is not finding a market for our product. The issue is getting our product to that market. So we don't need help finding more markets. We need help moving our product. And I don't know that we could have been much more clear about that. That's why our government is acting right now to get more rail in place so that we can get our product to that market. And that's why we're going to keep fighting for the pipeline as well. So yes, it's a start, but offering Alberta business owners and industry the opportunity to go further in debt is not any kind of long term solution — especially not when we are a province and we are talking about an industry that is very good at being profitable, given the freedom to do so.

JD: Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, speaking in Calgary.

[Music: #AIH50 theme]

Encore: Butt dial

JD: It's one of the most terrifying sentences of the modern era: "Hey, you butt-dialed me yesterday." Now, if you're lucky, the person goes on to say, "It was so muffled I couldn't make anything out." But if you're not — well, introducing James Stephens. We spoke with Mr. Stephens earlier this year about an accidental call that had some serious repercussions. Mr. Stephens worked for the state of Georgia. He called his boss by mistake — and his boss listened in. It ended with James Stephens having to find a new job. As we revisit our most memorable interviews of the year, here's Mr. Stephens' conversation with Carol from in April — when he launched a lawsuit over what happened.

CO: Mr. Stephens, just set the scene for us first of all. Where were you when this phone call happened?

JAMES STEPHENS: Well, I was in my den when I received a phone call from Mr. Coan, my direct supervisor. It was about 5:30 in the evening. And he kept me on the line for about 50 minutes discussing a meeting he had attended earlier in the day where he didn't feel like he had received enough attention. So he was discussing a colleague of his that grew up in my hometown that he felt like had been rude to him at a meeting. And when that call concluded, I put the phone in my pocket walked into the kitchen, where my wife was and apologized to her for the intrusion. And while we were in the privacy of our kitchen, she made a few less than flattering comments about my job and everything she said was truthful and nothing that really was unkind, just things that only an insecure person would get upset and fire someone over.

CO: But the issue here is that okay, you were you were at home. You'd come home for dinner. Your wife was waiting for you. You took this call — 50 minutes, you were almost an hour on the phone with your boss. How is it that he came to overhear this conversation?

JS: Well, when I put my phone in my pocket and walked into the kitchen, apparently it had redialed the previous number that I had on the line back to him. And I was unaware of that had occurred. But it was and inadvertent pocket-dial that my phone did initiate.

CO: So Michael Coan, your boss, listened in to the conversation you were having with your wife?

JS: Yes, ma'am.

CO: Now I know you can't go into specifics, you just gave a little hint of it there. But just in general, what was the gist of the conversation you're having?

JS: That I spend enough time at work during work hours, and what was the need to take up time in the evening over something that really questionably was not even work-related.

CO: When you were having that conversation with your wife, at what point did you realize that you had the phone open?

JS: I noticed my pocket was illuminated, so I pulled the phone out, I saw it was connected, and said oh — followed by a word you’d have to beep if I said it. And I disconnected the call.

CO: We have all I guess many people have had this happen where you find yourself hearing a conversation or someone has pocket-dialed you and you can hear what's going on. And I guess we listen in. But we generally don't tell the people that we were listening in. we sort of say whoops, you pocket-dialed me, but you don't refer to it. But that's not what happened to you the next day. Tell us what happened when you saw your boss?

JS: Yes, about two hours into my work day the next day, Mr. Coan asked me if I could step into his office. And he had the H.R. representative there. And told me that based on the phone conversation he had heard the previous night that he didn't feel he could any longer work with me and that he'd give me the option to resign or he would fire me. And I said you're gonna terminate me for a private conversation I had in my own home? And he said I have spoken with the attorney general's office, and they said that I have the authority to do that and that's your choice. You can resign, or I will fire you.

CO: What is the law? I mean obviously, you're pursuing this now legally. What have you learned as to your rights are for somebody listening in on a private conversation you're having?

JS: Well, the state code uses adjectives like clandestine. In a paraphrase of a lay person's understanding of the eavesdropping code in Georgia, somebody secretly listens into a private conversation that they know was private and they continue to listen in, they are actually violating the code section. The code is broadly-worded.

CO: Now, in his motion to dismiss your suit against him, Mr. Coan says that he has the right to listen to the call of a subordinate employee, and deserves immunity. What do you say to that?

JS: Well, if his actions did indeed violate the code section as it is worded, it's a little bit alarming that a state employee could possibly be guilty of violating a criminal code section and be covered by immunity because they are a state employee. You know the state constitution certainly provides immunity of governmental employees. But I'm shocked that it may indeed cover potentially activity that violated the criminal code.

CO: Have you got another job?

JS: Yes, ma'am. I was only out of work for six weeks.

CO: So you were an in demand for other employment. You didn't have any trouble finding a job.

JS: Well, I went to work in a field that I thoroughly enjoy; I'm working in local government administration. And I work for a fine elected board. And I’m enjoying my current job tremendously.

CO: And what do you do with your phone? Do you look at it a bit more carefully before you hang it up?

JS: I have a different phone, and I do lock it up. When we hang up, I will lock this call out — certainly learned a lesson in a very inconvenient manner.

CO: So after this call, I won't overhear you saying I hated that interview. Why did we talk to her?

JS: No, ma'am. You will not.

CO: Mr. Stephens, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

JS: Thank you very much for having me.

CO: Bye bye.

JD: Chances are very high that you've heard Galt MacDermot's work, whether you know it or not. The Canadian-American composer's songs have been covered by the likes of Barbra Streisand and Nina Simone. In hip hop, Mr. MacDermot's piano melodies and bass lines have been sampled in hits over and over again. Today would have been his 90th birthday. But Galt MacDermot died yesterday, at his home on Staten Island. While his music was ubiquitous, he never really got the name recognition he deserved. But fans of the Broadway musical "Hair" sure do know who Galt MacDermot is. He wrote the score to it. Here's Galt MacDermot in 1993, telling former "As It Happens" host Michael Enright about how long it took him to write the music.

SOUNDCLIP

GALT MACDERMOT: Well, initially, it took about three weeks because we had to hurry. Joe Papp wanted to hear the score, and decide whether he would use the show as his opening.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: So you were under some pressure?

GM: At first, yeah. And then when he said yeah, and then we continued to work. That was in about January or February, and then he was going to open in September. So we worked all summer, you know adding a few things. But the basic score was written in about three weeks.

ME: When you saw the book and the storyline and everything, did it click for you that this was gonna be a massive hit?

GM: Oh no, I didn't think of it like that. I just thought well, it's funny. And I liked the lyrics a lot. I really liked the lyrics. They were things that you could sing, you know?

ME: Right.

GM: So no, I didn't know much about hits or misses or any other thing.

ME: Did you know much about hippies at the time?

GM: No, I didn't even really know there was a war going on.

ME: Right.

GM: But I found out.

ME: You wouldn't have described yourself as a hippie at all?

GM: No, I was 37 years old. I had two children and wife… no, I had four children by that time.

ME: Because I remember some of the publicity photos of the time, you looked like sort of the straight guy and with all these weirdos around.

GM: Well no, it was just the way I dressed. I used to wear a tie. I gave up wearing a tie because I realized that you don't need it in the New York climate.

ME: I’m wondering what if youngsters today — the teenagers today seeing it — I'm thinking of my kids look and say what the hell was that, Daddy? What was that all about? I'm wondering if it still speaks to young people today?

GM: Well, I can only speak for you know the places that I've seen it play, which is a Europe, where it seems to work fine. And then you know they play it in Sarajevo, did you know that?

ME: No, I didn't. No.

GM: There's a company in Sarajevo — in the middle of the war — and it seems to mean a lot to the people there. So no, it's not really because of its time that that it has an impact. It's because of the show itself. It’s just a terrific show. I mean it's a piece of very unusual writing.

ME: And once you see it, you don't forget it. That's my experience. There are things you can't shake out of your memory about the show.

GM: Well, I can't forget it. But I'm not allowed to forget it.

JD: That was Canadian-American composer Galt MacDermot, speaking on "As It Happens" with then-host Michael Enright, back in 1993. Mr. MacDermot died yesterday — one day shy of his 90th birthday.

[Music: Ambient]

Part three: Uighur investigation, deep brain stimulation, bookstore showrooming

Uighur investigation

Guest: Martha Mendoza

JD: Clothing was marketed to students enjoying the freedom of U.S. college life. But an investigation by the Associated Press has revealed that the some of Badger Sportswear's products were made inside detention camps — where China says it's re-educating members of its Uighur minority. The company says it's now looking for another supplier. Meanwhile, at least one U.S. lawmaker is wondering how the products of forced labour could have made it into an American company's supply chain. Martha Mendoza was one of the AP reporters behind the investigation. We reached her in Santa Cruz, California.

CO: Martha, what tipped you off to the possibility that people in these Chinese detention camps were being used to make goods for sale in the United States?

MARTHA MENDOZA: It actually was Chinese state media that put out in October a somewhat promotional 15-minute video, showing people inside these camps. They've been getting a lot of international heat for putting people in detention camps. And they made a video showing them quite happy in the camps, sewing clothes, dancing, and then at some point getting married also.

CO: We've covered this story of Uighurs, Muslim-Chinese, who have who have been interned in camps in order to be re-educated. And the Chinese say that they're not camps; it’s just re-education. What were you able to learn about the factories where these clothes were being produced?

MM: People are locked inside. A lot of people who have since been released or have family members within, talk about having the police show up and arrest them. They take them in there, they sleep in rooms with many people, and they are being as they say re-educated. They're required to speak in Mandarin, they're not allowed to practice their Islamic faith, and they are now also adding a labour component to this. And the work can involve building appliances, or cooking, or in the case that we kind of honed in on, sew clothes. And some of those clothes are exported to the west.

CO: What other products are they manufacturing?

MM: They are making these stoves where they cook like little breads inside of them. And so then they're also making the little breads that they cook. And this is all just what we were able to discern — there may be more. And then the clothes are 100 per cent polyester sports gear — shirts and pants.

CO: But the Chinese have been arguing, and it's true, that region of the country is quite economically depressed — that people need work. That if this is a kind of make work project, how is this work being used? Who's being employed by it?

MM: So the people who are working are not asking for these jobs or for this training. And, in fact, this particular population that's being detained tend to be better educated and have jobs. We heard from the mother of one girl who had been working in the city. She had finished university, and she had an apartment and computer and friends and a regular life and was moved to one of these camps. So these are not people who have voluntarily entered a job training program. This is forced labour, and that's a fundamental difference between economic improvement.

CO: So the internment camps what we reported in the past is that they are trying to re-educate people they say to suppress the Muslim faith, to get them to speak Mandarin, to do all kinds of things that people have resisted. Are these profit-making centres then now? Are they actually making goods that the Chinese are profiting from?

MM: So what they're doing is collaborating with factories. So there will be a government-run training camp connected by a fenced path to an apparel factory. And the apparel factory is a privately-run company that yes, it is planned from Beijing to have companies that are doing well elsewhere in China open branches in this state in order to improve the economy. But it's all within the same detention camp.

CO: What happened when your colleagues approached this particular place to try and investigate?

MM: They were met with a growling Doberman. They were told they needed to leave. They were told that it was a military centre. And at one place, a propaganda minister acknowledged that it was a factory. But again, told them to leave. But from the outside, there's signs as they approach that say “learn to be grateful”, “learn to be an upright person”, “no need to pay tuition”, “find a job easily”, and it's a barbed wire perimeter with one gate going in and out. The gate says it's an apparel employment training base, but it's got watchtowers, and everybody's locked inside.

CO: You report — Associated Press — reports that at least 10 times this year, shipping containers filled with men's, women's, and youth clothing — polyester knitted T-shirts, pants were sent to Badger Sportswear for sale in the United States. Who are the clients for Badger?

MM: Their clothing goes largely to university bookstores and sports teams. So universities will put their logos on their sports shirts and sports pants. And then teams like little league teams or clubs that want a team uniform can get their gear printed on Badger sportswear.

CO: And when you told Badger what you had found, when you when you approached them, how did they respond?

MM: They said that they would halt shipments and investigate. And that they use a social auditor. And that the auditor had approved this factory.

CO: These auditors these are people that the companies hire in order to make sure that they're not dealing with forced or abused labour in their in their supply chain, right?

MM: Yeah. Companies hire outside auditors to go in and review the labour and environmental and sustainability practices at a given factory before they allow them to do their manufacturing or other labour.

CO: Now, did you find any other products are being sold in the U.S. or perhaps even Canada that came from these internment camps?

MM: Not yet.

CO: There's a U.S. congressman who's asked President Trump to prevent the sale of products from these camps. Why do you think that wasn't done in the first place?

MM: Well, because they didn't know it was happening, I think. The 1930 Tariff Act bans imports that are the products of forced labour. And the Congressman Chris Smith from New Jersey has been just the most vociferous elected official in the U.S. about ending human trafficking I would say. So he does want this law enforced. And I have been asking for days with the federal agency responsible for enforcing the law what their next step is going to be? Their next step if they decided that these are products of forced labour could seize the shipments.

CO: All right. We will be following your reports. Martha, thank you.

MM: Thank you so much.

Martha Mendoza is a reporter with The Associated Press. We reached her in Santa Cruz, California.

[Music: Percussive]

Deep brain stimulation

Guest: Lori Dreher

JD: Andi Dreher is 9 years old. She suffers severe epilepsy, and has spent almost her entire young life suffering from debilitating seizures — over 100 every day. She has tried countless medications and treatments. Nothing has worked. But now, there is new hope for Andi. She has become the first child in Canada to undergo deep brain stimulation. Doctors at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto implanted electrodes deep into Andy's brain that send out electrical impulses. They hope it will reduce the number of seizures she has. We reached Andi mom, Laurie Dreher, in Kitchener, Ontario.

CO: Lori, first of all, how is Andi doing?

LORI DREHER: Right now, she's doing OK. We're still experiencing a large number of seizures in a day — still about 100 to 150. But when we were at the hospital, we changed her device settings, so it may take a little bit for some of the settings to have an impact on her.

CO: What happens when Andi has a seizure?

LD: The hundred to 150 that she experiences in a day are approximately a 10 to 15 second where her head goes back and her eyes flutter, and she kind of loses balance and falls to the side. But then once or twice a week, she'll still experience a typical grand mal seizure with the convulsions and that.

CO: And so having the little seizures, which I understand became much worse when she was about seven, right?

LD: Yes.

CO: What effect does that have on her life?

LD: A huge impact. I mean essentially she can't walk from a to b without having one of us hold her hand.

You know, fortunately, we've got three other kids that are pretty good to try and help her, you know?

But in order to go get a glass of water or to go use the washroom, she needs someone to walk with her.

And as she's getting older, you know an 8-9 year old little girl wants to be independent, and wants to do what her friends are doing in school, or her brothers and sisters are doing. And, unfortunately, she can't. You know she's kind of just trapped in her body right now.

CO: And what about aside from schoolwork? What about just the extracurricular things like I mean sports and play and birthday parties?

LD: There's a lot she can't do, yeah. It's very heartbreaking at times you know where, especially the older she gets, the more she wants to do. And she just can't. And she used to, which is hard for her to comprehend. We have found a few adaptive programs for her, which are great. But she's not doing what her friends are doing.

CO: How did you and your daughter prepare for the idea that you would go for deep brain stimulation?

LD: Andi is very aware for the most part of what is wrong with her. We never really try and hide any of it. She calls all of her seizures she calls them glitches from the “Wreck it Ralph” movie, where one of the characters, Vanelope, had a computer glitch. And so when she was three that's kind of how we've always explained it and talked about it to her — and to her brothers and sisters. So she you know had prior surgeries, so she knew what that was about. So she knew she was going to go back in for surgery. And she just she was hopeful that it's gonna make the glitches go away.

CO: Right, but this is hasn't been done on very many children. She's the first in Canada to undergo deep brain stimulation, right?

LD: Yes.

CO: But it's been done in adults for a couple of decades. How does it work?

LD: So there is a device that's implanted in her chest. And then there's the two rods that are in her brain that go into the centre of the brain — ones on the right and left. And there's four different electrodes on each one that will deliver the current to different locations in the brain. So the trick right now is which one is those are going to be the most impactful on her brain with their ability to control the seizures? We’re in the infancy stages of this one we don't see an impact of either her seizure control or her being alert and able to speak. Because all these seizures in a day also take a toll on her speech, and she's not able to retrieve her words and ask for things. So we have seen in just the short term — because it's only been on for a month — and on the different programs that we have we've seen her language improve.

CO: Wow!

LD: The nice thing about this device too is that it comes with like a handheld piece to it that we can hold over that implanted device in her chest and that's how we can change the program. So when we were there a month ago, they pre-set for more programs for us to try. So then we come home, and we take lots and lots of notes, and you know we do that for a week to two weeks. And then we are able to switch to another program to then do the same thing for another two weeks. And test and see. And then we go back and report to the doctors at Sick Kids, and they talk about it and see, and then know alter it again to try and narrow down and narrow down this infinite number of possibilities.

CO: What are the expectations? What’s the best case scenario for outcome?

LD: Best case scenario, she stops having her seizures, and then with that get off get off you know all the medicine she takes and is back to a normal, functioning girl like you know can go run and play and do the things all the other kids get to do.

CO: Well, Lori, I really hope it works out for Andi. It sounds like she wants to get out there and have a normal life.

LD: She is. She’s so determined. That's what's gotten her this far, right? Is she just wants to do you know… she'll fall a hundred times from a to b, but she'll keep going to get there.

CO: Good for her.

LD: Yeah.

CO: Okay. Give her our best.

LD: Sure.

CO: Bye.

JD: Lori Dreher's nine-year-old daughter, Andi, was the first child in Canada to undergo deep brain stimulation. We reached Lori Dreher in Kitchener, Ontario.

[Music: Ambient]

Toothless opera

[Music: A Christmas carol]

JD: Aspiring opera singer Taylor Fawcett, with his modified version of that Christmas tune. Mr. Fawcett is a masters student who lost three of his front teeth earlier this year — after he fainted while waiting for the bus. After that accident, he decided to put his studies on hold for the year. And he's launched a GoFundMe campaign to help raise money for his medical bills. For now, Taylor Fawcett has a retainer. He spoke with the CBC's Mark Connolly about what it's like to sing with that in his mouth.

TAYLOR FAWCETT: At first, it was frustrating because you know it felt like there's this huge foreign object in your mouth while you're trying to sing. But, eventually, you get used to it, and it's really not too difficult.

MARK CONNOLLY: What about without the retainer? Without your three front teeth?

TF: Without the retainer, you know if you think that there are teeth there, it doesn't sound right.

MC: He's removed his teeth by the way, ladies and gentlemen.

TF: Yes. However, if you know that there are no teeth there, you can adjust your technique with your tongue and all that, and it's not so bad.

CO: Kelly, you use this word showrooming. What does it mean?

KELLY JUSTICE: Showrooming is a term that is not used a lot in general conversation, but in retail, we use it all the time. A showroom is a place where a person with a shop would display their wares so people can pick them up and touch them and try them on or test them out and see if they like them so they can purchase them. And the term showrooming appeared when it became clear that people were using our businesses as showrooms for Amazon — so whether it's a local bike shop or running store or, most pervasively, bookstores where people would come and use our knowledge, our passion, our taste, our atmosphere even, conversation, company, and then take our suggestions and buy them elsewhere.

CO: And then go and order online?

KJ: Yes, in some cases, right in front of us.

CO: Showrooming like this has been going on for as long as the phenomenon of online shopping has been so big and so real. But now, you say it's worse. It's just so in your face. Tell us what you're getting at your store now?

KJ: Well, you know, obviously it's not everyone who comes in here. Most of our customers are wonderful and lovely. But there are people who are either unaware of how harmful this practice is. Or in some cases, they just don't care, and are happy to tell me they don't care. It's upsetting. And they'll scan things right in front of me or take a picture right in front of me. And in some cases, buy the book in front of me. And in a couple of cases, just laugh at us. And that’s hurtful, you know?

CO: There was a woman who shouted “Amazon wins again”.

KJ: Yes, she did. She came in with a group of co-workers, and she was bragging to them about I guess she felt like she was showing them that she was smarter than they were.

CO: What does it actually mean for your sales?

KJ: There's no real way to quantify that. So much of it is done stealthily, you know? So much of it is done without folks even coming into the store, you know? We recommend things on our social media feeds and on in our newsletters and on the front page of our website. So we don't know how much of those sales are going to Amazon. I don't have any way of knowing. It does hurt sales. It absolutely hurts sales. And it's more than hurting sales so it's tremendously disheartening. You know we really, really care and we really love what we do. And we consider it a privilege and an honour to be of service to our customers and our community. And when we're put down and set upon by people, or in some cases, since this tweet went out you know people are just demanding that we price match. Well, that's just not possible. There's not any way that could ever happen. There are advantages that a mega corporation like Amazon has that we will never have — specifically they are given tax incentives and all kinds of other incentives when they move to a new town. The second headquarters will most likely be here in Virginia, and my tax dollars are incentivizing that move. And that's horrifying to me that I as a business owner here for many years am being asked to contribute to decision that people that I voted for are making to bring a direct competitor. I'm subsidizing my own demise. I shouldn't be required by law to do that.

CO: I know that in well my neighbourhood bookstore, and I'm going to I'm going to do a shout out here for Book City, and there's few of them here. But when I go into Book City, and this happens to everyone who has a local bookstore, I can say well there is this book. I think it came out last year, it's about trees, I can’t remember the name, and I think it's blue. And someone will go and find it. And also libraries have that same skill as well. But what happens when we don't have that? I mean there's anyone at Amazon going to do that?

KJ: Well, no, there's no algorithm for that. You know what else there's not an algorithm for is when I bring a bookseller in and start training them here at Fountain, one of the first things we talk about is the right book for the right person at the right time. So you know maybe God forbid your dog just died, right? That's a terrible thing that happened to you, and we happene to know that because we're your friends and your neighbours in addition to being your booksellers. And so we know that no matter how many books about dogs that you've read in the past two years because you love dogs we're not going to sell you a dog book today. But Amazon is going to keep running that stuff up through your feed because that's all they see is your numbers and your data. We see the whole person — the whole you. That's what being a bookseller means.

CO: What would you say to people. Just give your best message to those who are heading out to Christmas shop this evening or next couple of days looking for books, and think why don't I just stay home and do it on my computer?

KJ: For one, it's just more fun. I’m sorry it's just more fun. It's an experience. You know, it's an experience. And I think it's something of value.

CO: And I love your one tweet you say find it here. Buy it here. Keep us here.

KJ: That's from an American Booksellers Association campaign from several years ago. And it resonates way more today than it ever has.

CO: Well Kelly, I hope you do stay there and keep doing what you're doing.

KJ: Oh, I hope so too.

CO: And thank you so much for putting the message out and for speaking with us today.

KJ: Thank you. I'm so honoured that you called. And hello to everybody in Canada, and all my Canadian bookseller buddies up there.

CO: OK. Word’s out. Thanks, Kelly. Bye.

KJ: Good season. Bye-bye.

JD: Kelly Justice is the owner of Fountain Bookstore in Richmond, Virginia. That is where we reached her.

[Music: Ambient]

“Far out” planet

JD: The major planets in our solar system have majestic names: Mars, for the ancient Roman God of war; Venus, for the Roman goddess of love and beauty; and Saturn, for the Roman God of agriculture. I mean, sure: there's no war on Mars, Venus is pretty average-looking, and there's no farming on Saturn. But those names are still impressive. Of course, one planet is stuck with what seems like a place-holder: "Earth". It means "ground". Thanks, planet-namers. You get all fancy about every other un-inhabitable rock in space, and when it comes to our magical home, you're suddenly super-literal. That's kind of an ongoing problem, actually. Yesterday, the International Astronomical Union's Minor Planet Center made a big announcement: the discovery of "the most distant body ever observed in our Solar System". It's a slow-moving pinkish thing. Small — about 500 kilometres in diameter. It's about 11 billion miles from the Sun. And it's been given two names: 2018 VG, which is obviously terrible — and "Farout". And just how did this planet -- which is "far out" in our galaxy -- get the name "Farout"? Scott Sheppard, one of the scientists who found it, explained. Quote: "I actually uttered 'farout' when I first found this object, because I immediately noticed from its slow movement that it must be far out there." Unquote. Huh! What do you know about that! Don't get me wrong: great discovery. It's just that the name feels a little...literal. And maybe they'll come up with something more evocative later on. But so far — so extremely far — not so good.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

December 18, 2018 episode transcript

More Stories Like This