September 28, 2020 Episode Transcript

The AIH Transcript for September 28, 2020

[host]Hosts: Helen Mann and Chris Howden[/host]

HELEN MANN: Hello, I'm Helen Mann. Sitting in for Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

HM: Surge protection. Ontario's Premier says the province has entered the second wave of COVID-19 — and our guest is among the doctors saying it's time to shut some things down. 

CH: Oil aboard! With a new railroad between Alaska and Alberta's oilsands in the pipeline, the railway's president tells us how he plans to address environmental concerns that have tanked other attempts to get crude from A to B.

HM: Prepare to be appraised. As Joe Biden and Donald Trump get ready to go head-to-head in their first presidential debate, the man who played Trump for Hillary Clinton's debate prep tells us what he expects.

CH: Repeat offence. A Black barrister in the U.K. speaks out after being mistaken for a defendant multiple times in a single day — and discovers she's not the only one.

HM: Victorious ACB. Donald Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court has Conservative Christian women celebrating a new icon, made in their image. 

CH: And… no faxed address. A new government minister in Japan wants his country to stop relying on paper and old technology to do business — and he wants everyone on the same page.

CH: As It Happens, the Monday edition. Radio that appreciates the need to get your fax straight.

Part one: COVID spike doctor, debate trump player, Black barrister racism 

COVID spike doctor

Guest: Larissa Matukas  

CH: We know how bad it's been. But new COVID-19 numbers are making Canadians wonder how bad the coming weeks and months could be. Today, Quebec reported 750 new cases. That's a dip from yesterday, but recent numbers have led the province to announce raised alert levels in three regions. And in Ontario, officials have reported 700 new cases today. That's a single-day record. The majority of the cases are in the Greater Toronto Area. This afternoon, Premier Doug Ford pleaded with Ontarians. 

DOUG FORD: Please, follow the health guidance. Please, download the COVID Alert app. Please, get your flu shot this year. It's absolutely critical. If we can get everyone to take these simple steps, we can tip the scale, we can avoid the worst. Because we know that we're in the second wave. And we know that it will be worse than the first wave. But what we don't know yet is how bad the second wave will be. The reality is it's up to each of us together. Our collective actions will decide that we face a wave or a tsunami.

CH: That was Ontario Premier Doug Ford speaking this afternoon. The province's announcement today didn't go far enough for some in the medical community. Including Dr. Larissa Matukas. She's the head of microbiology at St. Michael's Hospital. We reached her in Toronto. 

HM: Dr. Matukas, what is it like for you as a medical professional to hear from the premier that we are officially in a second wave?

LARISSA MATUKAS: I think that we have been toying with this terminology for a while. And certainly, we are seeing this resurgence of cases. And today's numbers certainly are reflective of what is been going on for the past couple of weeks. And so it is concerning that we are seeing such a high number of cases reported today.

HM: In the press conference, Doug Ford announced more than 50 million dollars to recruit thousands more frontline health care workers. But what didn't you hear from the premier that you would have preferred to hear today?

LM: So last week, a group of experts and physicians and along with the OHA had issued a statement that called for very strict measures to really restrict and temporarily close businesses, particularly dine-in restaurants, nightclubs, bars. And we didn't hear any of that today. And whilst there were some restrictions reported and recommended with respect to the hours of operation of these businesses, we welcome that. But we were hoping for more.

HM: You know, I was listening late this afternoon, the Toronto Public Health Officer, Eileen de Villa, said that the thing is, it's not where you go, but what you do when you get there, that you get it from people, not from places. That sounds like it's supporting an argument against closing down bars, gyms, facilities like that.

LM: Yeah, understood. And I agree with the sentiment that it really is individuals that we are transmitting the virus between. It is not from a location to a person. It's between people. However, in these establishments, it is very difficult to adhere to those preventative measures to prevent the spread from one person to another. And the reason for that is that you actually need to remove your mask when you are sitting down to eat a meal at a restaurant. You are participating in activities between people who are unlikely to be part of your household and congregating in an indoor space with many others that have travelled through that same space or even sitting there with you at the same time. And so it's not conducive to actually protecting yourself as an individual in these types of establishments. And so I don't blame the businesses for remaining open. Because there are policies right now that allow them to do so. And so it really is up to the individual. But if to stay safe requires you to wear your mask, and to wash your hands, and to avoid piercing your social bubble, then it's almost next to impossible to do that in these types of establishments.

HM: The Ontario Public Health Officer, Dr. Williams, David Williams, said today that this was an undulating wave as far as he could see. Does the reluctance to call for more restrictions have to do perhaps with not wanting to look like the bad guy?

LM: I'm not sure that I know how to really answer that question. I think that, in general, it always takes time to see the effects of public health measures. So the numbers that we're seeing today is reflective of the activities that were happening two or three weeks ago. And we will continue to see, you know, the effects of the current restricted business hours in the coming weeks. Something tells me that we may not have time to wait to see if those measures are sufficient, given that the number has increased, that there is a strain on our testing system and network, that we're starting to see increasing in the number of hospitalizations with COVID already. So we really are calling for more swift and decisive decisions and restrictions on these types of businesses. And to consider where else, you know, it is difficult for people to adhere to these preventative measures. It's really important that we send messages that allow people to make the safer choice and to participate in safer activities, rather than leaving it up to individuals to decide whether or not a particular activity is safe for them.

HM: So do you think that's a problem here, that people are hearing what they want to hear?

LM: I think most people are really wanting to do what the safest thing is. And when they hear that it's OK to go to a bar or a dine-in restaurant, they have no reason to judge or believe that it isn't safe. They may not realize that it is an actual riskier activity than, say, dining at home with your family. Or the example that I've given before is choosing to go to a gym and having to wear your mask and then removing it because it becomes uncomfortable. As opposed to not being able to go to the gym because it is temporarily closed, and actually being directed to exercise outside or alone, which is the safer option.

HM: I guess the thing is, though, you say temporarily closed, but we've seen a lot of businesses, gyms, restaurants, other things struggling in recent months and unable able to come back. There's a lot of concern about the obvious economic impact of all of this. Is there a way to strike a balance?

LM: For sure. So that's exactly what we need to see happen. So we do need to consider the costs of the sacrifices that these businesses are taking. And it's imperative that when we look at what the cost of these public health measures are that they take into account the costs of providing financial relief and support for the businesses that are sacrificing their time to temporarily close. So what might that look like? I mean, I'm not an economist or a business person, but there might be some considerations around either tax breaks or even directing funds and finances directly to these businesses in order to carry them through the times that they are closed. Or even being even more creative around, how do we redeploy the people who are participating in these service industries that now have to be temporarily closed? And redeploying them to other areas of the economy where there is a demand for workforce.

HM: Dr. Matukas, I really appreciate you speaking with us about all this today. Thank you very much.

LM: I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you. 

HM: All right. Goodbye.

LM: Goodbye.

CH: That was Dr. Larissa Matukas in Toronto. She's a professor at the University of Toronto and the head of the division of microbiology at St. Michael's Hospital. Today, Ontario reported 700 new cases of COVID-19. 

[Music: Folk guitar]

Debate Trump player

Guest: Philippe Reines

CH: Finally, the U.S. presidential contest is going face-to-face. Gloves, and masks, off. Tomorrow night, President Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Joe Biden will debate each other for the first time. Obviously, a lot is at stake. The in-person audience will be small, but the TV audience will be enormous. And, given the president's debating style, it'll be unpredictable. Philippe Reines probably has a better idea than most about how the debate might unfold. He's a former advisor to Hillary Clinton. And in 2016, he played Donald Trump for her debate preparations. We reached him in Washington, D.C.

HM: Philippe Reines, if you were standing in for the president for debate prep this time around, how would you play him?

PHILIPPE REINES: That's a great question. I would play him differently than I did in 2016. Because while he's fundamentally not a different person, he's in different circumstances. And it's manifested itself in a couple of ways. I think most notably, whereas in 2016, he defended himself minimally, if ever, even against the most egregious revelations or accusations — such as Access Hollywood. Four years later, he can't say a word. He can't have a microphone near him without going through a list of grievances that he feels compelled to address. And that eats time. And this is not a press conference where he can talk as long as he wants. He's going to have a couple of minutes. And he's going to have a moderator who says, thank you, sir. And if he wants to spend half his time talking about how perfect his call was with the Ukrainian president or how slippery the ram was, that's his decision. But that's not helpful [laughing]. The other thing I would do, and it's related, is that I would really just take a jackhammer to the English language. Because while he always digressed, he's become one just long non-sequitur.

HM: So how does Joe Biden deal with the unique challenges of debating an opponent who has these kind of non-sequiturs and just tries to, you know, move the conversation to his comfort zone?

PR: I got to say, it's almost easier. Because, you know, we're all going to watch the debate. You're going to have 100-million people, a Super Bowl-sized audience, watching and kind of say, huh, what did Donald Trump just say? And him being less coherent or articulate is almost easier because then you're just hearing someone babble for a few seconds and you say what you want. I mean, Joe Biden knows instinctively, and his team is reminding him, that you can do one of two things. You can stand there and quarrel with Donald Trump for 90 minutes, or you can talk to the largest audience you're going to have for this campaign. And it's not that binary. I mean, obviously there are times you're going to have to get into it with him, but you don't want to always be fighting with him. If he says, Joe, that's an ugly tie. You don't want to say, well, Mr. President, I'm going to take you out behind the gym. If he says, you know, your son was a sucker for serving in the military, I think it's OK if Joe Biden loses his cool.

HM: Um-hmm

PR: And shows a flash of temper or strengths. And I mean, if I were Joe Biden, I would say, Chris, thank you for moderating. And thank you Case Western for hosting us. And with that, I'm going to yield my 45 minutes to Donald Trump.

HM: [chuckling] You would let him dig his own grave?

PR: I mean, yeah. I mean, just get out of his way. You know, by his own admission, you know, as recently as this weekend, he's at rallies and he's testing out new attack lines. I mean, the debate's not a laboratory. The fact it's 35 days away and he does not have a well-honed message or a well-honed attack on Biden, it's not going to do him any better tomorrow night than it does on any given afternoon.

HM: I don't wanna run out of time to hit on some of the topics that are likely to be the centre of this tomorrow night. Of course, the big one today, [chuckling] the president's tax returns. 

PR: Yeah.

HM: The revelation that he paid little or no taxes most years. And, indeed, owes a great deal of money. How much do you think that will impact the debate tomorrow?

PR: I gotta tell you, in 2016, when I pretended to be him in mock debates against Hillary, the easiest defence I ever had to make and simulate was the tax accusation. He's got it down.

HM: But I'm just wondering if the situation is the same this time around. Obviously, the economy in the United States right now is very different. You've got a lot of people struggling quite desperately. 

PR: Right.

HM: And, you know, the president saying last time he was smart to avoid taxes. Is that the same now?

PR: No, that's 100 per cent right. So there's two elements to it. There's the debate, how it manifests itself in the debate dynamic. And then there's the it. What I just said is how I think it will play out in the debate. The it, I mean, let's just say we were past the debates and there were, you know, 12 days left of the campaign and this came out. It's terrible because exactly as you say, the situation is different and $750, you've got people who their unemployment benefits ran out or, you know, they know that the relief bill is being held hostage. Yeah, it's absolutely devastating. And I think that'll haunt him in all sorts of ways outside of the 90 minutes tomorrow night.

HM: Now, a lot of people felt that Hillary Clinton won the debates in 2016. 

PR: Yep.

HM: But Donald Trump still won the Electoral College. So how much of a difference do you think the debates will make in motivating people to get out and vote in the states that matter?

PR: Well, I would put it this way. Her lead opened up dramatically after the first debate. And that gap kept widening. And she never led him more than after the third debate. Now, unfortunately, we don't vote the morning after debates. If we did, she'd be the sitting president right now. The debates were not the problem. The debates are an opportunity. There's something about them standing there. You're choosing between two people. And that redounded to Hillary's benefit. And it will do so to Biden's benefit. And Democrats are so, and including me until a year ago, you're so chagrined because we got 2016 wrong. You're so paralyzed, you know, analysis by paralysis where you can't get past that, and you're afraid to say the obvious. This has been a debacle. This has been a failed experiment. Our country has lost the problem, but we're not 325-million idiots.

HM: Listen, I really appreciate sharing your insights with us today. Thank you so much.

PR: No, thank you for having me, Helen. 

HM: Okay. Bye-bye. 

PR: Bye-bye.

CH: Philippe Reines is a former advisor to Hillary Clinton. In 2016, he played Donald Trump for her debate preparations. He was in Washington, D.C. And you can find more on this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Orchestral]

Black barrister racism

Guest: Alexandra Wilson

CH: U.K. barrister Alexandra Wilson said she was left "absolutely exhausted" after a day at court last week. Being a lawyer is always challenging. But it wasn't her case work that left her exhausted. In a Twitter thread, Ms. Wilson — who is Black — explained that she was mistaken for a defendant — multiple times in that one day. We reached Alexandra Wilson in Essex, England.   

HM: Ms. Wilson, what is it like for you to show up to work every day, not only concerned about your cases but also about whether you might be mistaken for a defendant?

ALEXANDRA WILSON: It can make it, you know, ten times more exhausting. I think, you know, this week particularly, I've been reflecting on the fact that actually, we shouldn't as Black barristers have to deal with both trying to justify our existence in court, as well as dealing with all the emotional strain of representing someone who often has a lot to lose.

HM: Can you tell us specifically what happened in this incident, this particular day where you were mistaken for a defendant?

AW: Absolutely. That day I was representing a client in the Magistrate's court, although the Crown court in this country, we in the UK [laughing], we wear wigs and gowns. In the Magistrates court, we just wear black suits. And I turned up to court, and the security guard as soon as I turned up at the door, asked for my full name to tick me off of the list of defendants. I explained to him that I was there as a barrister. And he apologized and sort of ushered me in. I kind of shrugged that one off, to be honest. I thought, you know, that might have been an innocent mistake. But then I went speak to my client. After speaking to him, I needed to go and speak to the prosecutor about the case, which is, again, really common here.0 We'll speak to the prosecutor about the case before starting. And as I went to the courtroom, a member of the public told me to not go in because she said, you know, journalists aren't allowed in, only lawyers are. Again, it was, you know, telling her I am a lawyer. Then, you know, the usher, the person helping us in and out of the courtroom, invited me to come into the courtroom. As I got into the courtroom, I opened the door and another barrister or solicitor sitting at the back of the courtroom told me to go back outside and wait for the usher to sign me in for my case. This is now the third time. And again, I said, I am the defence barrister. I'm representing my client. I need to speak to the prosecutor. She looked embarrassed and turned around, but, you know, no apology. And then I went into the courtroom, I was in the courtroom, walked over to the prosecutor and the clerk, the legal adviser to the magistrates. She raised her voice at me and shouted at me to get out of the courtroom, that I wasn't meant to be in there, I need you to wait outside for the usher. And then asked whether I was represented today? By this time [deep sigh], I can only explain it as exhaustion, what it really kind of made me think about was the impact that could have on defendants. Because, you know, I was shouted out because I was presumed to be a defendant. And frankly, it's never okay to shout at people in a courtroom. And those defendants, you know, there are defendants day in, day out going to court who must be terrified. It's a really difficult experience going to court. And I say that as someone who represents people, not even as someone whose experienced that.

HM: Um-hmm

AW: And being shouted at, being ordered out of the room, I can only imagine how much more difficult that is when you already nervous, you're already knowing that you might, you know, you might be losing some of your freedom. You may be subject to an order. These sort of things this is scary enough. And you don't need people adding to that. And it really made me appreciate that.

HM: Let me just ask you straight out, why do you think multiple people mistook your position that day?

AW: I do think it's because of the colour of my skin. Because there was so many other advocates walking in and out of that courtroom who were not challenged. They were everywhere. You know, I was the only person who wasn't white. I was the only person in that courtroom who I saw going in and out of that courtroom that wasn't white. You know, the prosecutor, the clerk, all the staff in that courtroom, everyone else was white. And for me to be singled out like that, I couldn't see any other explanation. I was dressed just as everyone else was.

HM: Since you shared your story, I understand you've heard from other barristers. What kind of experiences have they told you about?

AW: I've heard from so many other Black barristers. They have all told me that they have experienced the same thing. And that's what's so, so upsetting is that, you know, it's really opened my eyes to how widespread this was. It was something that I had experienced before in odd occasions. And, you know, particularly, you know, going outside of London where it's less diverse. You know, I'd taken it on the chin before and not really appreciated how widespread it was.

HM: The acting director of Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service in England and Wales has apologized to you for this and is investigating. But beyond an apology, what would you like to see done? What kind of changes would you like to see implemented?

AW: I think just starts addressing the apology. I think that it was reassuring that the head of Her Majesty's Court Service apologized so promptly. For me, that was important that my experience, and hopefully, the experience of many others is actually being listened to. But, you know, as you say, apologies, that's the first step. You know, what other changes do we want to see? I think the thing that springs to my mind is that we need to see much better training of people. And that's not just staff employed by the court service, but that's also, you know, independent barristers and solicitors. We have seen a rise in equality and diversity training in the UK, but I don't think it goes far enough. I think that actually what we need to be having is training that's anti-racist, not just equality and diversity, which should be the bare minimum. We shouldn't just be encouraging people to, you know, consider all of the applicants equally, for example, in a job. We should be getting people to think about what biases they might already have and, you know, challenging those actively, as opposed to just thinking, you know, I don't say racial slurs, or I don't actively discriminate against one race over another. We need to be challenging the more subtle stuff. And that's what I really hope that the court service picks up on, the bar council, picks up on, the, you know, the solicitors regulating authority and law firms particularly pick up on is actually that these issues of race are nuanced. And we can all do some more learning.

HM: Well, Ms. Wilson, I really appreciate you sharing your story with us. Thank you very much.

AW: Thank you. Thank you so much. 

HM: All right. Goodbye. 

AW: Thank you. Bye.

CH: Alexandra Wilson is a barrister in England. She's also the author of "In Black and White: A Young Barrister's Story of Race and Class in a Broken Justice System." We reached her in Essex. 

[Music: World music]

Attenborough tooth return

DAVID ATTENBOROUGH: Hello, my name is David Attenborough, and I've been appearing on radio and television for the past sixty years, but this is my first time on Instagram.

CH: Yes, he said Instagram. And 44 minutes after he posted that late last week, the naturalist Sir David Attenborough had smashed the record previously held by the actress Jennifer Aniston for the shortest time to reach one million followers. That may or may not mean the world to him. But the world itself definitely does mean the world to him. And he'll use any means necessary — including Instagram — to convince its human inhabitants to stop messing it up. That includes a new doc in which the 94-year-old minces no words about imminent mass extinctions. And an interview with the BBC earlier today in which he, also, cuts to the chase — reflecting his obvious belief that time is running out. 

DA: Don't waste. Don't waste anything. Don't waste electricity. Don't waste food. Don't waste power. Just treat the natural world as though it's precious, which it is. And don't squander those bits that we have control of. Since I made the first television program, there's three times as many people on the planet as there was then. And we have overrun it. And now, we are realizing what appalling damage we've done. And after realizing the damage, we're realizing how much we are dependent upon the natural world for everything we do. I mean, every breath of air we take, every mouthful of food we eat comes from the natural world, ultimately. And if we damage it, we damage ourselves.

CH: Sir David Attenborough speaking to "BBC Breakfast" this morning.

Part two: Alaska to Alberta train, SCOTUS religious women

Alaska to Alberta train

Guest: J.P. Gladu

CH: Donald Trump says it's time to lay some track between the Alaska coast and Alberta's oilsands. On Friday, the US President tweeted out his approval of the proposed Alaska to Alberta or "A2A' railway. The project would link Fort MacMurray to Alaska. It's supposed to give grain and oil sands producers an alternative to Canada's often overloaded pipelines. J.P. Gladu is the President of A2A Rail. We reached him in Calgary. 

HM: Mr. Gladu, what does it mean for you and your colleagues to have earned Donald Trump's OK for the A2A railway?

J.P. GLADU: Well, it signals to us that we're on the right path. I mean, in the sense that, you know, Sean McCoshen, our mighty leader, has been at this project for five years, working away and creating a nation-building project like a rail line, which is significant, as you know, significant infrastructure. And the fact that, you know, that our friends and allies to the south and to the northwest, Alaska, [chuckling] see this as a real opportunity for both of our countries to prosper. So I think it was welcome news for us. And it's a significant gate to get through.

HM: Do you have reason to think an oil railroad is going to be easier to sell than oil pipelines have been?

JPG: Well, the wonderful thing is that bitumen is just a portion of one of the products that are going to be carried on this rail line. When we think about a rail line, a multiple of commodities that will be seen going over the land also includes, and I'm a forester by training, so this brings warmth to my heart, we'll start to see forest products. We'd like to start to see some more of the green products from our central provinces getting to market, as well as there's mining projects along the way. The other thing that we really need to keep in mind here is that there are a lot of northern communities, I'm Indigenous myself, that have limited ability to participate in the economy from a place of strength because the high cost of doing business in northern communities. So we're also going to be able to get goods up to northern communities for housing, automobiles, I mean, everything. So I think we're going to have a lot more advocates for this project. Bitumen, of course. And we're working with partners to ship bitumen in it's puck form to reduce the environmental risk. But it's not without its challenges. There's a lot of environmental work to do, a lot of consultation work to do. But we're up for it.

HM: Right. I mean, I know you're mentioning all these other projects, and other products, I should say. And the fact that that's going to be pucks of bitumen. That's still the key part of the business model here, though, is the transportation to Fort Mac. And I'm just wondering, you know, you've got a lot of Indigenous communities with interests in the land there. Are you're dealing with the Alaska coast. What are you going to say to people with memories of major spills and of things like the disaster at Lac Megantic?

JPG: Yeah, we have to learn from those mistakes, absolutely. We also need to look at it as a more comprehensive approach, doing it differently than we've done in the past. And, you know, I'm First Nation, I've seen a lot of projects go without any of our community input, without our moccasins on the ground monitoring, without us being part of project development. You know, as an example, we've got a corridor laid out. Is it absolutely the right path? Absolutely not. We've got to make sure that we do it differently by making sure communities are engaged in fine tuning that path if it needs to take a major correction. Communities need to have that space to navigate. And then the other thing is that communities have largely been on the outside. So they take all the risk without any of the benefit. This project is going to offer significant benefit to the Indigenous community, and northern communities, for that matter, because, as an example, our founder, and a big reason why I'm joined on, is because we're going to be creating space, 49 per cent equity, for communities to be owners in this so that we can begin to invest in our northern communities. 

HM: But as you know --

JPG: So we're doing it very differently.

HM: As you know, not every Indigenous community wants to be in ownership over projects such as this. 

JPG: Absoulutley. 

HM: You've been involved in other environmentally-sensitive development projects, former CEO of the Canadian Council or Aboriginal business, what makes you so confident that this ownership model that's being proposed for both the Trans Mountain Pipeline and this project of yours is going to be enough to overcome the hurdles that have blocked other projects?

JPG: You know, that's a great question. There's always risk in these projects, but I always love to use this analogy. And it may oversimplify it, but it's really important. You know, if we get in a rental car and we hit a bump on the road, it'll be like Oh, Helen, damn, that bump hurt. But it's not our car, so we don't really care as much. But if we get into a vehicle that we both own, we're going to make sure that we avoid those bumps. There's going to be a lot more participation at all levels in this project. You know, we're always going to, and I'm grateful, that we have Indigenous communities that raise a lot of concern around environmental impacts because we have to have these voices at the table.

HM: So you've got Donald Trump's support. What happens if things don't go his way in November?

JPG: We'll see. One hurdle at a time. But I understand Mr. Biden's also a little bit of a railroader type of guy. I think, specific to this project, it's the diversity of product that will go through it. Temember, this time last year, our grain could not get to market because the oil was taking a lot of the rail line capacity. So I think, you know, this is one snapshot in time. The markets have been slow. And we've got to be able to work within those ebbs and flows.

HM: Mr. Biden might like taking the train from Delaware to Washington and back, but he also has to answer to the environmental lobby. Going forward, the people who support him are maybe not going to be the kind of people who support this kind of project.

JPG: Absolutely. I mean, It takes all voices to make to make a conversation. And, you know, again, the principles of this project, as well as the inclusion, this is going to be a different project than Canada's ever seen before. Both from an environmental and as well as from what I'm most passionate about, from an Indigenous perspective, where communities are going to be in the driver's seat of that train, so to speak. You know, it frustrates me as an Indigenous Canadian to see a lot of foreign investment evading our country because we can't seem to get our stuff together when it comes to regulatory and Indigenous relations. And I think this project can do it with the right people at the table and the right leadership of governments and Indigenous communities.

HM: All right, Mr. Gladu, thank you very much for talking with us about your hopes for the project.

JPG: Thanks, Helen. Appreciate the time. 

HM: Okay. Bye-bye.

JPG: Bye-bye. 

CH: J.P. Gladu is the President of A2A Rail. We reached him in Calgary.

[Music: Folk guitar]

SCOTUS

CH: Unless some Republicans change their mind at the eleventh hour, the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court is all but guaranteed. The socially-conservative, federal appellate judge is set to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who died ten days ago. At the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Republican Senator Ted Cruz accused his Democratic colleagues of political theatre, for opposing the pick. And he told the committee that over the past two centuries of American presidents, the move to appoint a Supreme Court nominee so close to an election is not that uncommon. Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar felt compelled to respond to that, and much more. Here's part of what she told the committee.

AMY KLOBUCHAR: Well, I sit in a position on this committee where I often follow Senator Cruz. And I often have to throw out my entire plan for what I was going to say because of what he said. But I had never had an experience quite like this one. I could choose to start by taking on his interpretation of history because of the fact that the only other time that we have had a justice die this close to an election was when Abraham Lincoln, a wise, wise leader, was president. What did he do? He waited until after the election. What is unique in your words, Senator Cruz, about this situation? People are voting right now. Democracy is happening right now. And we in this room are supposed to be stewards of this democracy. What else is unique, in your words, about this situation? It is the precedent that was set just a few years ago by the very people sitting here by the very leader who is still the leader of the Republican Party. He said this, Mitch McConnell, the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president. What else is on the line? Well, civil rights is on the line when you look at the decisions and all the money that has flowed into our politics from the outside as a result of this current court's decision that is dominated by nominees put forward by Republican presidents. Women's rights. Oh, yeah, they are on the line. And as those fires were blazing on the west coast of our country, even the right to regulate our environment and do something to protect our air and water that is on the line. So this hearing will not be divorced from what is happening right now because this president has put it right in the middle of a political campaign. That's his choice, not our choice. So I don't see this as theatre, as you describe, Senator Cruz. I see this as the real world. So we will look at this nominee, and we will look carefully at this nominee. That is our job. But we cannot get away from the fact that the process that puts her before us will be one that is not respecting the democracy that we are supposed to cherish.

CH: Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, addressing the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

[Music: Instumental]

religious women

Guest: Ruth Malhotra

CH: For conservative evangelical women in the United States, ACB is the new RBG. Over the weekend, President Donald Trump nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett — or ACB, as she's known by her supporters — to the Supreme Court. If she's confirmed, the staunchly conservative and religious judge would replace liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg — reshaping the court for a generation. And even though there is just over a month to go before the election, the Republican-majority Senate says her confirmation is all but a done deal. That's good news for Ruth Malhotra even though she didn't vote for President Trump in 2016. She's a lifelong evangelical Christian from Georgia, and we reached her on vacation in Panama City, Florida. 

HM: Ms. Malhotra, what was your first reaction when you heard that Judge Barrett was going to be, indeed, the Supreme Court nominee?

RUTH MAHOLTRA: I was really excited. I was very hopeful that she would be named. But when it was confirmed that she was going to be the nominee, I was very, very grateful, just filled with gratitude and excitement.

HM: Yeah, I understand you got a text message from your mother. What did it say?

RM: [chuckling] I did. My mom was watching back in Atlanta. And she texted me and said President Trump's description of Amy sounds just like you and reminds me of you. And we were texting throughout the ceremony, and spoke later on. And it was just a really, I think, inspiring moment for a lot of people, I think, in Amy, I see someone who's a role model, who's kind of like a virtual mentor in a way that maybe Ginsburg was that turned into a pop icon. I feel like Barrett, too many of us could be a virtual mentor and role model.

HM: So you think that the ACB will be the new RBG?

RM: You know, well, I respect RGB's role in history, and she certainly carved a unique place for herself and for many women who came after her. And I think Amy was right to recognize that. But I think she's going to define her own role. I don't think she's going to be the counter to Ginsburg or the new Ginsburg. I think she's going to make her own mark in history. Carve out her place. There's a lot of unique things about her, including, you know, being a mother to school-age children and her storied academic career already. I'm really excited to watch America, the rest of America, get to know her better. And I think they're gonna fall in love with her the way I have so many of my friends have.

HM: But she's not the first woman to serve, not the first mother to serve and not the first person to have that kind of academic distinction. So what is unique about her that you so identify with?

RM: Sure. I think she, you know, as a person of deep faith, and she's made it very clear that while her faith informs her worldview, she wants to rule, you know, equally equal justice under the law, as we say, and is very resolute in carrying out her duties in that regard. I think she's very well respected by people across the political spectrum. And I think she really represents kind of the full package, if you will, of someone who, you know, is a devoted wife and mother to several children and is now serving in public life and about to be hopefully confirmed to the highest court in the land. I mean, one of the things that surprised me was people from across the political spectrum, even people who are apolitical and not particularly interested in following these things closely, reached out to me and expressed so much hope and enthusiasm when they got to know her more.

HM: You know, you are, though, seeing a lot of liberals and centrists, I certainly have, reading their reviews of the situation and saying that they are concerned. They look at Judge Coney Barrett's rulings, and they are concerned what the impact is going to be on issues like abortion, health care and gun control. And that they're being decided by a majority conservative bench. What do you say to progressives, especially women, who are afraid that their rights may be taken away with Judge Barrett on the bench?

RM: Well, I think for decades we've seen the consequences of an activist judiciary and activist judges who are intent on pushing a particularly leftist agenda. And I think it's refreshing to see someone and Judge Barrett, who says, you know, they truly love and revere the Constitution and have an originalist interpretation. And I think her previous rulings speak to that. I think she's, again, made it clear that she's not out there to impose her personal beliefs on other people. She's not, even though she's a person of deep faith, it's not a theocratic sort of way. Not in a culture sort of culture warrior sort of way. Even on the issues that you mentioned, I think the right to life is something that is deeply, deeply important to many of us. And I think it's refreshing that we have people nominated to this court who express that originalist interpretation like many of us do in the country and haven't heard for a long time.

HM: You know, Judge Barrett herself said when she was nominated to the appeals court by President Trump in 2017 that she considers Roe v. Wade a settled precedent, at least at the appeals level. What do you expect of her when it comes to the fight to overturn Roe v. Wade?

RM: You know, that'll be interesting, obviously, to look at. I think it's something yet to be determined, of course. But even before we get to that point, I think there's a number of decisions that relate to building a culture of life that have to do with, you know, again, protecting the vulnerable, restricting taxpayer funding of abortion. You know, all of these different aspects, protecting states rights in this and state's role in this. I was very involved in the Heartbeat Bill in Georgia. And so I think there's a number, you know, everyone wants to focus on Roe, but there's actually a number of other elements to this when we're talking about this issue.

HM: President Trump needs conservative Christian women like you to vote for him on Election Day. I understand you didn't vote for him in 2016. Does this nomination change your mind for this year?

RM: Yeah. You know, I had a lot of concerns four years ago, I wasn't really sure where he stood. I wasn't sure if we could trust his decisions. I had a lot of concerns about his character and behaviour. And while some of those elements are so concerning to me, I'm not a fan of his Twitter account or some of his rhetoric. I do plan to vote for him in November. For me, in some ways, Amy Coney Barrett sort of sealed the deal. I had been on the sidelines for the past few years and a little bit disillusioned, not really feeling represented by either major political party or by many people in power. And I think someone like her is so refreshing to see in public life and nominated to the highest court in the land. And it certainly inspires me to get back in the ring and do what I can to fight for America's flourishing.

HM: Ms. Malhotra, I really appreciate your time today. Thank you very much.

RM: Sure. Thank you. 

HM: Bye-bye.

RM Appreciate the oportunity. Bye.

CH: We reached Ruth Malhotra in Panama City, Florida.

[Music: Jazz]

Japanese faxes

CH: Turning now to your daily horoscope. Aries: steer clear of horses today. With Mars transiting your sign but still in retrograde, you may find that --  

[Sound: Fax machine in opperation]

CH: Excuse me. Just getting a fax, oh, from my boss. It just says..."No astrology. Well, fine. Typical Scorpio. If you're under 30, you probably didn't recognize the thrilling sound of a fax machine. They were huge here in the '80s and '90s. But then the  Internet made them mostly obsolete. Faxes lost the tech battle, without much of a fight. Not in Japan, though. Which is why Taro Kono — the new administrative reform minister — is declaring war on the fax. In Japan, over 95 per cent of businesses still rely on fax machines. Mostly because of the two-thousand-year-plus tradition of hanko — which is a personal seal of authentication, like a signature. It's a physical stamp, with your name on it, and it's required for a huge assortment of transactions. You fill out paperwork, fax it, and an official has to stamp it with their hanko. Obviously, the need to stamp things in person is a problem in the pandemic. And it's been a perennial problem for the printing and proliferation of piles and piles paper. And Minister Kano says, "As far as administrative procedures are concerned, I want to end the culture of stamping hanko just for the sake of stamping it. I will push my way through." And Minister Taro Kano is an anti-paper tiger. And he's trying to create a new future, where sending everything around on paper becomes a major fax pas.

Out.

[Music: Hip-hop]

Part three: Turkey arrest, stakeholder capitalism study, rating benches

Turkey arrest

Guest: Omer Ongun

CH: Omer Ongun was on the phone with his partner, Cihan Erdal, when police in Turkey came and took Mr. Erdal away. Mr. Erdal is a PhD student at Carleton University, and a permanent resident of Canada. He was in Turkey doing research. He and dozens of others were detained on Friday. Their arrests appear to be related to a letter written in 2014 — which called on the Turkish government to help Kurds in Syria. Now Mr. Ongun is doing what he can to get his partner freed. We reached Omer Ongun in Ottawa.

HM: Omer Ongun, when the police came to arrest Cihan in Istanbul, what did he say to you?

OMER ONGUN: Well, he said, they're at my door. They're taking me away. I don't know why, he didn't tell me anything. And that was the last words that I heard from him.

HM: Were you talking to him on the phone at the time or did he call specifically because of this?

OO: No, it was 2:00 a.m. for us on a Thursday night, so early Friday. And so I was sleeping and I woke up to his phone. And I immediately thought something must be wrong because he would never call that time. He started the phone by saying, I love you. Don't get worried too much. But this is what's happening to me. And then I said, be strong. I'm shocked, but be strong and always remember we love you.

HM: The police were actually at the door in that moment?

OO: Yes, the police was there. And I haven't spoken to him since then. I haven't heard his voice yet. I can just get communication through the lawyers.

HM: And what are the lawyers telling you about how he's doing, where he's being held?

OO: Well, for the first 36 hours, he didn't have any access to legal assistance. So we were extremely worried. And then one of the lawyers called me and said I was able to talk to him for about five, ten minutes. He's doing well. His morale is high. Like, he's doing good. But the conditions that they're keeping him is a little bit challenging because they keep him in a basement, in a detention centre with no windows and airflow. And they only gave him three glasses of water and some not so good food. So they were worried a little bit. And then, gradually, the condition started to get a little better. So we were able to get some water, and lawyers basically pushed for better food. And also, we were able to get some clean clothes to him because he was in his shorts and T-shirt for like three days.

HM: The two of you went to Turkey this summer to see family. He ended up staying on to do research for his PhD. Did you have any sense that he might be in danger of being arrested when you were there?

OO: No, not at all. We came to Canada. We're permanent residents of Canada. But we were extremely worried about our parents. And since we got here, we often go back to see them. We were, of course, worried because of COVID. As soon as the border was opened, we had to take that decision and we were like, you know, let's go. We weren't worried about any risks, any security risks because we didn't think there was a reason to run away or hide. You know, that idea didn't cross our minds at all. And he said, I'm just going to stay for a few more weeks because I want to continue with my doctoral research that's on the European youth experiences here. And that's what he was trying to do.

HM: Was there anything about his research, about his activities, maybe the context that he was making that might have alarmed the government that they might have seen as controversial?

OO: No, the accusation so far, so-called crimes, are so far based on a letter that he signed six years ago. So they're basically telling him that you signed, you were part of a party,  a legal party, who made a press release, a statement through this letter calling the government to step in. And there were some clashes, some looting happening. And you're responsible for all of this because you are the one who basically called people or government to take action. He was not making any you know, critical of Turkish government because he wasn't politically involved at all. So no critical. And he didn't write anything yet. He was just working on it.

HM: So this letter critical of the Turkish government is six years old. 

OO: Yeah.

HM: Given that, why do you think the authorities decided to arrest Cihan now?

OO: Well, I don't know why they're doing it. But what I sense from the media is that Turkey is going through an extreme health and economic crisis. And this is probably one way to to change the perspective, to change the agenda.

HM: Um-hmm. We're seeing this crackdown on opposition politicians and other critics. It sounds like you think this is primarily an effort to turn the page, to distract attention from the economic issues?

OO: Absolutely. I think this could be, at least that's what people are saying. I don't want to comment too much on that. But I think that could be part of the reason why he might be detained at this exact date or at this time.

HM: You pointed out that both you and Cihan are permanent residents of Canada. What would you like Ottawa to do to help?

OO: Yeah. I mean, we're Canadians, right? We are not citizens. We are just months away from our citizenship. But we are Canadians. And, you know, we live as Canadians. And we contribute to the economy and society here. And Canada has been consistently a strong voice for the protection of human rights and the advancement of democratic values. So I would like every Canadian that's listening to us, and the authorities that's listening us to pause and think for a moment how you would feel if Chihan was your son, your husband or your partner? And I think this is one of those critical moments to take action and reach out to Turkish embassy, the Canadian embassy in Turkey and the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs Champagne. I mean, all they need to do is to say we want him back. This person belongs to this country and we want him back.

HM: Have you heard anything from the federal government?

OO: No, not yet, unfortunately.

HM: I see. But you're trying to to speak with them?

OO: Yes, absolutely.

HM: Right. Now, I understand there's a court date on Friday. What are you expecting might happen then?

OO: Well, lawyers are optimistic that Cihan is not involved in politics at all. And there's a misunderstanding and his situation is different. But we have that four days' window and any pressure makes a huge difference.

HM: What's it like for you being so far away, knowing that your partner is in detention?

OO: Um, ytou know, I don't sleep and I rarely eat. Sometimes I'm like, OK, I got to take care of myself. You know, I received overwhelming positive support and solidarity from people. So I feel both devastated, horrible. But at the same time, I try to stay optimistic and I strive to keep up my energy so that I can I can fully focus on bringing him back.

HM: Well, Omer, I hope things work out quickly for Cihan and that this gets resolved. So thank you very much.

OO: Thank so much. Thank you for creating this platform to share our story. Thank you.

HM: All right. Good to talk to you. Goodbye.

OO: Goodbye. Bye-bye.

CH: Omer Ongun's partner, Cihan Erdal, was arrested in Turkey on Friday. We reached Mr. Ongun in Ottawa. CBC requested comment from Global Affairs Canada, but the department was not able to provide any information before we went to air.

[Music: Ambient]

Stakeholder capitalism study

Guest: Bronagh Ward

CH: Last summer, nearly 200 CEOs — including the leaders of Apple, Amazon, and Walmart — signed an ambitious pledge: to focus on people, as much as profits. The group called themselves the Business Roundtable. And their commitment came as companies around the world faced mounting pressure around income inequality, and poor working conditions. Many saw the pledge as a major move that could usher in a new era of change in corporate America. But a year later, researchers have taken a look at those promises, and found that most of the companies didn't follow through. Bronagh Ward is the lead author of that study. She is a Director at K-K-S Advisors, a consultancy that counsels companies on environmental policy. She's in Belfast, Ireland.

CO: Bronagh, you gave a failing grade to most of these big companies. Who were the worst offenders as you reviewed how these corporations had responded to the Business Roundtable.

BRONAGH WARD: Yeah. So we looked at firms globally, including U.S. and European companies. One company that came out in the bottom quartile was Amazon. Some of the kinds of issues that we were seeing linked to Amazon was, for instance, warehouse workers telling news outlets that they were terrified of working during the pandemic. Workers in various warehouses were asking the company to actually close down those warehouses. And the company responded by firing employees. We also saw Amazon being linked to the deaths of a number of employees in warehouses around the world.

CO: And in fact, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, the founder and CEO, he signed this Business Roundtable statement, right? So what had he agreed to do?

BW: So the Business Roundtable statement was essentially redefining the purpose of a corporation and moving away from this model of shareholder primacy where the purpose of a corporation is to deliver profits to shareholders and that that is its only purpose. Moving away from that to a model whereby companies are pursuing value creation for all of their stakeholders, and those stakeholders includes their employees, their customers, their suppliers, et cetera.

CO: But he answers, Jeff Bezos responseds that he found your study to be flawed. And that he says that the company invested more than 800-million dollars on safety improvements for workers and hand sanitizers and things like that. So what do you say to him?

BW: Yeah, well, I would say that every company that we looked at has both positive and negative signals. Amazon, we note in the report that Amazon indeed hired more people during the crisis. And in that instance, you could say that it had a positive impact in terms of growing the workforce, providing jobs during a time of hardship. At the same time, what we're using in order to inform this study is big data, millions of data points on a daily basis. And overall, what we have seen is that the negative signals are outweighing the positive signals at the point in time when the rankings have been put together.

CO: Corporations have an obligation to shareholders, even by law, to make them money to make profits. And so is there something kind of flawed in the whole idea that corporations would claim that they're going to do things differently when they don't and they often can't?

BW: So there is a big misconception, especially in corporate America, with the dominance of the shareholder primacy model, where the thinking is really that the purpose of business is to create profits. And by doing other things, by investing in employees, for example, then profits will be hurt. What we're actually seeing is that the latest research, which is coming from institutions like Harvard Business School. It's coming from the world's largest investors, who are increasingly researching these issues and looking at the data. What they're saying is that when companies focus on sustainability issues that are relevant to their business model into their value creation strategy, then these companies actually outperform financially. So this is quite counterintuitive for many. But what the latest research is showing is that really there is not such a clear tradeoff between purpose and profits. And actually, you can have both.

CO: But do you think that those other stakeholders who you're speaking on behalf of, I mean, that corporations will not and haven't? Demonstrated volunteerism when it comes to protecting them, that it's laws and legal standards of employment and opportunity and and conditions that make the difference for workers, is it not?

BW: You know, in the past, yes, that has been the case. The regulatory and legal environment has really been the sole driver of company performance and those issues. Whereas more recently, things have been changing and they've been changing for many reasons, including the globalization of business, the increasing power and resources that companies have to influence big societal issues. And actually, what we're seeing more recently is especially with a gap on the government regulatory side in terms of addressing these issues, you know, inequality on the social side, climate risk on the environmental side. Companies are stepping forward and saying, look, these issues, they are important trends for our future strategy. They impact our risk, our future profits. And therefore, we're seeing a lot of companies actually come forward and take steps to go above and beyond the legal framework because they see that it can benefit them on the social side. It can help boost employee productivity having engaged workforce. 

CO: You really have a lot of faith in capitalism and it being able to actually [chuckling] be an engineer of social change, I guess?

BW: I think there are a lot of positive influences that capitalism can have that frankly have been untapped in the past due to the kinds of values that senior leaders have have had. And there's a incredible opportunity for companies to actually address social and environmental issues. And I think it's very interesting to see companies come forward. Not all of them are sincere with with their ambitions and their commitments. But some companies have come forward with really strong ambitions to redefine the way that they make profits and use that as a driver of of good. So I'm optimistic that we can at least give give that a go. And at the same time, you know, pursue other models that can really reshape the way that the world works.

CO: All right. We'll leave it there. Bronagh, thank you.

BW: Thank you very much.

CH: Bronagh Ward is the lead author of the study "COVID-19 and Inequality: A Test of Corporate Purpose". She was in Belfast, Ireland.

[Music: Orchestral]

SOD: Romanian voters obit

CH: Voters in Romania headed to the polls yesterday to cast their ballots in local elections. And in the small town of Deveselu, voters re-elected their mayor for a third term. It was a landslide victory for Ion Aliman. But he wasn't able to give a victory speech. Mr. Aliman died a little less than two weeks ago, from COVID-19 complications. It was too late to remove his name from the printed ballots. But it wasn't an accident that he was re-elected. Word of his death travelled fast through the town of about 3,000 people. Those who did vote for him said he had done a good job and he deserved the victory. After his re-election last night, dozens of villagers visited Ion Aliman's grave, carrying candles and flashlights, to celebrate the win and pay their respects. It's our Sound of the Day. 

[Sound: Clapping and cheering]

CH: From a celebration in Deveselu, Romania last night, by the grave of Mayor Ion Aliman, after he was re-elected for a third term. Mr. Aliman died from COVID-19 complications nearly two weeks ago — too late to change the names on the printed ballots for the town's election. Officials have already said they plan on holding a new election.

[Music: Bluegrass banjo]

Rating benches

Guest: Sam Wilmot

CH: When was the last time you sat on a bench? And what was the quality of it, the bench? I'll give you a second to consult your leather-bond bench-assessment journal. You don't have one. But Sam Wilmot might. He rates benches. His methodology involves seeing benches, sittint on them, contemplating their features, and rating the benches out of 10. Then he takes a picture of the bench and shares it, and his bench judgment, on Instagram. As you wouldn't imagine, he now has followers from all over the world -- and has rated nearly 200 benches so far. Carol spoke with bench-rater Sam Wilmot last week -- he was near Bristol, England. 

CO: Sam, your photos are just charming. Tell us what inspired you to create this bench exhibit?

SAM WILMOT: So it's really something. I took inspiration from my friends around me. We were out one day and I had started commenting on the benches we'd seen. And from there, they were a bit like, well, why don't you make an account? And it was joked about. It may take off one day. And, lo and behold, here I am.

CO: And so in each photo, you are seated on a bench in a different place outdoors, a few indoors. And you're rating them and giving a little description. Maybe describes some of the most interesting benches you sat on?

SW: OK, so there's been a few sort of different ones. One was this massive sort of memorial piece for a young lad from Bristol. And it was huge. It was virtually made from sort of railway sleepers. It was that big. And it must have been 20 metres long. So that was quite an impressive bench. And it's just sat in a little park in Bristol. So that was quite special. And there's one that was a carved piece in a little village called kingswood not far from where I live. And that was a sort of a memorial bench for a group of musicians. So they'd carved guitars and instruments into the bench. And on the back, it had don't look back in anger, which is obviously an Oasis lyric. And there's been so many different benches in sea views or countryside or somewhere sat two feet from a bush staring straight in. [CO laughing] So there's been so many different benches. 

CO: What was your favourite? 

SW: So there's one in a church graveyard where I live that looks out, it goes across those most of lower Bristol. So the Severen Channel across South Wales. So it's really big and comfortable, thick arms, solidly put together. And has a lovely plaque on a stone to a member. And it's donated by a Lions Club. So that's a really nice bench.

CO: You've become quite a student of what makes a good bench. And so what are the features that are important to having a good benching?

SW: OK. So there's a 10-mark rating system. And the first three marks are given to the location and view. So anything thats sort of a lovely place to sit and ponder life tend to get the three marks. And then there's marks on it being wooden, having a curvature to the seat. So somewhere nice and comfortable to sit. Somewhere with a nice thick armrest. So if I could rest a coffee there, that's always a benefit. And then one with a nice high back support, something that maybe follows the curvature of the back just so it provides full support. And then there's marks for having a plaque or memorial inscription. So just something that offers a bit of reading and an insight into why the bench is there. Also, something that has got concrete or paved base, just to keep my shoes nice and clean. But there is a final mark, which is the tenth mark. I've never given a ten out of ten. It's one I don't know whether I ever will. It's a mark that's just for something really just inspiring and awesome. So we're yet to receive one.

CO: There's one you'd sort of come close to because you give a high rating to a bench you're sitting on in a garden and. But you did give, I think, a ten out of ten for a company because your granny was sitting with you?

SW: Yeah. So that's from my granny's birthday. So I asked if she'd be happy to sit and rate a bench with me. And, lo and behold, there we are. We've taken this whole picture and she's been on the Internet and the page. And there's also one with with my over granddad who's been on the page as well. So it is really quite a family affair.

CO: You have pictures of yourself sitting on stone or concrete benches, and you don't need [laughing] to tell us how uncomfortable and awful they are to sit on. You can sit on your face. Why would anyone make a bench out of concrete or stong?

SW: So I suppose it's really dependent on where it is. If you're down on a stormy bit of land or somewhere that has long cold winters, you could probably understand where there's a stone bench. But other times, I think is just cheap and nasty and it's putting them up without giving too much thought to them. 

CO: When did you see ones that you thought a lot of thought was given to this bench?

SW: Whoo! So anything that really comes with a memorial, whether a dedication to to somebody's time and to the memory of somebody, I think, that's always something that has a particular amount of thought to it. But there's also benches that I've felt for it, but for all the wrong reasons. So something that has the bars along the bench that are often symbols of sort of anti-homelessness so people can't lay down on them. I also think ascots a care and a thought given to them, probably for the wrong reasons.

CO: Clearly, benches that they look comfortable, but, you know, you can't possibly lie down. You can't possibly stretch out on those benches.

SW: Yeah, exactly. And I tend to use it as a chance to give it a dig or two at the local councils just to ask them to buck up their ideas about benches and what makes a comfortable bench.

CO: I guessv in this time when you're also stressed out and looking for ways of relieving that, what does a bench actually represent? I mean, the pictures of you sitting there, it is looking out how things, or we're looking at you sitting on the bench. What does a bench actually represent?

SW: So for me, I think it's that time away from the distractions of social media and the stresses of work. I think just that time away from the hustle and bustle of things. And to sit and ponder. And often you find yourself sat on a bench with somebody you want to be there with or didn't intend to be there with, but you strike up conversation. I think just that face-to-face interaction with somebody is pretty important and sometimes forgotten and overlooked currently. So I think that's something a lot of people are missing lately, is just having that time to sit and talk with people that you've not seen for a while in person. I think the bench is quite symbolic of friendship and to just enjoy.

CO: Sam is lovely to speak with you. Thank you.

SW: No problem. Have a lovely evening. 

CO: Bye-bye.

SW: Bye-bye.

CH: Sam Wilmot runs the "Rate This Bench" Instagram page. We reached him last week, just outside of Bristol, England.