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 August 28, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

Prologue

HM: Lactose intolerance. With the clock ticking on after negotiations, Prime Minister Trudeau says Canada won't be budging on its dairy supply management system. But former Quebec Premier Jean Charest says there should be no sacred cows.

JD: In the far-right place at the far-right time. After a stabbing death in the city of Chemnitz in eastern Germany, thousands of anti-immigrant protesters staged an angry demonstration — and are met by hundreds of people protesting against them.

HM: Crimes and Punishment. A new report from the UN says possible war crimes have been committed by all sides currently fighting in Yemen. But with thousands of non-combatants killed so far, the punishment is being enacted on civilians.

JD: Just off the beaten tracks. They're in charge of maintaining safety on superfast bullet trains. So why does one Japanese rail company force its employees to sit in the tunnel while one of those trains roars by at top speed?

HM: Not especially comic timing. Just nine months after admitting to sexual misconduct, Louis C.K. gives a surprise performance at a New York comedy club. And tonight, the club owner explains why the stand-up got to stand up on his stage.

JD: And… goodbye, Dolly? It claims to be North America's first brothel of sex dolls. And yet, Toronto city councillor John Filion is not only not impressed by the pioneering business, he's warning the owners not to open it at all.

JD: “As It Happens”, the Tuesday edition. Radio the guesses they'll stand by their manikins.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: NAFTA: Jean Charest, United Nations Yemen report, Louis CK stand-up return

NAFTA: Jean Charest

Guest: Jean Charest

JD: Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland landed in Washington D.C. today — with a Friday deadline looming. U.S. President Donald Trump has said that, now that a trade deal has been crafted with Mexico, it's Canada's turn to join it this week — or risk hefty auto tariffs. At a press conference today in Quebec, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau struck an optimistic tone. And he defended Canada's dairy supply management system, which is expected to be a major sticking point in the NAFTA talks this week

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Defending supply management has not changed. We will defend supply management. We have been encouraged by the progress made by our NAFTA partners over the past the past weeks. This was an important step to moving forward on renegotiating and improving NAFTA. As you know, I spoke with both the Mexican president and the American president. And our team is right now in Washington digging into the progress made and looking at what the next steps are. We will engage in a positive and constructive way as we always have been. And look forward to ultimately signing a deal as long as it is good for Canada.

JD: Prime Minister Trudeau, speaking in Quebec today. Jean Charest is the former Liberal Premier of Quebec. He recently participated in Canada-Europe trade negotiations. We reached him in Montreal.

HM: Mr. Charest, we heard the prime minister saying he is encouraged by all the progress being made on NAFTA this week. What about our Canadian team that he referred to in D.C.? How do you imagine their feeling right now?

JEAN CHAREST: Well, apprehensive. They're probably going through the details of what has been agreed on by Mexico and the United States to try to determine what we like and what we don't like and what it is that is left to negotiate.

HM: The Prime Minister also confirmed today that Canada will defend supply management. Is this do you think a wise negotiating tactic given how much President Trump has expressed his personal hatred for our dairy system, and at the same time this team is in Washington?

JC: I don't think Mr. Trudeau has a lot of maneuvering room on supply management. This is a policy that has been in place for a number of years. The business community in Canada, Helen, doesn't like supply management. But those who are and are rural Canada — and in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba in particular — they believe in this policy. They like it. They think it's fair and offers stability. The real practical issue is that the federal government will be going into an election campaign within the next year in 2019, and I don't think it's feasible for Mr. Trudeau to do away with supply management in that kind of environment.

HM: You know yesterday though we spoke with the former U.S. Ambassador to Canada Bruce Heyman, and he said you know it's just quite possible that Mr. Trump is looking for some kind of victory. And perhaps supply management is the thing that could go on the table with the least amount of damage to Canada. Is this a sacred cow worth having if that's what's necessary to bring Mr. Trump on board?

JC: Well, to do away with supply management in Canada, Helen would probably cost the government of Canada between 20 and 30 billion dollars to buy back the quotas that are now owned by dairy farmers. Secondly, I mean we have a system for supply management. But the Americans also have a farm bill in which they actively support — financially support — their farmers, including dairy farmers. The third thing I would add in Canada-Europe trade deal, we opened up our markets and kept supply management. We opened up the quota. I happened to think that that's where we will probably land with the United States.

HM So it's not necessarily all-or-nothing on this issue?

JC: No, it isn't. And by the way, every country I know has a sector which they protect. We also protect our banking sector, Helen. We protect our telecommunications sector. So we should be a little careful about feeling guilty about supply management when, in fact, every single country I know, including the United States should take the sugar industry or the shipping industry then that's part of the overall trade arrangements that we have.

HM: So if supply management isn't on the table during this new round of negotiations, what do you think is on the table?

JC: Well, there's the sunset clause, which is an intriguing compromise. Now we have a sunset clause with a six-year revision and then a 16-year continuation. There is Chapter 19, Chapter 11, the arbitration clauses that are very important to Canada to maintain the integrity of the agreement that the Americans do not like. the Americans do not like the idea that an outside tribunal would decide on American law. But these arbitration clauses have been very important for Canada there's intellectual property rights that are also part of the mix. And I think we can make progress on. On which we can conclude an agreement. And that we get to dairy where I think we'll probably land with an opening of the quota. And there is a specific product called Class 7, which is a tariff that Canada put on very specific dairy products coming in from the United States that is an irritant to the Americans. There may well be a compromise on what we call Class 7.

HM: How much in your opinion is this about political optics, especially on the U.S. side?

JC: It is very much about political optics. Our ambassador in the United States Mr. MacNaughton put it very well. At the end of the day, we'll probably have to land in a place where President Trump will be able to say I won. And on our side, we have to be in a position where we're able to say we have not lost. Canada is under intense pressure. There’s no doubt about that. And in the end, it may be a very tough political call for the Trudeau government on whether or not they accept what will be put in front of them.

HM: Having been through these kind of tight deadlines before, do you think that this very short time frame can be met?

JC: Yes, it can be met. And we have a very strong negotiating team by the way. And I say that because a lot of the people involved were those who were involved in the Canada-Europe deal, which I know very well. We should not be surprised that we are where we are now. I think we anticipated it would end in this way. And the best advice those of us who have been there before would give is stay cool and stick to the plan.

HM: From a domestic point of view, is there a potential political price to be paid by the Trudeau government for I guess potentially looking like they're capitulating to the United States? Or is the benefit going to outweigh any of that?

JC: There could be a price if they are capitulating on things that for Canadians are seen as essential. THe supply management is interesting because a lot of people in the business community think that this is just an irritant, we can get rid of it. But they should not underestimate the ability of those who are directly concerned in rural communities to mobilize around these issues. And they do have the ability to act politically. And they'd be naive to think that they will not react. So on that issue, they're in a very, very difficult position. And public opinion in Canada will apply a test to the Trudeau government. And the end result will be you know have you been able to stand up to the American administration and get a good deal for Canada? And that may be a very difficult call where it's not black and white. So we'll have to watch very closely in the end of what kind of a deal is reached. But I'm confident that we’ll probably get there.

HM: Jean Charest, it's good to speak with you. Thank you very much for joining us.

JC: Thank you very much, Helen. Bye bye.

HM: Alright. Bye bye.

JD: Jean Charest is the former Liberal Premier of Quebec — and participated in trade negotiations between Canada and Europe in 2016. We reached him in Montreal.

[Music: Ambient]

United Nations Yemen report

Guest: Charles Garraway

JD: From March of 2015 to June of 2018 of this year, six-thousand, six-hundred-and-sixty civilians have been killed in Yemen. That is a stunning number. Even more stunning, experts believe the real number is likely much higher. That's according to a new report put out by the United Nations Human Rights Council. It describes possible war crimes by forces on all sides of the conflict: Yemeni government forces; the Saudi-led coalition that backs them; and the Houthi rebels. Charles Garraway is one of the authors of the report. He's a former legal officer with the British Army. We reached him in Geneva.

HM: Mr. Garraway, what is life like for civilians in Yemen right now, especially in those areas where the fighting is the most intense?

CHARLES GARRAWAY: It is absolutely tragic. And, in fact, if anything comes out of this report at all, it will be the tragedy that is happening to the civilians of Yemen. And it is not just the fighting. In areas where there is no fighting, there are severe lacks of nourishment, medicines, and the essentials of life.

HM: When you use the term tragic tell me a bit more about that?

CG: Well, for example, we saw in Yemen two small girls who had been orphaned as a result of an air strike. And when you see those two little girls, it doesn't matter whether it was a military objective or not. Should they be suffering? And then when you hear a story for example that the founder of the Yemeni Red Crescent couldn't leave Yemen for urgent medical treatment and as a result died because he couldn't get an aircraft out of Sanaa. That brings the human tragedy home to you. All facets of life in Yemen are affected.

HM: Your report says that you and your colleagues found evidence of possible war crimes. Like what?

CG: Well, we concentrated really on three different areas. One was the conduct of the hostilities on both sides, not just a coalition. We looked at the Houthis as well. The second was detention. And the third was the restrictions on essential goods coming into Yemen. The conduct of hostilities is much the most difficult because there, the law is such that you have to look at it from the point of view of the attacker. What is a military objective? What is the reasonable expectation of civilian casualties? And what is the anticipated military advantage caused by the attack? The trouble is all that information is in the hands of the attacker. And we spoke to the Saudis at considerable length. And what they told us in very general terms on their targeting process sounds fine. But the difficulty is when you see the results on the ground it just doesn't add up. Our view was that it was really a systemic problem.

HM: You did find that the Saudi-led coalition often fails to consult its own no-strike list. What is the result of that?

CG: Well, there we had satisfactory evidence that the no-strike list was not reaching down to the lowest levels. And what this might mean is that, for example, when a lower grade commander was taking a decision to target a particular building, he might not know what was in the surrounding area — what was on the no-strike list. And he might be putting at risk a hospital or something like that. And we were concerned about the apparent failure to pass down the no-strike list to the lowest levels.

HM: You mentioned earlier that you looked at possible evidence from all sides. Tell me about the scale of what you're seeing when it comes to the damage inflicted on civilians by those two sides?

CG: Well, there were two problems with the Houthis really. The first was the shelling of the city of Taiz from areas that are under Houthi control. The difficulty was for security reasons we couldn't actually get into Taiz. So we could not draw our own conclusions on that. But we did have serious concerns about the use of what I would call wide-area impact weapons in areas of urban development — because in such cases, they can often be used indiscriminately. And indiscriminate targeting is, of course, a war crime. Now the major problem that we've found with the Houthis was in detention. But this is a problem that we've found across the board— both with the coalition and with the Yemeni government, and also with the Houthis. There are a large number of what we call arbitrary detentions, people being picked up, not going through any judicial process, in some cases literally disappearing. We were also very concerned about the conditions and the treatment of detainees throughout the whole area. There was clear evidence of severe sexual violence being used in some detention centres.

HM: Just yesterday, we were actually discussing on this program a UN report on Myanmar, and we asked the same question. We've known about the suffering in Yemen for some time. This has been going on for several years now, so what difference will your report make?

CG: That is a very good question. And the decision on that will be up to the international community. Now the first thing we have recommended is that the mandate of the group of eminent experts should be extended so that further investigations can be done, and that we can reach final conclusions on some of the issues that we have raised.

HM: Do you think your report could be useful in courts in other places — perhaps in the UK, even the US — to stop the issuing of arms export licences because these regime are being supplied by foreign interests?

CG: I'm not sure how much the report itself will have effect on that. But certainly, we would hope, and one of our recommendations is that the arms which are going into Yemen should be stopped.

HM: In the meantime, what can be done to reduce the civilian casualties and deal with the humanitarian crisis, which is as I understand it worsening by the day?

CG: Indeed, the first thing that must be done is there must be a cessation of hostilities. Because until there is a cessation, frankly there can be no relaxation of the pressure on the Yemeni people. Also, there needs to be an opening up of the borders, and in particular opening up of the Port of Hodeidah and the opening of Sanna Airport so that humanitarian aid can get into the country and reach the people. Another issue which arises in our report but has not generally been noticed is that in the northern areas under control of the Houthis, salaries have not been paid for over a year. And that has had an immense effect on the civilian population — because whilst there may be enough food in certain places, the prices of food effectively removes it from the ability of the average Yemeni civilian to get it.

HM: Well, I'm glad that your report is getting some attention internationally. And I appreciate very much you telling us about it. Thank you so much, Mr. Garraway.

CG: Thank you.

HM: Bye bye.

CG: Bye.

JD: Charles Garraway is a member of a group mandated by the United Nations Human Rights Council to examine the human rights situation in Yemen. Their report was published today. We reached Mr. Garraway in Geneva.

[Music: Horns]

Louis C.K. stand-up

Guest: Noam Dworman

JD: Rumours circulated in the comedy community for years about sexual misconduct by Louis CK. Last year, after five women went public with their stories, the comedian finally did issue a statement — confirming their accounts, admitting to misconduct, and promising to, quote, "step back and take a long time to listen." Unquote. So apparently, he felt nine months was a long enough time — because on Sunday night, Louis CK made a surprise appearance at the Comedy Cellar in New York. Noam Dworman owns that club. We reached Mr. Dworman in New York.

HM: Mr. Dworman, how did Louis C.K. end up on the stage at the Comedy Cellar on Sunday night?

NORM DWORMAN: Well, he just walked in, asked the emcee if he could go on, and went on.

HM: Did you know he was going to be there?

ND: No, I had no idea.

HM: Did anyone from your organization know?

ND: No, it was not unusual because when important people drop in like that, we generally don't know. But even this time we didn't know.

HM: Right. Has anyone ever turned down a celebrity of that caliber before when they want to do a set?

ND: No.

HM: So what did Louis C.K. talk about during the set?

ND: I think what he didn't say is more interesting than what he did say. But what he did say was pretty run-of-the-mill stuff like about parades, and tipping waitresses, and he referred to some wordplay that his young daughter would come up with — things like that. But what he didn't say was anything about what had happened. He made no statement. He didn’t really make references to it. He made some little reference to the fact that people would be shocked that he was there, but nothing that could be considered informative with how he felt or what has happened.

HM: So how did the audience react to his appearance?

ND: Well, the initial reaction was very, very positive. And it was kind of like a sustained applause. And we got a lot of positive emails the next day. We did get one gentleman was quite upset about the fact that Louis went on and he felt ambushed. And that he'd been coming to Comedy Cellar for 15 years. And you know he was disappointed. I totally understand where he's coming from.

HM: OK. Well, what did you say to him?

ND: I told him how it happened. I told him that we were struggling with how to handle this? And I was surprised as he was that Louis didn't make any kind of apology or do anything to you know ease into it. And you know we joked to the end you know when the sting of the moment ends, at least you know you kind of saw historic moment — he'll always have a story to tell. He started out very, very upset. But then by the end of the conversation, I think we connected a little bit better.

HM: So that complaint was from someone who was there and saw the set. What about from others now that news of his appearance has come out? What are you hearing?

ND: Yeah, I'm getting like a steady trickle. I don't think it's up to ten yet, but it's more than five of people who have written me disapproving emails. And my answer to all of them has been that I strongly believe in talking about these things. I think the worst part about the times we live in is that you're expected to always come to any conversation already having the correct answer. And you can't kick it around. You can't be wrong. Listen, I'm torn by this. I'm not clear what the right thing to do is.

HM: But now that you've had this time, do you think it was the right call for the club to allow C.K. to go on stage?

ND: Yeah, I don't know. What bothers me about at all is the, for instance, Mike Tyson is cheered on Broadway and warmly reviewed. Bill Clinton just a couple months ago was invited to this charity event and they disinvited Monica Lewinsky.

HM: But again, just to say Mik Tyson served time in prison. The public sort of saw what happened to him. Same with Bill Clinton, I mean the House impeached him even though he got to stay in office.

ND: But Bill Clinton denies it to this very day. Listen to my mind, someone who comes clean about it is the only kind of person who really warrants a second chance. But the fact that the people who really care about this stuff will turn a blind eye to it when it's Bill Clinton or when it's others I think makes us wonder what the standard is? And you know stand-up comedy is a very interesting thing because it's like telling an artist you know you can't ever pick up your brushes again because there's no such thing as stand-up comedy without an audience.

HM: What message does Louis C.K. send not addressing this issue and yet being allowed to be on the stage at your club? What message does that send to those women who complained about how he behaved in front of them, and felt belittled and bullied and had no recourse?

ND: Listen, on this I actually agree with you. I think that his decision to not address it is a big mistake. I will say that if that leads to people not wanting to hear from him anymore that's up to them.

HM: But the women who complained about him, some of them even faced online death threats. And now he's getting an ovation when he shows up on your stage. What message does that send to not just the women who complained about him but to all women?

ND: I mean I hope that people don't think this sounds like I don't taking anything seriously. I don't think that the death threats against these women to the extent that they have them — I never heard that before — can be blamed on Louis. But I do take your point quite seriously, and I'm grappling with it, which is what's going to happen if he doesn't want to acknowledge in a more heartfelt way some contrition?

HM: So let me ask. If he doesn't want to do it in a heartfelt way, will you allow him back on stage at your club?

ND: You know you're going to talk to me again when all this dust settles. It's one of the toughest things I've ever faced. You know if I had been here, I would have spoken to him. I would have said listen, what are you going to do? How are you going to do it? I think you need to do this. If you don't want to do that, then I think we need to tell the audience beforehand — whatever it is. You know I'm looking for the principle. Listen, I don't get anything. Louis and I are not friends. There is no personal loyalty here. He and I have never had more than a two-minute conversation. There's no benefit to me and my business here. None. This is a miserable day for me. The only thing that troubles me here is I know myself that if I do this simply because the public is watching, and I can't defend it on principle I am not going to be able to live with myself. The issues that I'm talking about extends not just to him, but to things I deal with all the time. I know other comedians who have been accused of worse things credibly in my mind. This is much more complicated than meets the eye if you want to be a consistent person. If you want to blink your eyes and say I want everybody to disappear like in the last act of “Infinity Wars”. Anybody who's done Louis C.K.-grade moral lapses or worse, people will be disappearing right and left.

HM: I'm trying not to get too off topic. We were actually running out of time. You said you talked to Louis CK. What about talking to the five women — most of them comedians — who made these allegations.

ND: I would love to talk to them.

HM: You would? Well, why don't you reach out to them?

ND: I have in the past, and I will again. I'm a totally huge believer in conversation and keeping an open mind. And I will listen to reason and arguments because all I want when I go to sleep is to know that I did the right thing. That’s all I care about.

HM: Well, we will track what happens in the story in the coming weeks and months.

ND: Do you want me to get in touch with you when I try to contact the women?

HM: Sure.

ND: Yeah, I'd be happy to.

HM: All right. Mr. Dworman, I appreciate you taking time to talk to us about all of this.

ND: OK. My pleasure. Thank you.

HM: Goodbye.

JD: Noam Dworman is the owner of the Comedy Cellar in New York City. That's where we reached him. And you’ll find more on this story on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Indie rock]

Dateline: Randy dolphin

JD: Dateline: Landevennec, France.

[Music: Dateline theme]

JD: When it comes to engaging with our fellow members of the animal kingdom, we humans are a fickle, reckless, and often ruthless bunch, are we not? How we choose to interact with a particular animal largely depends where it falls on our spectrum from, on one end: is it too cute to kill? And on the other: is it too ugly or threatening — or tasty — not to kill? Consider the case of Zafar. Zafar is very blessed in his encounters with humans. Because Zafar is a dolphin — and not, say, a shark, or an eel. Unlike sharks or eels, people prefer dolphins alive. It's ever so much more fun to frolic with a dolphin than it is to feast upon a dolphin. So much so that most people will go to great lengths to frolic with dolphins at any opportunity — regardless of how the dolphin might feel about it. Happily, Zafar — who lives off the coast of Brittany, in France — felt equally excited about frolicking with humans. At least in recent weeks, likely because — in the estimation of at least one marine expert — Zafar was in heat, which tended to greatly please most of the swimmers he rubbed up against in the waters of the Bay of Brest. Zafar even went so far as to allow a couple of the more brazen among them to grab hold of his dorsal fin and hang on for a ride. But then Zafar went too far in his frolicksomeness, apparently lifting one woman from the water with his nose, and obstructing another in her attempt to return to shore. That displeased them, and at least one other person: the mayor of Landevennec, who promptly barred his fellow humans from swimming with Zafar. The mayor did so, he argued, to protect the people and Zafar from each other — even if doing so displeased many of the humans, who found his a hardnosed response. As for Zafar, he eventually moved on — blissfully unaware of having stirred the waters. Or of the degree to which being cute in the eyes of humans serves a vital porpoise.

[Music: Electronica]

Part two: German far-right protest, sex doll brothel

German far-right protest

Guest: Grischa Stanjek

JD: Last night, the eastern German city of Chemnitz was besieged by at least six-thousand far-right protestors — demanding that foreigners leave the country. They were confronted by roughly 1-thousand, anti-Nazi counter-demonstrators. The catalyzing incident for the clash was the death of a man named by authorities only as Daniel H. He died on Sunday, after being stabbed in a brawl. An Iraqi national, and a Syrian national, remain in custody over the killing. Grischa Stanjek is the head of media for The Jewish Forum for Democracy and against Anti-Semitism. He was at the protests in Chemnitz last night, filming the events. We reached Mr. Stanjek today in Berlin, Germany.

HM: Mr. Stanjek, when you got to the scene of the protest, what did you see?

GRISCHA STANJEK: So far, there weren’t many people. We were expecting already a huge crowd, but these thousands of people just turned up in ten minutes out of nowhere. I don’t know if they had to work or they came coordinated with buses trains. Pretty fast, we saw pretty obvious signs that extreme right-wing people were involved, neo Nazis were involved. They were showing posters “foreigners out”, other xenophobic or racist slogans. One of the participants did a Hitler salute in front of me. So it was pretty clear to me what was about to happen.

HM: How would you describe the behavior beyond the Hitler salutes and the signs of the far-right protesters? How do they conduct themselves?

GS: There was somehow this weird dynamic of like a mass gathering up. And there was this vibe it had the feeling that they're going to start something big. Since social media already there were claiming now is a turning point. Now we will get back the streets. This is also how they behaved. Like they're chanting each other and chanting at everyone who didn't look like them. Counter protesters were pretty close, so they were chanting “we will get you”, “leave this country”.

HM: And so when you say there were talking to people who didn't look like them, are you talking about people who are visible minorities or people who were not dressed like them?

GS: Who weren't dressed like them, who were young, who were students who maybe had colorful hair or maybe had a different skin colour. Yeah, there were also some probably Syrian refugees involved in the counter protest. So they were heavily attacked.

HM: How did the counter protesters respond? How did they react to all of this?

GS: There was also some aggression. And there were things being thrown in both directions. But it was definitely the right-wing demonstration that wanted to attack alternative people or counter protesters.

HM: Did you think at any point it was going to become an all-out brawl? That the violence would escalate?

GS: Yeah, in the beginning definitely — because the police was not in control of the situation. They basically decided to march through the city, and the police just let it happen because what I experienced is that they were outnumbered. They also told the press listen, don't get too close. We can't protect you. So yeah, and small groups of right-wing protesters left the demonstration, attacked journalist, attacked counter protesters. It was from the beginning violence.

HM: How did you feel watching all of this unfold?

GS: I felt pretty threatened. I mean the also attacked me personally. But at the same time, I wanted to get some images. It was pretty scary. But, unfortunately, we know some of these situations in Saxony already. But to this extent, we never experienced this in the past decade.

HM: The spark — the incident that set all this off — was the death of a man who is now known as Daniel H. He was as I understand it a German-Cuban. He had liked an anti-Nazi page on Facebook. And yet, it is the far-right that is claiming him as a martyr. How is that?

GS: Well, the rumours spread and also the media I think to blame partially for that that a German was killed by refugees. The German got killed because he defended German women against refugees because she was sexually harassed. The police denied all this pretty quickly, but it was already out the rumour. So he became a symbol for their racist hate.

HM: And you say the media is as responsible at least to some extent. Are you talking all of the media or just some?

GS: No, just some tabloids or magazines that want clicks. Who want headlines. So they really early reported about this, even though there was no official statement from the police or anyone involved.

HM: Can you explain to us what the racial politics are like right now in Chemnitz? And why you think this is where these clashes are happening?

GS: Chemnitz is in a state of Germany which always had problems with the right-wing violence and racist violence since it was East Germany. It denied the problem, and still up till now, politicians are denying that there's a severe problem. They just claim it’s an extremist problem, it’s both sides, the right-wing populist parties are gaining huge following, especially in the state. They have the second largest majority. So after the incident, people got on the street and were chasing basically people who didn't look like white Germans.

HM: You said earlier that you thought the police did not handle this well. I understand that the Interior Minister in Germany is offering to send in police from other areas. Do you think that that will help prevent further violence?

GS: There was police. There were water cannons. They could use other measurements, but they just didn't. To me it looked like they just wanted to send away everyone that was counter protesting because this is what provoked them in a way they thought. So there's more than just more police. There also needs to be acknowledgment of the problem of right-wing extremism, especially in Saxony. Somehow this Prime Minister didn't acknowledge so far.

HM: Do you plan to continue to attend these protests and document what you see?

GS: Yes. This Thursday, there will be already the next demonstration — the same group that organized the last protest. So yes, we will definitely take a look.

HM: Mr. Stanjek, thank you very much for speaking with us.

GS: Sure. Goodbye.

HM: Goodbye.

JD: Grischa Stanjek is the head of media for The Jewish Forum for Democracy and against Anti-Semitism. We reached him in Berlin.

[Music: Industrial]

Mandela May

JD: British Prime Minister Theresa May is in South Africa today. It's her first visit to South Africa since ascending to the position of Prime Minister. And the notoriously tough British press is with her every step of the way. Ms. May is spending most of her time in Cape Town, to discuss private sector trade and investment, as the United Kingdom prepares, of course, for Brexit. But she did also took the opportunity to visit Robben Island, where anti-apartheid hero Nelson Mandela was, of course, imprisoned for eighteen of his twenty-seven years behind bars. There, she had the rare honour of being given a key to enter the former South African President's cell. But not before she was asked about her record on apartheid while Mr. Mandela was incarcerated — by Michael Crick of Channel 4 News.

SOUNDCLIP

MICHAEL CRICK: Mrs. May, you're about to visit Robben Island. You were active in politics in the ‘70s and ‘80s. What did you do to help release Nelson Mandela?

THERESA MAY: Well, I think what is important is what the United Kingdom did.

MC: No, no, what did you do? Did you go on protests? Did you get arrested outside the embassy? Did you boycott South African goods? Did you do anything?

TM: I think you know full well that I didn't go on protests, Michael. But what is important…

MC: Well, did you boycott South African goods?

TM: The work that the United Kingdom government did to ensure that it was able to give support where that support was needed.

MC: Mrs. Thatcher believed that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. Were you a loyal Conservative Party member? Did you think the same thing?

TM: What was important was the support that the UK government was giving at the time. Often support behind the scenes. But in other ways too to ensure that we saw the result that we did in relation to the ending of apartheid here in South Africa.

MC: A government led by a woman who thought that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. Now you're going to be going to Robben Island, aren’t you going to be feeling guilty that at the time Nelson Mandela was on Robben Island, you — Theresa May — did nothing to help his release? You personally.

TM: What I will be feeling I think when I go to Robben Island is to recognize the immense statesmanship of a man who spent so many years incarcerated. And when he came out of that incarceration, had that breadth of vision and that calm approach has enabled South Africa to be built into the country that it is today — a country with which we the United Kingdom have long historical links for obvious reasons. But also with which we can forge a new partnership for the future.

JD: From earlier today, that was British Prime Minister Theresa May being questioned by Michael Crick of Channel 4 News. After the tour of Robben Island, Ms. May signed the public guestbook, quote: "It has been a privilege to visit in this year, the 100th anniversary of the birth of Nelson Mandela. His legacy lives on in the hopes and dreams of young people here in South Africa and around the world." Unquote.

[Music: Ambient]

Sex doll brothel

Guest: John Filion

JD: Small businesses don't usually get this much attention. But I guess when you say you'll be, quote, "Opening the first sex doll brothel to open in North America", unquote, it's not like you're just opening a coffee shop that sells candles, or something. The place is called Aura Dolls. It will be "staffed" by half-a-dozen life-sized silicone dolls, with names like "Erica", "Jazmine", and "Harper". And time with them will range from 80 bucks to nearly 500 bucks. The plan is to open next month, in a building in the north of the city. But Toronto councillor John Filion is hoping that won't happen. And if it does, he says Aura Dolls will be breaking the law. We reached John Filion in Toronto.

HM: Councillor Filion, Aura Dolls is urging people to have an open mind about its business plan. Would you say that you have one?

JOHN FILION: Well, I have an open mind about what sort of behaviours people want to do as long as they don't harm anybody else. It's a totally different matter once you bring that out to the public. So I think I have a fairly closed mind about where people should be having sex with dolls.

HM: So what's wrong with a sex doll brothel?

JF: Well, it's where it's located for one thing. Where it's being proposed happens to be near an intersection where about 25,000 people live — all kinds of families, four elementary schools very nearby, and you know people shouldn't really need to be out on a walk with their families and try to explain to their kids why somebody is having sex with a dol.

HM: But Aura Dolls says that they're going to be doing this very discreetly. That they won't have explicit signage. And that they therefore won't be bothering anyone.

JF: Well, they've hardly been discreet. They were putting illegal posters all over the neighbourhood. They've probably had a couple hundred thousand dollars in free publicity already. I don't think there's anything at all discreet about what they're doing. They're trying to be indiscreet in order to drum up business.

HM: What have your constituents been telling you about this plan?

JF: Oh, just that you know this is disgusting. We don't want this around our kids. And this doesn't belong in our neighbourhood.

HM: It's funny because, of course, Aura Dolls says — and I’m just going to tell you the statement they sent — they say that there is, quote, “Massive community that supports and believes in this service, but is unable to be as verbal and supportive due to the nature of this context.” Can you be sure that there aren't constituents in your area that think this is a great idea?

JF: Well, I can't be sure that there aren't some people who might think oh, great! It's just down the street for me. Let me go there. I would say that might be a fraction of one per cent of my constituents. Most people are appalled by this. And it's not a narrow-minded neighbourhood. I don't think you know whatever somebody does in their home, I don't think we're going to pass moral judgment on it. Again, as it's not harming anyone else. But this is just kind of scuzzy. And you know talk about objectifying women. Like, this literally objectifies women. You know is that okay to you know to be advertising this as if it's something like it's some kind of desirable behaviour or whatever? They're trying to promote it as if this is some kind of good thing. You know it isn't. People do all sorts of things that we kind of wish they wouldn't in a perfect world, but they should be doing them in their own homes.

HM: Yeah, Aura Dolls says that it's doing nothing illegal. They say that they're being very clear that the dolls they're using represent adult women. And that they're actually providing a service. Do you agree that they're doing this legally?

JF: No, they're not at all legal. It's an illegal use. And if there's any confusion about that, they will be getting a letter from the city very soon. It is clearly not a legal use. It's not permitted under the zoning by-law. And it fits the definition of adult entertainment parlor, for which you require a license. And they certainly would not get one.

HM: So they would not get a license in your neighbourhood? Or they would not get a license anywhere in the city?

JF: That I can't answer. I can just say they would not get a license in my neighbourhood because it's not a permitted use.

HM: Do you have other concerns? I'm just thinking about the potential health issues here when it comes to reusing these dolls.

JF: Yeah, of course, I have those concerns. Again, we shouldn't have to be even thinking about that stuff. I'm sure Public Health would have some concerns. Again, if people want to have sex with dolls they should be doing it in their bedrooms at home if that’s what turns them on. I have trouble understanding that. But you know I try not to draw judgment on that. But when they want to assemble at Younge and Shepherd to do it, that's just weird and it's not on.

HM: What action are you and the city planning at this point to deal with this?

JF: Well, we're notifying both the business and the property owner that the business would be illegal. And if they attempt to open in any way, then we will be taking the appropriate legal action against them.

HM: Alright. Councillor Filion, I appreciate your time. Thanks very much.

JF: OK.

HM: Bye bye.

JD: We reached Toronto city councillor John Filion in Toronto. And we did reach out to Aura Dolls regarding Mr. Filion’s claim that opening the business next month would be illegal. We did not hear back before today's deadline.

[Music: Ambient]

Ken Sturdy obit

JD: Last year, Ken Sturdy was interviewed after he came out of a cinema, where he'd just watched the movie "Dunkirk". He was visibly emotional — because, at the age of 20, Mr. Sturdy had helped evacuate Allied troops from the beach at Dunkirk. And in that widely-shared interview, he said, quote, "I never thought I would see that again. It was just like I was there again." Unquote. Ken Sturdy died this weekend. He was 98 years old. He was born in Wales, but he later made his home in Calgary. Last year, around Remembrance Day, Mr. Sturdy shared his memories of Dunkirk with the CBC in Calgary. Here's part of that interview.

SOUNDCLIP

KEN STURDY: I was training as a signalman in the Royal Navy in 1940, and the message went out on radio able-bodied men required to help get survivors on the boats at Dunkirk. So I went down to Dover, where Admiral Ramsey was organizing the rescue of large number of men — over two-hundred-thousand of our soldiers — pinned down at Dunkirk. And what they needed was a few able-bodied men to help them get on boats on the Dunkirk side. Keeping in mind they needed help because quite a few had not eaten for more than a few days — some for more than a month. And they were very weak and dispirited. And so on the Dunkirk side, where they were being both bombed and shelled by the Nazis, they needed to help just to step over the side of the boat. So that my role at Dunkirk. And we saved quite a few — mostly British — but quite a few French because Dunkirk as you know is in the north coast of France. And those who weren't saved in the last week of May 1940 and the first four days of June, after that nobody got away from Dunkirk.

JD: From our archives, that was veteran Ken Sturdy, speaking with the CBC in Calgary, around Remembrance Day last year. Mr. Sturdy died this week. He was 98 years old.

[Music: Sombre]

Japanese bullet trains

JD: This is it: the culmination of all your training. The final, crucial experience that will make you truly "get it". And if there's one thing you need to remember, it's this: Always… always

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: The Japanese bullet train passing by]

JD: Now, here's a question: was it really necessary for us to play the sound of a Japanese bullet train so loudly for you to totally understand this story — even if the story is about Japanese bullet trains? I can't hear you because I was recently deafened by a loud train sound, but I'm going to guess you may be saying: no, it wasn't necessary, which, incidentally, is what some employees of the Japanese rail company JR West have been saying for quite a while now. Not that they can hear each other, either. AFP is reporting that, as part of their training, almost 200 employees of JR West have had to: a) enter a train tunnel; b) crouch next to the train track; and c) remain crouched there as one of the company's bullet trains roars past at 300 kilometres per hour. Which one employee described as a, quote, "horrible experience," and another compared to, quote, "a public flogging." Now, these people do work in "safety maintenance." So they do have to be intimately familiar with these super-high-tech, super-high-speed trains. But you wouldn't think squatting next to one would help with that, or help with anything. Still, JR West says, quote. "We will continue this training while ensuring it serves a purpose and is done safely." Well, okay: even if it's technically "done safely," does it really serve a purpose? I understand that it's important to train people. I just don't see why they should have to come so close to getting train-ed.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

August 28, 2017 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode