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 March 9, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

CO: Fade to Blackmore. A BC Court upholds the polygamy conviction against Winston Blackmore. For his first wife, who testified against him, the decision provides relief, but not resolution.

JD: Martin is such sweet sorrow. Even before infamous “pharma bro” Martin Shkreli raise the price of a lifesaving medication by 5000 per cent, he was up to no good. And after today's sentencing, he's going to be going away for a while.

CO: The long way home. Fourteen years after her family was forced to flee violence and leave her behind in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a teenage girl finally makes it to Canada — and is reunited with her mother.

JD: The one time your manager will definitely get the point. A study confirms that a simple activity can ease feelings of workplace resentment toward your manager, and improve everyone's well-being: stabbing a voodoo doll of your boss.

CO: Fighting to make sure people do get a bum rap. After being groped, a Minnesota woman is horrified to discover that it's perfectly legal in the state for a man to just grab a woman's behind. And now she's campaigning for change.

JD: And… gross domestic product. It's all-systems-goo for a pair of designers who are trying to convince the world that “fatburgs” aren't disgusting, but wonderful — by tenderly creating their own floating blob near a canal in Amsterdam.

JD: As It Happens, the Friday edition.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Part one: Polygamy decision, DRC reunion, Amsterdam fatberg

Polygamy decision

Guest: Jane Blackmore

JD: Winston Blackmore has failed to overturn Canada's polygamy laws. Mr. Blackmore is the former leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Bountiful, British Columbia. He was convicted last summer of having multiple wives. Mr. Blackmore's lawyer then argued that the law itself was wrong — and that it violated his right to both freedom of religion, and freedom of expression. Today, a British Columbia judge dismissed those arguments. Jane Blackmore was Winston Blackmore's first wife, and the only one who testified against him in court. She was also Bountiful's midwife. We reached Ms. Blackmore in Cranbrook, British Columbia.

CO: Ms. Blackmore, as you know, the judge has rejected Winston Blackmore’s constitutional challenge, and his conviction for polygamy will stand. What's your reaction to that?

JANE BLACKMORE: I'm happy with the outcome. It's been a long time coming.

CO: It's been a really long time coming, hasn't it for you? I mean you've started quite some time ago, and it’s a roller coaster ride of court challenges. Did you think that you would see this day?

JB: I was definitely doubtful. Yeah. Yeah, it has been a long time. And this has been going on my whole life. I'm 61-years-old, and controversy regarding polygamy and the community of Bountiful has been my whole life.

CO: You were 18 when you were married, and you have seven children by Mr. Blackmore.

JB: That's correct, yes.

CO: How many grandkids?

JB: I have forty-six grandchildren now.

CO: And what did you see. I mean over the years, you watched your husband marry how many other women and girls?

JB: Twenty-six

CO: What was that like for you?

JB: It definitely wasn't unexpected that he would take on more women in his life. That I never imagined there would be that number that did end up happening.

CO: And how many children altogether in the family among all the wives?

JB: I don’t know the exact number, but I know there's more than 145.

CO: Why did you agree to testify against Winston Blackmore?

JB: I was subpoenaed. But, obviously, it couldn't have been forced to talk about my former partner. But I felt like it was important to speak my truth, and I was convinced many years ago that I didn't believe in what was going on, and felt it was wrong. Many people, especially women and children, were being hurt. And I feel like it needs to be stopped.

CO: And how difficult was that for you to testify — to speak truth to that?

JB: It was extremely difficult. Yeah, I’ve done many difficult things in my life — that was among them for sure.

CO: What was the big motivator?

JB: During my life, I've been in a position where I have the confidence and the responsibility of caring for woman. And during my time in the community, I felt like my hands were tied. I could see many difficult situations women were in, and in the position, I was with being the first wife of the leader of the community, and caregiver for many women in the community, I didn't feel like I could protect them. I tried on many occasions to speak out for them. I was never successful in making a difference and as much a difference as I felt I wanted to see, so yeah.

CO: So you did it for them. You did it for those women that you couldn't help for so many years — all the other wives of your former partner. You did for them?

JB: I felt like I was doing it for them, and I was doing it for me, and doing it for my daughters, my sons. I couldn't live that way, obviously, because I did leave and make a different life for myself. But I did what I felt I needed to do.

CO: So you left in 2003-2004, you left the community. Why did you finally leave? What was the final thing that compelled you or allowed you to go?

JB: I had a nine-year-old daughter that I felt like if I waited any longer, it would be more difficult for me to protect her and provide a life for her that I felt wanted. And I was just desperate to not feel responsible for what was going on for women and children in the community.

CO: Were your other daughters married off?

JB: Yes, I have two older daughters, and they were married when they were just barely 17.

CO: What was that like for you to see that?

JB: I was fortunate in the fact that both my older daughters were not married into polygamous families. But they were young, and marriages were arranged. And they weren't old enough, they didn't have an education, they didn't have the wherewithal to make a different life for themselves should they chose.

CO: It must have been so difficult.

JB: Yeah, you don’t even know.

CO: No, I don't. I can't even imagine. You know that the judge said about you, Judge Donegan, during the conviction of Mr. Blackmore. She said that your testimony was so credible that there was — this is a quote — “There was nothing contrived or rehearsed in her answers.” That you gave your testimony with such a style that was so convincing that it had a great effect on the judge and on her decision. What did you want the court — what did you want the public — to know about your life in Bountiful and the life of your children?

JB: I hadn't heard that until now what the judge had said. But that makes me very empowering really to hear that. I want choices for people. I want choices for my children, for my grandchildren, and along the way people make bad choices. But as long as it has been their choice, and people take responsibility for their choices, then life can be good and different. I am a person who feels like personal responsibility is very important, and no one can take responsibility for what you do. Even though you know in my past, I’ve had people say you do this, what God wants you to do, and I will be responsible for that. And I’ve had to say well, no, what I do I am responsible for. And in the course of my life there, I was asked to do things that I couldn't do, or I wouldn’t do because I felt the desire and the conviction that I was responsible for what I did. Therefore, that in itself gives me courage and the strength to make changes and do what I've done.

CO: I admire your courage.

JB: Thank you.

CO: How do you feel about your husband — your former husband, former mate — Winston Blackmore, going to prison?

JB: I would rather not speak to that right now. I just would rather not.

CO: What do you want to happen now?

JB: I would definitely like for future generations to have a choice with what they believe, what they read, what they wear, who they marry, what kind of education they receive. But I want young people not to feel like they have an obligation to a leader, to a church, to a community, to live their lives as they’re being asked to live, as opposed to how they would like to live it. That’s my wish at this point.

CO: Does any of this give you any satisfaction?

JB: Well, satisfaction is not how I chose to interpret it. But I’m relieved. I hope that there’s some definite progress in the way the future unfolds for the people of the Bountiful community.

CO: And for your children and grandchildren?

JD: Definitely for them.

CO: Did you do it for them?

JB: I did. I did.

CO: Ms. Blackmore, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

JB: OK, thank you.

CO: Bye bye.

JB: Bye.

JD: Jane Blackmore was Winston Blackmore's first wife. We reached Ms. Blackmore in Cranbrook, British Columbia. A BC judge has dismissed Mr. Blackmore's Charter challenge to Canada's polygamy laws. The former leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was convicted last summer of having multiple wives. He will now wait to be sentenced, unless he appeals.

DRC reunion

Guest: Karin Gordon

JD: Her family spent years wondering whether she was dead or alive. But this week, 16-year-old Naomi Bisimwa finally reunited with her mother and her siblings in Winnipeg. She was just two-years-old, living in the Democratic Republic of Congo, when her family fled violence there. They escaped, but they were forced to leave Naomi behind. Eventually, her family sought refugee status in Canada. But it took years for them to finally confirm that Naomi was alive. Karin Gordon has been supporting the family since they arrived in Winnipeg, back in 2013. She was at the airport last night, for the family's reunion. We reached Ms. Gordon in Winnipeg.

CO: Ms. Gordon, what was it like to see Naomi reunited with her siblings at Winnipeg airport last night?

KARIN GORDON: It was absolutely thrilling. The kids were so pleased to see her. She didn't remember most of them because she was only two when she was separated from them. She remembers her family as being loved you know and then all of a sudden, that was taken away from her.

CO: So she was just around two when she lost them?

KG: Yup.

CO: Can you tell us how it happened? How she became separated from her family in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

KG: Well, the DRC has been undergoing a bit of a civil war for the last many years. There are militias that will attack your homes. And so it was there was a middle of the night attack in his village, and they were coming in and shooting and setting fire to buildings. Maria's husband was killed, but Maria was trying to get all of the kids together to flee, and she couldn't find the baby — she couldn't find Naomi. And so she had to flee. She came back next day; the village was abandoned, deserted, most of the homes have been destroyed, she couldn't find her anywhere. She had to take care of the other kids, so she fled to Uganda — very, very difficult circumstances. You know very, very poor and abusive circumstances.

CO: And what did she think had happened to Naomi? What did she believe?

KG: She thought that Naomi was dead, but she had no confirmation because many people had been killed in that attack. So when she filled in her refugee sponsorship application form, she put the child on a farm with unknown location, just on the off chance that she was still alive.

CO: That’s extraordinary because so often she would be even persuaded not to do that — just to stick with the children that she had in her care.

KG: No, we encourage people to do that because you don't know. And if you don't put them on your file, then you cannot be reunited with them.

CO: And how long before the family — Maria and her kids — and her husband being gone, which must have been just so difficult. How long before they were settled in Winnipeg?

KG: They arrived in July 2013, almost nine years after this this happened to her family. And Maria had been in another relationship and added another child. So Maria came to Canada as a single mom with four kids and the missing child. And she was really grieving still, even you know nine years later you know that she had not been able to find Naomi and bring her with her. And she ran into someone in Portage Place, which is our big downtown shopping mall. And Winnipeg is a small town with respect — there are only two or three degrees of separation here for refugee families. We’re probably the leading refugee sponsoring community in the country. And she ran into a neighbour from her old village who told her that Naomi was still alive — that she had been picked up by a mutual neighbour who had taken her to Kinshasa, which is in the total opposite direction from where Maria headed to in Uganda.

CO: That’s extraordinary. I mean talk about a coincidence!

KG: Well, God is always looking over our shoulders. All kinds of inexplicable good things happen around Hospitality House and the work that we're doing. And there are too many coincidences to say that it's random.

CO: And with this news, did this neighbour — former neighbour — did she have any other information as to where Naomi went?

KG: Yes, she had contact information for that neighbour. Maria was able to contact her directly in Kinshasa, and we filed the one year window application to bring the child here in 2013. It's taken that long for the child to get here.

CO: How has Naomi’s life been in all those years?

KG: Terrible. She was passed through a series of caregivers hands. Some were kind but distant. Others were quite frankly abusive. In one situation, Naomi was beaten so badly around the head that she was partially paralyzed. She still has some lingering paralysis in one of her hands, and one leg is damaged. So we will be getting her to see neurologists and physiotherapy so that we can get her back to as good as she possibly can be.

CO: The reunion between mother and daughter took place in Toronto, right?

KG: In Toronto the physical reunion. But Maria had been talking to her every week by phone.

CO: And yet still, another four years after she locates this daughter before the paperwork is done. It’s just a travesty.

KG: We can't speed up immigration Canada, it appears. And it’s most unfortunate, but we were grateful to be able to find the child and get this into the system. But Immigration Canada insisted on DNA tests to provide insurance that the child indeed was her mother’s, that there was that maternal daughter link. Hospitality House paid for the DNA test, which is well over a thousand dollars. And, of course, we had to take a sample from Maria here in Canada and another sample from the daughter in Kinshasha.

CO: And how is Naomi now?

KG: Well, she was kind of stunned when I met her last night. Don't forget she'd been traveling for a couple of days. She hadn't slept. So she was shell-shocked when she got here. And to meet her four siblings and her nephew and her mother and all the people who came to the airport to greet her. She was astonished to be the center of so much loving attention.

CO: There must have been a lot of tears?

KG: Yes. Actually, she didn't cry. But Alice did — the older sister — because Alice remembered her from when they were little. She's six or seven years older, and she used to play with the baby a lot. That separation was hard on her. Alice is a lovely young lady. She's studying to be a paramedic. Her brother has become an engineering technology grad, and he's got some good work. Maria is working as a chambermaid in a local hotel. So everybody's you know on their way.

CO: What a journey this young girl and this family has been on. I'm glad they're together. Ms. Gordon, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

KG: Thank you.

CO: Bye bye.

KG: Bye.

JD: Karen Gordon is the executive director of resettlement with the Hospitality House Refugee Ministry, in Winnipeg. And that is where we reached her.

Amsterdam fatberg

Guest: Arne Hendriks

JD: The vast, vast majority of us would be challenged to see anything redeeming in a fatberg. It's a congealed blob of cooking fat, wet wipes, and other horrible things. It smells like diapers, not clean diapers. It's crawling with bugs. And it clogs sewers. But a designer in Amsterdam is tired of seeing fatbergs being treated like garbage. In fact, Arne Hendriks has a bit of a soft spot for them. And he is indeed the custodian of a fatberg — one that he lovingly created himself, which is currently floating in the water near one of the city's biggest canals. We reached Arne Hendriks — and his fatberg — in Amsterdam.

CO: Arne, how is your fatberg doing today?

ARNE HENDRIKS: Well, I just came to it. It looks very happy. It looks nice. It's just floating in the water, bobbling up and down slowly, side to side. It's being burg-y.

CO: But we're talking about a giant blob of fat, right? I mean that's what it is.

AH: Basically, yes. I mean I'm not sure if it's giant yet, but it's becoming a giant.

CO: But does it smell weird?

AH: I think that’s a misunderstanding? Fat doesn't smell at all.

CO: But how come when we hear about the fatberg the UK, in London, it's really smelly? What's the difference?

AH: Well, you know the fatbergs in the sewer are not just fat, right? They are composited of everything that floats around in the sewer, which is not just nice things, as we know. So basically, what you smell in the sewers is not the fat, but other stuff.

CO: Like wet wipes.

AH: Feces. I don't know, all sorts of things rotting away.

CO: Where did the fat that you made this Fatberg come from?

AH: Well, we collected from restaurants, we collected from individuals that just saved their fat at home. Sometimes we just buy it — anywhere, basically. It doesn't really matter to the fatberg itself what it grows from. It just wants to be. So basically, any source we can find.

CO: So this is rendered fat?

AH: It's rendered fat. It's clean fat. It's like 100 per cent clean fat.

CO: How big is it at this point?

AH: I would say if you take a piece of rope along it, it will be something like four metres, and it's a little over a thousand kilograms. But you can see the whole thing because the water is very clear, so you can just see the whole thing floating. Like if you were a scuba diver, this would be the most amazing little underwater trip you could take.

CO: Why?

AH: It's just beautiful. You know people like doing cave dives and stuff like this. This would be a fatberg dive. You could just go around. There’s stuff growing on it already because it's been in the water for a few months. That's just something to look at, think about, ponder.

CO: How would you compare it? Like is it the size of a car?

AH: It's actually a little bit more than a Volkswagen Beetle in weight let's say. Like if you would put four passengers in a Volkswagen Beetle, that's about the weight it has at the moment. I mean I would say you cannot wrap your hand around half of it. Like if you would want to give it a hug, it would look like you're hugging let's say a giant, giant, giant snowman.

CO: But it would be a very greasy snowman.

AH: Yes, but it's hard fat, so you wouldn't really like sink into it unless it's like 35 degrees Celsius outside, which we have experienced in the past summer actually. When it gets really warm, it sort of becomes a little bit sticky. But now it's winter time, so it's nice and hard and beautiful, and it’s behaving itself really well at the moment.

CO: What compelled you to make this fatberg?

AH: I guess interests in fat. Think of it, there’s has never been more fats in the history of life on this planet, and so somehow this fat is here, it wants to be here, it wants to express itself. But it does so in a very limited fashion. It does it in the body and in the sewers of London and other cities. So we felt we needed to find an autonomous free space for fat, so we understand this material that's so iconic for our age.

CO: You think fat is misunderstood?

AH: I think we are not spending a lot of time with this very, very interesting material. It’s beautiful organic material produced by life. When you compare it for instance with water or something like this, water gets all the credit, right? We talk a lot about water, we write poetry about water, about diving into the Atlantic Ocean, taking our bicycle through a spring rain. But fat doesn't really create that sort of response in us, and maybe being a little bit deeper. We feel this material wants to be there. And that's why we are doing this. Not as some sort of strange sculpture, but just because fat wants to be out there. It wants to be seen; it wants to be looked at. I know it sounds weird, but that's how we see it.

CO: Oh, it definitely sounds weird. And how have people responded to what you're telling them?

AH: Different ways. But to be honest, when we get a chance to sit down with people and really express why we want to do this and also take them into the process, maybe have them drip a bit of fat themselves on the island, people basically fall in love with it. And slowly they also start to fall in love with the material that obviously, at first, is a little bit maybe disgusting to them.

CO: But we're not supposed to love fat. We're told that that's clogging our arteries, it's giving his heart attacks, we need to avoid it, it's evil.

AH: Yeah, but that attitude hasn't really helped us has it? Because you know here we are, there's never been so many obese people in the world, there's never been so much fat in the world. You know so this type of attitude didn't really bring us closer. It didn't create some sort of understanding. It didn't give us the knowledge or the intimacy that we might need to move onwards with this material. with you know understanding what it wants and what it is about. You know the thing is that if you know people know that there's this floating isle of fat somewhere in the world what we're hoping is that it will change their perspective on fat or at least their discussions around fat. I don't know you know the discussion in classrooms or in the pub, it doesn't really matter. Hey, did you hear there’s the island of fat? And maybe that will just change the conversation.

CO: What will the fatberg do? Will it just stay where it is?

AH: We want to sort of set it free. Like it is an autonomous space; it is a being of its own, so it gets to decide what it wants to do, of course, through us because it doesn't have legs and cannot walk away. But I think we will maybe bring it to the Arctic Circle to sort of symbolically replace an iceberg maybe.

CO: What would it do in the Arctic Circle — this giant blob of fat?

AH: Well you know when you are around the berg, of course, immediately you see that it sort of mimics the shape of an iceberg.

CO: But the birds must be saying oh yeah, obviously this is a great thing?

AH: They love it. Just before you called me, the seagulls were making so much noise. There was a duck sitting on top of the burg, eating from it vigorously. So actually it’s a giant bird ball somehow at the moment — sort of a strategic reserve of energy for wildlife. Who knows what happens when you set something like this free?

CO: If you set it free, this is your baby, right? This is your creation. Won't you be sad to let it go?

AH: Yes, but I guess that's part of it. I guess it’s part of parenthood. And I'm not even sure if we’re parents of this? Maybe it's the parent? I don’t know? So let's see.

CO: All right. Arne, we'll keep in touch to see how your fatburg does, but great to talk to you.

AH: That would be wonderful.

CO: Thank you.

AH: Thank you very much.

CO: Bye.

AH: Bye.

JD: Arne Hendriks is a designer in Amsterdam. And that is where we reached him. And for some photographs of his beloved, beloved fatber, go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Back To Top »

Part two: Shkreli sentence, groping loophole

Shkreli sentence

Guest: Stephanie Clifford

JD: He first rose to infamy when he raised the price of a life-saving drug by 5000 per cent. Then he smirked his way through the congressional hearing that followed. He paid 2 million dollars for a one-of-a-kind Wu-Tang Clan album. U.S. President Donald Trump has called him a "spoiled brat." But those aren't the reasons so-called "pharma bro" Martin Shkreli is going to prison. Today, Mr. Shkreli was sentenced to seven years behind bars for defrauding investors. Stephanie Clifford is a reporter with the New York Times. She was in the courtroom today. We reached her in New York.

CO: Stephanie, first of all, how did Mr. Shkreli react to his sentencing?

STEPHANIE CLIFFORD: He was emotional when he spoke to the judge, asking for a lighter sentence. This was prior to the seven-year sentence being imposed, but he was crying, his voice was choked up, and it's the most emotional we’ve seen him in court this entire time.

CO: And how does that compare with how he's been before?

SC: He's been the most respectful in court. But then before he was in jail, he'd go home and live tweet or live stream himself talking about how he was smarter than the prosecutors, how he didn't really respect this process, how he wasn't going to serve any time, so there is this brashness.

CO: Wasn't it also during this time while he was out on bail, that he posted some kind of reward for anyone who could get a hair off of Hillary Clinton's head?

SC: That's exactly right. He had been convicted, and then on Facebook after he'd been convicted, posted offering a five thousand dollar reward to anybody who could pull a hair — plus follicle — off of Hillary Clinton's head during her book tour, and that landed him in jail. The judge said you've made a threat against a public official. At this point, we can't keep you out on bail.

CO: OK. But none of this is the reason why he’s going to be sent to prison for seven years. What was the conviction actually for? What did he do to earn this conviction?

SC: It was a fairly standard white-collar fraud case. He ran two hedge funds, and he was convicted of lying to investors at the hedge fund about things like the controls on the hedge funds, what they were invested in, how much money was in the funds. At certain points, there was absolutely no money in the funds — he'd blown it all in trades — and sending them statements saying that their investments were doing great.

CO: But none of this is the reason why he earned the moniker the “most hated man in America”. That was because of what he was doing with the prices of drugs. Can you tell can you tell us about that.

SC: Yes, he went on to found another pharmaceutical company. And there he acquired a drug called Daraprim, which treats rare diseases. And overnight, he raised the price on it by 5000 per cent. So his argument was you know I'm going to put this money into research and development. But it meant that patients suddenly couldn't afford this life-saving drug. And he defended himself against all these all these patients all these doctors saying what are you doing? Very aggressively and almost seemed to enjoy the controversy and the attention he was getting from it. And that made him… or he made himself into a bit of a target.

CO: This flippancy, this cruelty, this arrogance, this circus that surrounds him, did that play at all into the sentence. Did the judge take any of that into account?

SC: She did. She talked about it quite a bit. And she said you know I see that you're putting on this act. I also think you're genuinely remorseful. And she seemed to be trying to understand who the real Martin Shkreli was. But I think the things he did really worked against him. He wouldn't be in jail right now were it not that post about Hillary Clinton. He wouldn't have been in jail prior to this were it not for that remark.

CO: Did any of his family show up in court?

SC: They did. His father, who is an Albanian immigrant to Brooklyn, showed up every day during the trial and was in the front row steadily. And it was interesting today in court, some of his sons of other families showed up as well. But today in court, they were talking about his difficult upbringing and how there was abuse in his family. Nevertheless, the father came daily and wrote a really beautiful letter to the judge about how much Martin had meant to him, how much you believed in him, what a smart child he had been.

CO: So did any of that give any insights into who Martin Shkreli really is?

SC: I think he's somebody who got a little big for his britches. Who grew up poor in Brooklyn, so poor that he didn't have lunch money a lot of days at school. And then landed an internship on a Wall Street firm, and suddenly was you know seeing millions of dollars traded, and he still couldn't buy lunch for himself, he wouldn't invite its friends home because he was embarrassed about his living situation. And he started creating this persona — a sort of big ego — that he tried to aggrandize all the time.

CO: And yet, he said that… well, you write about how his lawyer said sometimes he wanted to hug Martin, and other times, you just wanted to punch him in the nose. And that he had friends who saw him become this egregious liar that you couldn't be trusted, even though he used to be kind of fun to hang out with. He did have people like him, I guess?

SC: He did. And he had a sort of an online personality. So, fittingly, he had a lot of online friends who wrote letters about how they'd met Martin through a chat room or through his streaming videos and had become close with him. And they said very good things about him. You know that he helped them out when they needed money, or when they had gone through something traumatic, he was a good, solid friend to them. So you see a little bit of a different side of him from some of those friends’ letters.

CO: What's to become of his one-of-a-kind Wu-Tang Clan album that he paid two million dollars for?

SC: That is up in the air. The judge has authorized the government to seize it if Mr. Shkreli can't pay his seven-point-three-six million forfeiture fine. But as of now, that's stayed pending his appeal. So it could go to the government, but it's not there yet. It's always fun to hear a federal judge saying W-Tang Clan.

CO: But what's he worth at this point? How much money is he known to have?

SC: That actually came out in court today. They went through that, and he has a net worth of I believe about 28 million… I’m just looking at my notes — twenty-seven-point-two million.

CO: If you could speculate, how do you think Martin Shkreli will do in prison?

SC: It seems like so far he's being pretty productive. There were two letters from other prisoners who had been with him in federal jail talking about how he's teaching them math and business and economics. One of the things he really liked to do his live streams was to teach investing, go over his investing strategies to whoever was tuning in. It seems like he's doing some of that in jail, and he's found some maybe meaning or a way to pass that time that way. On the other hand, he probably won't qualify for the lowest security prison and will be in serious federal prison for up to seven years, which is no joke.

CO: That should be interesting. Stephanie, I appreciate your reporting on this. It has been great. And good to talk to you, thank you.

SC: Thank you.

CO: Bye bye.

SC: Bye.

JD: Stephanie Clifford is with the New York Times. We reached her in New York.

New RCMP Commissioner

JD: Brenda Lucki is already bowling them over, and she hasn't even began the job. Assistant Commissioner Lucki has been running the RCMP's training facility in Regina. And that's where the Prime Minister announced today that she would become the first woman to lead the entire force. The ceremony was a bit much for the two cadets lined who'd been lined up in their red serge for the ceremony. They fainted, one after the other, as the commander and then the Prime Minister spoke. But that's nothing compared to what the new commissioner will have to stand up for, and to, as she takes on a police force that continues to face accusations of discrimination and abuse. Here is some of what the incoming Commissioner had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

BRENDA LUCKI: In my role as commanding officer of depot, I have had the opportunity to realize my dream. I was given a gift: the privilege of making a difference by training the best possible constables to make our communities safer — a dream and a guiding principle that I will bring with me as the new Commissioner. As Commissioner, I will count on your support. I will not have all the answers, but I definitely plan on asking all the right questions, and maybe some difficult ones. I plan to challenge assumptions, seek explanations, and better understand the reasons how we operate. This means that no stone will be left unturned. And if what we find works then we carry on until we unearth the issues that need addressing. I am confident that together we will meet our challenge head on and move forward to continue to modernize our organization. I am so very honored to stand before you. And as I look at these young officers, I am reminded of the tremendous responsibility that we all have to leave the force better than when we started. I can tell you that I have is just as much passion and pride for my RCMP — Our RCMP — now that I did the first day I donned my red serge right here in this very drill hall. And I can assure you that I will do my very best to honor this responsibility with your support. Lead the RCMP to a bright and exciting future.

JD: That’s incoming RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki, speaking in Regina today.

Butt grabbing loophole

Guest: Jessica Goodwin

JD: Anyone familiar with the cases of former Senators Al Franken and Dan Schoen knows the state of Minnesota doesn't have the best record when it comes to unwanted buttock grabbing. And so it may be shocking to hear that state law in Minnesota doesn't protect people if they are groped over clothing. The reason for this exemption is clear, but it’s also odd: it's so football coaches could give players encouraging pats on the behind, without being prosecuted. One woman in Minnesota found this out the worst possible way: after being groped from behind in front of her young kids. Jessica Goodwin is in Minneapolis.

CO: Ms. Goodwin, I'm sorry that you had to go through all of this. But what happened to you exactly on that day in November?

JESSICA GOODWIN: My husband and I had our five kids at our local fitness club, eating lunch and then we were getting ready for swim lessons. As my husband was cleaning up our lunch, I was kind of standing up outside of the cafe area holding our one-year-old, and somebody walked up behind me and fully grabbed my bottom — my buttocks. I looked behind me, there was a man walking away from me, and turned and looked at me, and gave me a smirk and kept on walking. I knew our fitness club had video footage of everything, so I would be able to get an ID on him and be able to give that to the police later on.

CO: And you learned later that you weren't the only one he grabbed in the club.

JG: Yeah, I was not. I talked with the manager, and he said that it was not only me but four other women. In one of those situations, he had walked into the women's locker room to grope a different lady. He had been arrested; the police had been called, and he was in police custody. We got our kids home. And I called the police myself to file a police report, went down to the station to give a statement of what happened to me, and they asked if I could provide a lineup ID, which I couldn't; I had barely seen him. And so I asked the officer if we could contact Life Time to receive the video footage. But when I talked to the investigator again the next day, she said it honestly doesn't matter. The only thing we're going to be able to charge him with is disorderly conduct for walking into the women's locker room. Unfortunately, the way that law is written in the state of Minnesota, what he did to you is not a crime.

CO: And this is really the surprising thing that you discovered that it is not a crime to grab someone by the behind — not to grab them or grope them if they're wearing clothes. Did you know that not just that it was it was not illegal, but it was perfectly legal to do that? It had actually been more specifically written into the law to allow for that?

JG: Yeah. When the investigator told me that it was you know just because of the way the laws were written, I started doing some research on my own looking into what we have in Minnesota: the criminal sexual misconduct code. And that's when I discovered that the criminal sexual misconduct code there is a groping law, but that it explicitly excludes groping of the buttocks over clothing. And I was honestly appalled. I talked to a couple of other people, and they were also appalled. And I just started digging a little further into the law and the legal code before I wrote my senator. And that's kind of the next step I took was bringing this to my senator and state rep and saying to you are you guys aware of this? Here's a situation that happened to me. Here's what the law stating. And I said frankly I'm appalled that this is something that's in the law. I appreciate if you could answer why this is the law? And I said I think that this is something that we all know is sexual assault. To walk up to somebody — anybody — and grab their butt without their consent.

CO: And what have you what have you learned about as to why that is allowed by law?

JG: My senator didn't have a ton of information to give me about why that was written in the law, except for there was concern when the original groping law was enacted in 1988 that there was concern about football coaches or football players giving each other a pat on the behind. And they wanted to make sure that that would not be criminal. And that was just shocking to me that that would be placed over sexually assaulting people.

CO: It's interesting also when you look at speaking of senators, former senators from your state Al Franken and Dan Schoen. Both men resigned because of unwanted touching of women. And now, you're finding out that this particular kind of touching is perfectly legal in your state. Apparently, it's the only state I guess in the U.S. where there's some specific law that says you can do this.

JG: Yeah, it is. It's been very interesting, and really just shocking, to say the least.

CO: But now because of all the attention that you've brought to this, and others have brought to it, it’s going to change. There's a Senate committee that gathered to vote on whether to change this loophole. What has happened?

JG: Currently, it has made it through the Judiciary Committee. And the next step is for the Senate to vote on it on the floor. So it has not been changed just yet. It's still something that's in process. But there is a law in both the House and the Senate that they're trying to get this changed, which I’m very thankful for. I'm glad that this has been able to bring attention to this issue.

CO: Could you have imagined that difficult day you had that you would end up changing the law from that?

JG: No. No. I couldn't believe that horrible day could be turned around for something good like this. I actually sat down and specifically prayed about that on that day — that this would be used for something just turning that man's life around whatever it may be. I could never have imagined that it would be used to change the law in the state of Minnesota.

CO: Well done, Ms. Goodwyn.

JG: Oh, thank you.

CO: Thank you. Bye bye.

JG: Bye.

JD: We reached Jessica Goodwin in Minneapolis.

Burger flipping robot

JD: It started as a short-order cook. But it stopped in pretty short order. On Monday, the Pasadena location of the CaliBurger chain brought on a new employee to lend a helping hand, or helping spatula. Also forearm, elbow, and upper arm, which is all the new employee is. It's a robot burger-flipper named Flippy. Apparently, humans — most of whom are more than a single disembodied arm with no feelings — have a habit of leaving the job. And so Flippy solves three problems: it's an efficient cook that can prepare as many as 2000 burgers every single day, you don't have to pay it a living wage, and it couldn't quit if it wanted to. It's bolted down. And it has no mouth to give two weeks' notice. And yet, Flippy had some trouble in its first week. Not because the robot arm is riveted, but because humans were: once CaliBurger publicized its arrival, the Pasadena location was inundated with customers. Flippy couldn't keep up. Although, to be fair, the robot was not the only problem — its co-workers, who are people, will need further training to work more seamlessly with their bionic colleague. So, just a single day after it started work, CaliBurger has flipped the switch on Flippy the burger-flipping robot arm. The machine, which you could call an "auto-meat-on", although I don't know why anyone would, has been sitting idle. It's just temporary: the chain had planned to install Flippys in 50 of its locations over the next two years. And it insists it's still going to heed that call to arms. But in the meantime, Flippy Number One is going out as a limb.

Back To Top »

Part three: Voodoo doll study, ocean swimming study

Mhairi Black

JD: The language is caustic. But Mhairi Black felt the need to repeat it in the UK House of Commons this week. Ms. Black is a Member of Parliament for the Scottish National Party. And on Wednesday, she was taking part in a House debate about misogyny, and whether it should be viewed as a hate crime. And so she decided she would read out some of the misogynistic and homophobic abuse that has been directed to her online. And a warning: the language you're about to hear is disturbing and graphic.

[sc]

MHAIRI BLACK: At this point, some folk will be uncomfortable with the graphic language I'm about to use. But I'm not going to dilute the reality for such an important issue. Now, I'm used to the abuse online, I'm regularly called a wee boy. I'm told I wear my dad’s suits and stuff. You know me and my palls actually laugh about it. That's how I cope with it. We find the best insults and that’s how we have a laugh. But I struggle to see any joke in being systematically called a dyke, a rug-muncher, a slut, a whore, a scruffy bent. I've been told that can't put lipstick on a pig. I could soften some the rest by talking about the “C” word, but the reality is there is no softening when you're targeted with these words and I'm left reading them on my screen every day, day in and day out. There is no softening just how sexualized and misogynistic as the abuse says. I've got a call from some guy: “I've pumped some ugly bubs in my time, but just wouldn't.” I've been assured multiple times that I don’t have to worry because I am so ugly that no one would want to rape me. Now all of these and insults have been tailored to me because I am a woman. We can kid ourselves that these are a few bad anonymous people on Twitter, but it's not. This is everyday common language.

JD: That was Scottish National Party MP Mhairi Black in the UK House of Commons this week, reading out examples of online abuse she has endured.

Voodoo doll study

Guest: Lindie Liang

JD: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." That's the third of three laws formulated by British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke. Now, Mr. Clarke probably wouldn't have considered voodoo dolls "sufficiently advanced". But if not, it's possible that Mr. Clarke would have been wrong. Because a new study shows that a sticking a pin in a virtual voodoo doll can work magic on how you feel about your boss. Dr. Lindie Liang is an assistant professor at the School of Business and Economics at Wilfrid Laurier University. She led the study, which was published in The Leadership Quarterly. We reached Dr. Liang in Waterloo, Ontario.

CO: Professor Liang, why did you want to study the power of voodoo dolls? And we should just note that we call them voodoo dolls in popular culture, but it's got nothing to do with the voodoo religion.

LINDIE LIANG: Well, actually, it's funny because I wasn't even thinking about voodoo dolls. And one day, I was just in my office, and my co-author, Doug Brown, came into my office and said because people retaliate all the time, even though they know it's bad for them maybe we can come up with like a harmless way for them to retaliate and feel better about their justice perceptions in the workplace without actually having them to harm their supervisor. We know so many people retaliate against their supervisor. It’s just so hardwired in our brains. So even though it's bad for the relationship, they still do it. So we thought you know we could come up with a way that can actually benefit employees and can still serve the purpose of retaliation.

CO: And without harm without harm.

LL: Yeah, without actually murdering the supervisor.

CO: And did you sense that people were actually thinking of such things? That they were so angry with their bosses they could actually hurt them?

LL: Yeah, I talked to my friends who work in the I.T. or computer programming, and they're just like yeah, sometimes I actually thought about murdering my supervisor. I mean this is extreme cases, but yes, sometimes people just can’t keep their cool you know when their supervisor kept yelling at them like failing to acknowledge their hard work or like even just humiliating them in front of everyone.

CO: Yikes! It's scary to know there’s that many people who contemplate such things. But you figured that maybe they could take out their frustration on voodoo doll. Can you describe what you did? How do you get people to participate in your study? And what did they have to do?

LL: So we asked employees to recall a time when their supervisors abused them in the workplace, so mistreated them. So, for example, you know yelling at them, just being rude to them, being hostile towards them. So by then, they're all really angry. And then we randomly assigned them into two conditions. So for one group of employees, we asked them to go online, and there's this online voodoo doll program. So they can actually do a lot of things like set to voodoo doll on fire, they can insert pins in a voodoo doll, or they can use some pliers or some tools to tear the voodoo doll apart. So we asked them to play with the doll for a minute. And for the other condition like we asked them to label the voodoo doll as nobody, and we just asked them to trace the outline of the voodoo doll, so they didn't get to retaliate. So basically what we found that across like several studies, people who had opportunity to retaliate — to harm the voodoo doll that symbolized their boss — they actually show restored justice perception. So they actually feel better. They think oh, the world is fair again; you know I had the opportunity to retaliate. But for the other group who didn't get an opportunity to retaliate, then their Justice perception is really low. They think this is very unfair.

CO: So you asked them actually to imagine by doing this exercise online voodoo doll they were imagining that they were inflicting pain on their supervisor or their manager?

LL: So we didn't tell them they’re actually inflicting pain. We just asked them to label the doll as their supervisor versus nobody, and we simply just asked them to play around. We did this because previous research has shown that people tend to project certain characteristics of a person onto the voodoo doll. So even without telling them, they tend to do that. So just to illustrate, if I asked you to shoot a dart at the face of your significant other, you’d probably feel kind of uncomfortable doing that, even though you know doing that won't harm your significant other. But somehow, you kind of feel uncomfortable doing that. So the logic of the voodoo doll is pretty much the same. Like, even though people know it won't actually hurt their supervisor, but they feel better about it. They kind of project characteristics of the supervisor onto the doll, so by harming the doll, they actually feel their sense of justice has been restored.

CO: And what do you think is a possible application for your research? Do you think that people should get voodoo dolls and try and work out their frustrations and their anger? Or maybe they should just get a different job?

LL: Yeah, so I mean if people have the opportunity to have the job mobility then yeah, they could get a different job if they're perpetually being abused in the workplace. But I think the broader application is that we know people retaliate. They're so motivated to punish like you know people who violate their justice perceptions. So they're going to retaliate regardless. And we know like retaliation is bad. If you retaliate, your supervisor will treat you even worse. So it kind of creates a hostile work environment. So in our study like we've shown even some harmless acts like simply playing with the doll for one minute can restore people's justice perception so they can feel good again, they can continue working. So I guess yeah, getting a voodoo dog could be one way people could do it. But there are like harmless ways — any way that can restore people's sense of justice, right? That's the key because we're interested in the mechanism of this, which is people's restored sense of justice. So anything, for example, like forgiveness could also work. There has been literature showing to close this justice gap, you can also forgive your perpetrator.

CO: Maybe this will open up a new market in voodoo dolls for somebody? All right it's fascinating. Professor Liang, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

LL: Thank you.

CO: Bye bye.

LL: Bye.

JD: That was Professor Lindie Liang, of the School of Business and Economics at Wilfrid Laurier University. We reached her in Waterloo.

Listener response 1000 bill

JD: It's a new grand scheme of things. Last week we told you that the federal government was asking for the power to take "legal tender" status away from certain bills. Among them, the 1000-dollar bill, which, because of its colour, it's known as the "pinkie". Well, that story prompted Gloria Merrithew to share the time she got up-close and personal with not one but four pinkies. That was back in 1968, when her father owned a dairy farm outside Moncton, New Brunswick. Ms. Merrithew writes, quote, "In 1968 he concluded that, due to failing health, it was time to liquidate his herd of 18 milk cows, a number of yearling heifers, and a few calves. 30 animals in total." Ms. Merrithew said that, when the buyer showed up to buy the herd, he, quote, "brought payment in the form of four 1000-dollar bills and five hundreds. The opportunity to hold those thousand-dollar bills — however briefly before they were whisked away to the bank — added to the drama of a memorable and somewhat sad day." That email was from Gloria Merrithew in Fredericton. Thank you for writing.

Odinga-Kenyatta

JD: It's a handshake that seemed unimaginable just a few weeks ago: this evening, in Nairobi, Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta did shake the hand of opposition leader Raila Odinga outside the presidential offices. The two men and their ethnically divided supporters have been contesting the right to inhabit those offices for well over a decade. Every round of voting seemed to bring a fresh round of violence. More than a hundred people died during last year's elections alone, which Mr. Odinga contested. He cited widespread voting irregularities. Today, though, on the eve of a visit from US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Raila Odinga told a national audience that it was time for them to work together in the national interest. Then President Kenyatta took his turn.

SOUNDCLIP

UHURU KENYATTA: I have taken great pleasure this morning in welcoming my brother, Raila, and we have come to a common understanding — an understanding that this country of Kenya is greater than any one individual. And that for this country to come together, leaders must come together. Leaders must be able to discuss their differences. Leaders must be able to discuss freely and openly what ails our country. What is the reason and the cause for the ethnic divisions and frictions that we see across the country. Democracy is not — as has not often been said — an end in itself. It is just a process by which the will of the people is heard. But the national good — the national interest — must always prevail over those elections. And this is what me and my brother have agreed. That starting today, we will begin a process of bringing our people together. We will begin a process of discussing what ails us and what creates division amongst us. And we look forward to support of every single leader. We look forward to the support of every single Kenyan, so that we can build together a united, harmonious, stable nation where no individual feels left out or left behind.

JD: Kenya's President Uhuru Kenyatta, speaking alongside opposition leader Raila Odinga earlier today in Nairobi.

Ocean swimming study

Guest: Anne Leonard

JD: For many, many, many, many, many Canadians, one of the best parts of heading off on a tropical vacation is running down to the beach, taking a dip in the ocean. It's refreshing. It turns out, though, sadly, that a new study out of the UK found some facts that'll make your skin crawl. Anne Leonard is a research fellow at the University of Exeter. She and her team of researchers looked at more than six thousand studies, and found that swimming in the sea can actually make you sick. We reached Ms. Leonard in Cornwall, UK.

CO: Ms. Leonard, what are the health hazards from swimming in the ocean?

ANNE LEONARD: We found in our study that bathers have a much greater chance of experiencing symptoms of illness and symptoms of infections like ear-ache and stomach-ache, diarrhea, those kinds of things after they go into the sea as compared to non-bathers. But for the majority of people these ailments quite minor, so they might take a couple of days off work, they might feel bad for a few days, but the illnesses should clear up by themselves without any medical intervention for the minority of people.

CO: But for some people, having an ear-ache or a gastrointestinal infection can be quite serious.

AL: Yes, so for people with weaker immune systems, these kinds of illnesses can be more severe, and they might need medical intervention.

CO: So why are people getting sick when they swim in the ocean?

AL: Some of the things that make people sick might be introduced by sewage, which comes into the ocean after there’s been heavy rainfall. So, for example, farmers apply manures to their lands as a fertiliser. And when it rains heavily, this is washed into nearby waterways, which discharge into the sea. That's just one example of how these bacteria and viruses that make people sick can get into the water.

CO: How much more frequent? Because we should point out this is a meta-analysis. You've looked at 19 different studies and it covers a lot of people because we've covered the story before of this and smaller studies, but this is meta-study. So to what degree are people more susceptible to these infections if they swim in the sea?

AL: Yeah, we carried out what is called a systematic review, which is a really robust method for evaluating all the available evidence on a particular topic. But we did restrict our analysis to analyzing studies conducted in countries that are high-income countries. So we found that the odds of experiencing ear-aches are increased by about 77 per cent. The odds of experiencing diarrhea increased by 44 per cent. And the odds of experiencing stomach-ache are increased by 29 per cent. So although water quality is generally good, in high-income countries sewage does occasionally get into the sea. So I think people can avoid or reduce their risks by avoiding going into the sea after it’s been raining. But also, they can look at water quality at the beach if they want to go there and see how safe it is for them.

CO: Why did you limit it to high-income countries?

AL: First of all, I think that's a perception in high-income countries that the risk of experiencing illnesses are quite low, but also because a lot of the studies have looked at multiple different types of ailments. But what we found is that bathers have a much greater chance of experiencing certain symptoms of illness.

CO: Now because people will have some pushback on this as you know. Because when we've done studies in the past, people say well, compared to a swimming pool or a lake, I mean it’s the ocean, right? I mean so it must be fairly diluted. And, of course, people believe in the healing powers of salt water and whatnot. So what are you saying to people? That they should be careful and not swim in the sea?

AL: We're not saying that people should avoid getting into the sea altogether. I mean, like you say, there are many benefits from going in the sea, including improved physical fitness, increased mental wellbeing, and the fact that people like going to the beach and going in the sea. And actually enjoy these activities. I would say that these are relatively minor ailments. Like I said, people will probably be a bit sick for a few days, but that bounce straight back. And I would probably also say that while we don't want to put people off from going into the sea, I think it's important that people are aware of the risks and know what they can do to minimise the risks as well.

CO: But does it matter where the beach is? There are beaches that are much closer to populated areas or to farm communities. I mean would it make a difference if you were in an area that had less density?

AL: I think that's a really interesting question. I think that's something that the scientific community is looking to understand, but that's not something that we've looked at in this particular study.

CO: Because it would seem to be there are not many secluded beaches. I guess that’s dream, especially this time of year, that there be some deserted beach you could be walking on and without another prison there. And go for a swim. If there are such places left, they would seem to be probably a bit safer?

AL: I think it's difficult to know. I mean we think that sewage contains both human and animal viruses and bacteria. And maybe viruses and bacteria in human sewage that are adapted to humans and maybe causing illness in humans. But there are many zoonotic micro-organisms that live in animals that could also impact human health out in the world. And those do occasionally get into river water and sea water.

CO: Well, it’s a cautionary tale for those planning to go out for a swim — perhaps though not in your country or mine today, but Ms. Leonard, thanks for speaking with us.

AL: Thanks

CO: Bye bye.

JD: Anne Leonard is the lead author of a new study from the University of Exeter about how potentially disgusting it is to swim in the ocean. We reached Ms. Leonard in Cornwall.

The Sunday Edition: Ritchie clip

JD: All week, threats and intimidation have been hovering over trade talks between the U.S. and Canada. And Gordon Ritchie is not impressed. Mr. Ritchie served as Canada's ambassador for trade when we signed our first free trade agreement with the Americans in 1988. He was an advisor four years later when Canada signed onto NAFTA, which brought in Mexico. In a feature interview that airs this weekend on “The Sunday Edition”, Mr. Ritchie accuses Donald Trump of willful ignorance. And he issues a warning for Canadians. Here's an excerpt of his conversation with host, Michael Enright.

SOUNDCLIP

GORDON RITCHIE: I think Canadians should understand that we are under attack. We are under attack. This isn't Munich, this latest thing. We are under attack. And the result of Mr. Trump's occupancy of the White House will be that Canadians will enjoy a lower standard of living, lower rates of growth, and lower employment than otherwise would be the case. And that's almost irrespective of how it plays out. Just the threats alone are enough to chill investments in Canada and encourage companies to look at the big market where there's less border risk than to put stuff in Canada. And, of course, if it does come to the worst, and there aren't tariffs imposed, and other restrictions come into place, and NAFTA's torn up, then the impact will be greater. And it's not really a consolation to know that the Americans will be hurt worse, although, because they're bigger, they will feel it less. Since Mr. Trump came to office, the deficit has increased significantly — the trade deficit. I don't think that's important, but he does. And I can tell you I would be prepared to bet my shirt that by the time he steps down, even after one term, the U.S. trade deficit will be significantly larger than it otherwise would have been because of the array of his economic policies, including these misguided trade policies. So what he's doing is, in fact, going to inflict a lot of pain on a lot of Americans. But they're going to be less aware of it. And, of course, the spin doctors it's much easier to make the case oh well if we slap those nasty foreigners your jobs will come back in the coal industry, and the steel industry, and the aluminum industry. You know completely forgetting the impacts of technology and environmental change and what have you.

JD: That’s Canada's former trade ambassador, Gordon Ritchie, in conversation with the host of “The Sunday Edition”, Michael Enright. You can hear the full interview on “The Sunday Edition” Sunday just after the 9 a.m. news — 9:30 in Newfoundland. It's also available online, at your leisure: www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

March 9, 2018 episode transcript

More Stories Like This