Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2018

The AIH Transcript for November 7, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Marcia Young

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello I'm Carol Off.

MARCIA YOUNG: Good evening. I'm Marcia Young, sitting in for Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

MY: Tonight...

CO: A day after the midterms President Trump fires one of his earliest and most fervent surrogates, Attorney General Jeff Sessions -- in a move that our guess says was a long time in the making.

MY: The power and the patriarchy. Yesterday's midterms raised expectations of a return to 1992's 'Year of the Woman.' But our guest says despite many gains -- American politics still has far to go in terms of female representation.

CO: Postscript. Tony Clement has been turfed from the Tory caucus over a sexting scandal. Several women are now talking about his apparent habit of liking their Instagram posts.

MY: Zooming out. Viewers have been inspired by a viral video of a bear cub scaling a snowy ridge to rejoin its mother, but conservationists say they're both distressed by the drone camera hovering nearby to capture the scene.

CO: Nominal fuss. Sweden has laws forbidding parents from naming their children with what are traditionally surnames -- so one couple is headed to the country's highest court to fight for the right to call their son Ford.

MY: And artful dodgers. Residents of a steel and glass apartment complex in London complain they've been subject to constant scrutiny by visitors to the neighbouring modern art museum's viewing tower. As It Happens. The Wednesday edition -- radio are designed for listening, not looking.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Canadian journalist says Tony Clement crossed a line with 'aggressive' Instagram likes

Jeff Sessions Fired

Guest: Sari Horwitz

MY: Donald Trump didn't fire Jeff Sessions -- he had someone else order his Attorney General to quit. The U.S. President had left no doubt about his frustration with Sessions and his hands off approach to the Russia investigation. But Mr. Sessions seemed reluctant to go. Then today as the final results of the midterm elections rolled in -- Mr. Trump had his Chief of Staff demand the Attorney General's resignation. Sari Horwitz has followed every twist and turn of the two men's troubled relationship. Ms. Horwitz is a justice reporter for The Washington Post.

CO: Sari we know that President Trump has wanted to get rid of Jeff Sessions for months. Why did this happen now?

SARI HORWITZ: Well he has wanted to get rid of Jeff Sessions, really, from the beginning of Jeff Sessions tenure -- way back in March of 2017 when the Attorney General recused himself from the Russia investigation -- the investigation into whether there had been interference, any collusion, with the Russians and the Trump administration during the 2016 election. He's been angry with him since and has said recently, in recent months, that he might take action after the midterms. So this doesn't come as a surprise to those of us who have been covering him.

CO: Why did he have to wait till after the midterm elections before Mr. Trump did this?

SH: I think with all the controversy over the midterms and some of the difficult races the Republicans had I don't think the President wanted to throw a wrench into it. Also at his press conference this morning was asked by a reporter if he was going to do anything regarding the Attorney General and he said, you know maybe a little bit later. [Chuckles] The little bit later was about an hour later. But I think he didn't want to mix the two. He wanted the headlines today from his press conference to be probably about the election and how he felt he was successful with the Senate. So I think this was timed. I mean his Chief of Staff asked the Attorney General to submit a letter of resignation which the Attorney General did and it was accepted -- and the President sort of announced this to the world by tweeting it out.

CO: Just for people who don't know -- just remind us -- or we've forgotten, how fraught was the relationship between Mr. Sessions and Mr. Trump?

SH: Very fraught. It's interesting because the Attorney General came into the administration as someone close to the President. He was the first senator to endorse and support Donald Trump when he was running for President. He was the first one that came out. He was a foreign policy adviser. He was very involved in the campaign. And when he let the President know that he wanted to be Attorney General the President chose him -- so they had a very close relationship. But what happened is really he came in February of 2017, he was sworn in -- and March 2nd he had a press conference, his first press conference, where he said that ethics advisers and others had told him he should recuse himself from the Russia investigation because he was involved in the campaign and that announcement was the beginning of the end in terms of their relationship.

CO: Why is that? I mean that was his advice. He thought that was what he should do -- that that was the ethical thing to do. What was Mr. Trump's view?

SH: The President did not buy that reasoning -- that it was the ethical thing to do. And remember the Attorney General had been a U.S. attorney in Alabama. He had been an Attorney General. He had been involved in legal matters for many years. He had been a senator. And he loved the Justice Department and he said that from the beginning and wanted to listen to their advice. The President on the other hand wanted someone to protect him from this investigation. And he did not want his Attorney General to be uninvolved in it.

CO: So what happens now with not having Mr. Sessions there? What threats are there to that Mueller investigation?

SH: Well the investigation is threatened and there are a lot of questions about what happens to it next. It's now being overseen by the Deputy Attorney General, the number two person at the Justice Department, a man named Rod Rosenstein. But now President Trump has put in as acting attorney general Matt Whitaker. Matt Whitaker will now at least for the moment oversee the Russia investigation and that will possibly be taken away from Rod Rosenstein and put under Matt Whitaker. Matt Whitaker is a former U.S. attorney from the Bush administration. So it's just really unclear now what will happen to that investigation. We know the President has not been happy about it. And there are a lot of questions about what will happen going forward.

CO: Has Mr. Whitaker given any hints as to what he thinks of the Mueller investigation?

SH: Well he actually has -- not recently, but before he came into the Justice Department he sort of mused publicly about how a Sessions replacement might reduce Mueller's budget so low that the investigation almost ground to a halt. And he also wrote in a September 2017 column that Mueller had come up to a red line -- that he was dangerously close to crossing. So those are kind of hints about his thoughts on the investigation but he hasn't spoken about it recently.

CO: Just finally a question on Mr. Sessions legacy -- I mean he is known as the person who sanctioned the separation of families from their children for people who are crossing the border. So what legacy does he leave?

SH: Well it depends who you ask. I've interviewed several people who are supporters of his -- conservatives who feel that there's never been a Republican Attorney General who could be credited with more achievements in advancing the conservative legal policy agenda despite the distractions with the President that they say is that what he has accomplished has been nothing short of astounding in the areas of immigration, in policing, in criminal law enforcement. Those are the same issues that his detractors seize on -- the civil rights leaders in this country think that he has been terrible for civil rights -- that he's turned back the clock -- that he is not addressing issues like systemic police misconduct, voting rights, and that he undid basically all of the things that were put in place of the Justice Department by Attorney General Eric Holder, Obama's Attorney General. Reform efforts at the Justice Department that he's methodically undone those. So it really depends who you ask. Civil rights leaders thought it was a very bad tenure. Conservatives feel like he was a great Attorney General.

CO: All right we'll leave it there. Sari, thank you.

SH: Sure. Thank you.

CO: Bye.

SH: Bye bye.

MY: Sari Horwitz is a justice reporter for The Washington Post. We reached her in Washington D.C.

[Music]

Tony Clement: Instagram/Security

Guest: Kim Fox and Stephanie Carvin

MY: Tony Clement is in trouble. The Conservative MP has admitted to sharing sexually explicit images and a video of himself with a person online and claims he was blackmailed. In response today Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer announced Mr. Clement was not only out of cabinet -- he was kicked out of caucus too after learning of other allegations of a similar nature. The story has shone a light on Mr. Clement's social media behaviour. He's an avid Instagram and Twitter user and today dozens of women have reported feeling uncomfortable by his interactions. Kim Fox is one of those women. She is a Canadian journalist currently working in the U.S. We reached her in Philadelphia.

CO: Kim when the news broke that Tony Clement admitted he had shared sexual images and a video of himself with someone online -- what did you think?

KIM FOX: Well I have to admit I wasn't completely surprised I'd say. I mean obviously I think a public figure should have better judgment than that but based on my experiences and those of folks I know -- no, it wasn't that much of a stretch.

CO: Okay what were your experiences?

KF: So I guess it would have been about three or four years ago I noticed that Tony Clement was following me on Instagram -- and you know I'm a public figure so that's not all that abnormal -- working in the media. But you know I noticed just after a few months that there would be these cycles of like a barrage of likes on pictures. So you know whether it was get up in the morning or look later in the afternoon and it would just be a series of this -- you know if you know how Instagram pops up if you look at the screen and it's just like 10 or 20 likes. And at first I just kind of laughed it off and I thought well either you know he's got some bad staff or there's bots or you know he doesn't know Instagram works -- and I really give him the benefit of the doubt. And then it started to become more frequent. And I was talking to some of my female colleagues and folks who either worked in media or just outside in the parameters and they were experiencing the same thing which I thought was you know kind of strange. And then as we started to discuss it -- we zoned in -- my husband at the time mentioned that he thought it was you know a little aggressive and inappropriate and we started looking at the photos and what we noticed were -- they were always kind of selfies -- pictures of me directly, not me with anybody else, sort of like landscapes or anything -- and that was the part that kind of... you know it kind of made me uncomfortable especially because I think as a public figure in the grand scheme of things there's nothing wrong with liking things on social but I think you know that kind of aggressive behaviour, repetitive behaviour, is odd for anyone never mind a public figure.

CO: And did it progress from there? Did you get more uncomfortable?

KF: He never messaged me. He never sent me any inappropriate pictures and no one I know of experience that at all. But it was just an ongoing thing and it was always -- it was just the type of photos and so -- but you know I've worked in this industry for years you kind of get used to it, you laugh it off, you just brush it aside, and when the news came out you know immediately a couple of folks that I had these conversations about had sent me the story and we all commented how it was you know sort of only a matter of time and it is what it is.

CO: What do you mean that was only a matter of time?

KF: Well I mean I think you know if you're acting aggressively towards people online -- and I talk about this all the time, I'm in the business of social, right. So you think social is about good judgment. It's about how you conduct yourself. I think a good measure is to ask yourself if I conducted myself like this offline -- if there was a woman who I didn't know and I just started getting in her face at a public event like all over her about topics would it make her uncomfortable? The answer is probably yes. Especially with everything that's been going on in the last year you would think that with the MeToo movement and you know more open dialogue around women feeling comfortable and not being harassed that you know he wouldn't have done what he did. And you know my big question is ultimately did he conduct himself like that towards men. If the answer is yes, then you know he just needs a lesson on how to use social overall more appropriately and communication. But you know if it's just targeted towards women then I think that's a real problem.

CO: Now he has said that he's big on social, he loves using it. He told The Globe and Mail -- this is a quote, I would say I like all sorts of pictures on Instagram. But I've never sent unsolicited harassing messages ever. What do you say to that? I mean do you know anyone who did get any kind of messages like that?

KF: No. Personally I didn't. But I just think that you know if I were -- and it's what I said on Twitter like if I were a media company right now I would be digging in and taking look at the data and analyzing the types of photos. And you know at the end of the day if he's looking at both men and women and liking their photos aggressively in the same way well then he's just a power user and kind of overbearing on social. But what I'm curious about is did he zone in on particular types of photos and did he zone in specifically on women.

CO: Why did you feel it was important to speak out? Some women said okay I have to say this happen to me. But why did you want to speak out about it?

KF: You know I'm growing really tired of laughing this kind of behaviour off. I'm a 43 year old woman I've spent many years tolerating bad behaviour or behaviour that's questionable and you learn to navigate around that and excuse it. And I think if anything the last year has taught us is it's time to speak up and it's time to just no longer normalise this kind of behaviour and call people on it so that they can -- whether they mean to or not you know I have a right to exist in a safe space. I have a right to have social channels where I don't feel like somebody is aggressively all over me on them. I have a right to just be a woman and live my life. And the reason why I'm saying something now is because I feel like I'm -- you know from what I understand in talking to some folks today and in talking to some reporters there's women out there who don't feel comfortable speaking up -- either they are younger or they are earlier in their career. And I'm fortunate -- I'm in a position now where I can say something and I can tell people it's not okay -- it's not okay to accept behaviour like that. And it's not just women versus men -- it's collectively, we have to all expect better. We need to expect better of our male peers, of our bosses, of our colleagues -- we need to hold them to account and expect better behaviour.

CO: Kim we will leave it there. Thank you so much for speaking with us.

KF: Thank you so much.

MY: Kim Fox is a Canadian journalist. We reached her in Philadelphia. We requested a response from Mr. Clement but did not receive a response before airtime. Mr. Clement says he shared sexually explicit images and a video of himself with someone online and claims he is being blackmailed. Until this week the MP sat on a new top secret national security parliamentary committee and that raises red flags for Stephanie Carvin. She's a former national security analyst at CSIS and assistant professor at Carleton University. We reached her in Leiden, the Netherlands.

CO: Professor Carvin -- Conservative MP Tony Clement said yesterday that he went down "the wrong path and exercised very poor judgment." What do you think of that?

STEPHANIE CARVIN: Well he's right but probably more right than he would like to admit -- in this particular case. I mean there's no problem with engaging in this kind of activity between consenting adults but in this particular case it seems that he didn't even verify who he was sending these pictures to. So if you're dealing with someone who is dealing with large amounts of classified information -- in this particular case it's not verifying who they're engaging in kind of salacious activity with -- that's actually a judgment issue and it is something that I think people on the national security side would be worried about.

CO: Mr. Clement said this started three weeks ago -- he shared sexually explicit images and a video of himself. He believed it was a consenting female recipient. That's what he said. How do you verify you have a consenting female recipient when you're sending material like this? I mean is that enough to have said, oh I think it's okay -- she's a consenting female?

SC: I think if you are in a position where you have access to large amounts of classified information -- and let's be clear you know his access is incredible and if you were in that kind of position of public trust I think it is good judgment to exercise extreme caution when engaging in these activities. So how do you verify the problem? You can't. So this is risky behavior and it's the kind of thing that traditionally national security agencies would try to screen for.

CO: Now it's been reported that the amount of money that this woman was -- or this person -- we don't even know who it was. With the amount -- the sum was 50,000 euros. What does that say to you that it was in euros?

SC: This could be someone overseas. I mean there are people who do engage in these kinds of behaviors who are just criminal. The fact is you can do this to make money. You know you gain someone's trust, you kind of use social engineering, and in this case it was you know probably pretending to be a young attractive female and then you encouraged them to send them something that you know you think it's private and then it isn't. The other concern though would be you know this is also the kind of activity that security and intelligence services from hostile countries engage in.

CO: Well I just want to point out because when you talk about his access to security. There is this new parliamentary committee -- this cross party committee that Justin Trudeau has struck -- that Tony Clement is on this committee that has the authority, I'm quoting from it -- authority to review national security and intelligence activities across the entire Government of Canada. Every single security agency in Canada plus the RCMP and border services agencies -- he would have access to an extraordinary trove of secrets, right?

SC: Yes. And this is why I was so concerned when I heard about this because that is the problem. Canada has been one of the few countries where there is no parliamentary or government elected official oversight of national security agencies -- and that changed when this committee was of course created. It's about to produce its first couple of reports. And so what I worry about is that if the security agencies don't trust the MPs that are on this committee it could really damage the way that committee is able to function. And that would really kind of defeat the purpose of the committee in the first place. So I mean there's no evidence that Tony Clement shared any intelligence but if there's a sense that you know MPs are in a position where they could be politically compromised this committee would be off to a rough start.

CO: So this is a security intelligence agency's worst nightmare that somebody is as vulnerable -- somebody whose judgment is questionable to the degree that we are witnessing with Tony Clement?

SC: I think they have a whole spectrum of nightmares with this but that is definitely one of -- you know someone like this engages in behavior where they can be blackmailed -- all the intelligence from the government including the Five Eyes is then somehow leased out through this individual because they are being blackmailed.

CO: But as far as somebody being on the committee -- I mean Tony Clement wasn't born yesterday. I mean he has been -- he knows how the world works. As security agencies -- wouldn't you presume that he had been briefed? That he had been warned about these things? How would he have been briefed and prepared to make sure that he doesn't make himself vulnerable this way?

SC: Well I can tell you that when government officials [inaudible] power -- they are given briefing on these kinds of things. Mr. Clement would have had this briefing. He should have known better. And this again comes down to a serious judgment issue for me.

CO: And how much will this -- what has happen with this story -- how much will it shake confidence in Canada that this has been exposed?

SC: I don’t think it will be that much because again it doesn't appear that anything was weak -- Mr. Clement came forward. And [inaudible] we've seen this in Canada before -- in the 1980s we had a defense minister who was caught going to a I believe a strip club in West Germany -- that somehow compromised him with East Germany. Of course Maxime Bernier -- doesn't seem to really have hurt him too badly. I think it's more or less about you know these things sometimes happen, could it have been prevented? And you know how to handle going forward? I don't think that this will be too harmful but it will be something that of course people will be looking out for in the future.

CO: Professor Carvin I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

SC: Hey thanks for having me on.

CO: Goodnight.

MY: Stephanie Carvin is a national security assistant professor at Carleton University. Today we reached her Leiden, the Netherlands.

[Music]

Sweden Baby Names

Guest: Joeseph Kendrick

MY: A little over a year ago Joeseph Kendrick and Ingrid Bergstrom Kendrick welcomed their new baby boy into the world. They chose the name Ford. That's F-o-r-d. But that wasn't the end of the matter. Later they learned that Sweden's tax agency had rejected the name. And since then the family has been appealing the decision. Now they're waiting for a decision from Sweden's Supreme Administrative Court. We reached Canadian born Joeseph Kendrick in Gothenburg, Sweden where he now lives.

CO: Joeseph why did you call your son -- Ford?

JOESEPH KENDRICK: Originally we were trying to find a traditional male name that we hadn't heard being used in a while. So we did some research into my father's family tree and we found the name 'Ford' and we felt that it fell into that classification and we really fell in love with it. So we wanted to kind of bring that back -- to start using it again.

CO: It is an unusual name though isn't it?

JK: Yeah absolutely. I think that's part of the reason why we really liked it. And it just sounded like a little old man name...Ford [Chuckles]. So we thought it was charming and it was very nice for a boy.

CO: Did you think that it might be rejected by the government as a name for your son?

JK: No. And to tell you the truth we didn't even actually look at any sort of the criteria beforehand. We saw it without a doubt that it would be more than acceptable name. We found out later that they had these certain rules in place that would affect the decision and now we are currently fighting it for that one.

CO: What did they say? Now you have to submit your name to the Swedish Tax Agency and then they have reasons -- there is criteria for rejecting the name. And so what were the reasons they gave you as to why your son's name -- why 'Ford' was not acceptable in Sweden?

JK: Well the main reason they had given us was that it resembled the character of a last name. Unfortunately we were kind of blindsided as we did not know about this rule and we still think it's kind of foolish because there's lots of names that resemble last names.

CO: What are you doing about this rejection of your son's name? What level are you taking this to?

JK: Well we've currently been accepted to have our case read through at the highest level of the court that we can go in Sweden -- it is called the Hogsta forvaltningsdomstolen. And it's basically the Supreme Court -- which we were kind of surprised that it actually got accepted into it. We were one of two cases this year about a name -- parents trying to get their child's name accepted.

CO: What arguments are you going to give?

JK: We've actually already written the appeal. It's been our appeal from day one. And our argument is that it's also a first name -- if you do look throughout history. I think if they just have somebody actually reading the case and not just being blinded by a large motor company -- the most common that it is a last name and the largest -- then maybe you know someone out there will actually see that it is a first name and it does work.

CO: Do you see a reason though? Do you think that it's a good idea for the Swedish government to have these rules about names because people do give strange names to their kids?

JK: Yes of course I do think that you should monitor and have certain regulations in place for how you name another human being because you should never have an offensive name or a name that's going to give someone a worser chance at just living their life without bullying or making fun of them for any reason. So I do think it is very important that we do kind of stay on a consistent basis of what a name is and what name isn't.

CO: And there have been some interesting rejections aside from your son's name. Names like Q, as a letter. Pilsner. Token. Michael Jackson. And so these names -- but it's interesting that apparently they did accept a baby boy to be called Google.

JK: Right. [Laughs] Well there you go. Yeah I'm not too sure but child's names are getting more and more creative. But our original stance on it was that we were actually trying to take an older name. We weren't trying to take the creative route. We were actually trying to take this name that we thought was charming and that we would like to hear being said and we would like to say to our child.

CO: And what about your son? He is now a year old, right?

JK: Yes.

CO: Does he respond to the name Ford?

JK: Yeah absolutely. Without a doubt. He knows who Ford is and he'll come running around the hallways if you call him [chuckles].

CO: And what will you do then if this court rejects his name?

JK: Well for us it doesn't actually matter what the decision is -- his name is Ford and we will always call him Ford. And what it says on your driver's license is not what you tell people who you are and what people call you for the rest of your life -- you can tell people whatever you want your name to be. But what your identification card -- it doesn't necessarily make you -- that name on there doesn't necessarily make you who you are.

CO: Will you be disappointed though if they do reject it?

JK: Yes absolutely. Because now we're actually trying to fight for it. And really you know he is Ford. And we really don't see any sort of negative with the name and we think it should be accepted. So we would be upset. Absolutely.

CO: Best of luck to you, and your wife Ingrid, and to Ford. And it was good to speak with you Joeseph. Thank you.

JK: Hey no problem. Thanks a lot.

CO: Bye.

JK: Bye.

MY: That was Joeseph Kendrick in Gothenburg. If you'd like to see pictures of the family including Ford -- visit our website cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Part 2: After U.S. midterms, writer says 'Year of the Woman' has a long way to go

Year of the Woman

Guest: Emma Green

MY: This was supposed to be the Year of the Woman -- again. The term harkens back to 1992 when women in the U.S. who were angry about the treatment of Anita Hill came out in force to elect more women to office. This year many women were motivated again to put themselves forward as candidates in the midterms and many of them won. There will be 30 new women in Congress including Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.

SOUNDCLIP

ILHAN OMAR: I stand here before you tonight as your congresswoman-elect with many firsts behind my name.

[Applause]

ILHAN OMAR: The first woman of colour to represent our state in Congress. The first woman to wear a hijab [inaudible]. The first refugee ever elected to Congress. I am more than excited that we are gathered here again to make another history. Because we are going to Washington!

[Applause]

MY: That was Ilhan Omar, the newly elected Democrat from Minnesota speaking after her victory. Emma Green has been tracking the progress of women in this election. She's a staff writer for The Atlantic. We reached her in New York.

CO: Emma we just heard Ilhan Omar very very excited. Well not just her but those who were so excited for her and with her. What does that tell you about the victory for women last night?

EMMA GREEN: I think there were so many districts across America where women were experiencing something similar to this. Not only were they the first whatever to be elected to Congress whether it is the first Latina to represent Texas. Like Ilhan Omar becoming the first Muslim woman elected to Congress. Becoming the first Native American elected to Congress. I think women also felt that they were the energy behind this wave into the House of Representatives and they were. Their supporters, their volunteers, their protesters, their campaign staffers -- these were the people who essentially architected the Democratic victory in the House of Representatives. And I think they felt it.

CO: And that seemed to be a momentum we saw immediately after the election of Donald Trump -- and those pink hats, the amazing demonstration that was across your country and around the world of women into the streets -- and that momentum was building but you see it as having severe limitations as to what they succeeded in doing. What do you mean about that in your article?

EG: I do think it's important to acknowledge what you've described as the Women's March -- this momentum and the infrastructure that that provided to some of these races around the United States that led women into office. But there also are so many gains left to be made in women's representation across American government at the national level and at the state and local level. We will hear the final numbers on the women elected to the Senate, to the House, the Governor's Mansion over the next couple of weeks. But ultimately what we're going to end up with is still women hovering around a quarter of the representatives in the House of Representatives. Women only holding up to a fifth of the Governor's Mansion -- those executive offices in the States. So there are limitations on how much one single year -- this year has been dubbed 'The Year of the Woman' -- there are limits on and how much that can actually do to fix a longstanding problem of representation in the United States.

CO: This moniker 'The Year of the Woman' -- some people have joked it is like saying it's the year of the asparagus or something or the year of the caribou. And it actually is a phrase, a moniker, that takes us back to 1992 doesn't it? The first so-called 'Year of the Woman' -- what prompted that?

EG: There are certain resonances between this year and 1992. We saw in that year significant gains in the Senate when there were four women elected to become part of that body. And again this year we're seeing a lot of women being elected to the House of Representatives. But there is also a resonance in the kind of female rage that seems to have motivated both voters and people standing for elected office. In 1992 the hearings for Clarence Thomas to become a Supreme Court Justice during which Anita Hill was sort of poked and prodded by the Senate Judiciary Committee --kind of echoes or feels ghostlike in light of the Supreme Court hearings for Brett Kavanaugh this fall when Christine Blasey Ford brought a sexual assault allegation against him. So there are some echoes between that year and this year.

CO: But was it enough rage to bring women to where they should be -- I mean obviously we just talked about that there were enormous gains last night. But why do you think it stopped short?

EG: Well for one thing there is only so much that women can do to upset the long standing patterns of partisanship in America. We know that in general the Democratic Party tends to be more female and that the women who are elected to Congress, to Senate, to Governorships tend to also be more female and more democratic. So there are some of those barriers in terms of partisanship that keep women from making those big gains. Another factor is experience. I followed a first time candidate per state house -- one of those local state legislatures, and she basically had to learn on the fly how to run a campaign. A lot of women ran for the first time in this cycle. And I think what we'll see in coming years is women turning that experience into a really fierce brand of political activism and engagement. And I think we're going to see the lessons that they learned in 2018 being carried forward.

CO: And do you think there's enough momentum to carry it to victories in 2020?

EG: We will see what happens. I talked with a scholar who works at Rutgers Camden in New Jersey in the United States and she made the point that the 'Year of the Woman' leads us to believe that one year of it is enough to get this done. And in fact what matters is whether the women who are fired up in 2018 continue that in 2020, 2022, 2024, and on and on and on. That's the only way that women's representation in the United States is ever really going to change.

CO: What do you think the chances are that the Democrats would again support a woman as a candidate for president?

EG: I think it really depends on who ends up winning out in what will be a very competitive primary field. We see our ready some candidate for president or people who may be candidates for president such as Kamala Harris who is a senator from California. Kirsten Gillibrand a senator from New York. Elizabeth Warren a popular progressive senator from Massachusetts. But they also have male competitors as well -- people who could be equally possible. So I think it's really going to come down to who ends up able to build a coalition, a sense of momentum and backing, and really being the figure for this moment. Because I don't think any Democrat doubts that they're going to have a hard challenge against Donald Trump.

CO: Emma we will leave it there. Thank you.

EG: Thank you so much.

MY: Emma Green is a staff writer for The Atlantic. She was in New York. You can find more on that story on our website cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

MY: When Safiya Wazir was a child just six years old she fled the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now she's 27 and she's headed to New Hampshire's House of Representatives. The Boston Globe has called Ms. Wazir, the first former refugee to win a seat in her state's legislature. We spoke with Ms. Wazir earlier this year after she won the primary. Guest host Helen Mann asked her if she ever envisioned a future in politics when she first arrived in the U.S.

SOUNDCLIP

SAFIYA WAZIR: I have never thought about it, no. When I get in the United States I was at 16-and-a-half-years old. And mainly I was focusing to do a better life and, you know, helping my parents and working and going to school. So that was my priority as far as my teenage years.

HELEN MANN: What did your parents think of where you are now?

SW: They're proud of me. They always wished that we had more women and younger people to step up and run.

HM: You're not the only sort of unexpected victory I guess in this current election season in the U.S. We're seeing a lot of sort of non-establishment Democrats winning primaries. Why do you think people are turning towards candidates like you?

SW: So, in our country, you know, like I said, America has this opportunity that is given to all these citizens that you can do things — that you can be heard. That's the beauty of America. And I think everybody should take advantage of this, and I'm glad that people who are actually stepping in and they are taking advantage of this.

HM: How much has the current political climate at the national level in the United States, you know, that the pushback we're seeing from Republicans like Donald Trump against immigrants and refugees coming to the United States. How much has that perhaps fueled or inspired you to challenge those assumptions?

SW: So I was very upset every time I would hear about you know what Donald Trump goes on but I don't want to put it too much into this because my focus is not just for immigrants. It's for everybody in New Hampshire.

MY: From our archive that was Safiya Wazir speaking with guest host Helen Mann back in September. Ms. Wazir has won a seat in New Hampshire's House of Representatives. We'll have more coverage of the midterms later on in the show when we look at the defeat of Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp whose campaign took a hit after she voted against confirming Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

[Music]

Drone Bear Video

Guest: Clayton Lamb

MY: "Never give up." "Try try again." "This shows the true meaning of perseverance." Just some of the breathless captions that accompany a now viral video of a mama bear and her cub scaling a precarious snowy ridge in Russia. It's likely you've seen it. One tweeted version of the roughly three minute video has been watched more than 22 million times. But conservationists and animal experts are warning this footage isn't an inspirational poster come to life -- it's an example of irresponsible and potentially deadly wildlife photography. Clayton Lamb is a PhD candidate at the University of Alberta who researches grizzly bear populations. We reached him in Fernie, British Columbia.

CO: Clayton what was the first thing that struck you when you saw this video of the mama bear and her cub?

CLAYTON LAMB: Well the first thing I noticed was that the habitat there in -- that really steep topography that was really hard to get a grip on for both the mom and the cub is generally not something that female with that young a cub would go into. So I instantly noticed that was maybe something to do with the fact the drone had pushed them into their. And then the second thing was just the drone when it zoomed in on probably the third time this cub slipped down -- it sort of caused the mom to slap the snow and sort of push the cub back down the slope causing it to slide into a cliffy area which put the cub in quite a bit of risk.

CO: And for people who haven't seen it -- though 22 million times people have looked at this video and it's quite extraordinary. And you don't know when you start watching the video if the little baby bear is going to make it. But the mom is taking the baby bear up this very steep slope and the baby keeps sliding back and then scrambling and then sliding back again. So it's a nail biter isn't it?

CL: Yeah it really is. And I think even though it does turn out good in the end, I do think that there was a significant amount of risk posed to that cub --those small cubs at that time of year only at the size of what a small dog and they're quite weak. So had it tumbled off that cliff it could have been severely injured.

CO: Do you think that they would have posted the video had that happened?

CL: I bet not.

CO: And what do you know about this particular breed of bear that you see in the film?

CL: So these are brown bears, species name is Ursus arctos, and they're sort of the general species that are North American grizzly bears fall into. And that's what I do for a living, I'm a PhD candidate studying grizzly bear ecology in British Columbia.

CO: And as far as this behavior -- you say that this is, first of all they're in the wrong place. They wouldn't be there. Tell us about when the mother scrambles up and then how does she respond to her baby -- as the baby tries to make it up?

CL: Well she's obviously very concerned probably -- obviously both for her cub safety. She's now separated from this cub. The topography seems so steep that she couldn't actually go down and get it or she'd risk sliding herself and she probably would go much further than the cub because of her weight. I can see she's moving rapidly, erratically -- she constantly looks up at the drone. She is looking down at the baby -- up at the drone sort of thing. And then again when the cub almost makes it to the top and the drone really physically zooms in right on to that event -- she slaps at the snow and sort of pushes the cub back down. So those things together kind of show me that they're having an adverse reaction to this drone's presence.

CO: What does she think the drone is?

CL: My guess is she has no idea. I mean a drone isn't something that brown bears are evolved with -- it is not something they're well suited to deal with. So as a colleague of mine said a UFO -- an unidentified flying object that she doesn't know.

CO: So when she swats the cub and the cub slides back down she's trying to protect it because this creature, this thing, is zooming in top of the ridge and she wants to protect the cub from whatever this is.

CL: That's how I perceive it. I mean that drone doesn't present a huge risk to her per se -- she's a you know a 400 pound-300 pound animal but that cub's maybe only 30-40 pounds. So I don't she meant to send the cub spiraling down the slope but she was dealing with the immediate risk at hand -- which was that drone.

CO: You know that you've seen the reaction online which is that people -- it has been quite anthropomorphic isn't it? That people see this as an example of perseverance, of being up against all kinds of odds, and you just don't give up, and you keep trying -- that's what all the slogans have been. 'Never give up.' 'Try it again.' 'This just goes to show you what it does if you just you know keep on going.' And I showed it to my grandchildren with the same spirit. They thought that as well. But what do you say to people who find it just so interesting to watch?

CL: Of course the animals they actually they don't give up, it's true. It's in their nature to keep going. But I guess it also sort of speaks to if we're going to use their nature to learn something about ourselves we could also use their nature to learn something about how to act around them and these animals clearly didn't like being harassed by this drone and I think our response to that would be to back your drone off and maybe try to get this footage in a more responsible way that doesn't harass these animals.

CO: How much of this kind of drone photography is going on that you are concerned about?

CL: I think it's a rapidly increasing field of photography. It's something that is sort of a new frontier to be regulated that is really poorly regulated at the moment.

CO: Do you use drones?

CL: I do yeah. For our research we do. We have dozens of grizzly bears fitted with GPS collars that move around the landscape and we use the drones to simply just characterize that landscape so we'll fly you know a really productive alpine ridge or something that the grizzly bears are using just to show the public what this habitat looks like. But we don't actually follow animals where they are going -- we just use it to get pictures and videos of the landscape.

CO: And I guess it's not just the appearance of these things which are pretty frightening to see but the sound.

CL: Yeah exactly. So drones generally produce the sound level about two thirds the sound of a helicopter or a plane. So they're certainly not benign although the video doesn't have the sound of the drone playing -- it sort of makes it seem like it's this silent thing watching the bears but really it's quite a loud buzzing and it does irritate animals and elevate their stress response.

CO: Do you think there should be limitations on what drones are able to do when it comes to wildlife?

CL: Yes for sure. I think whale watching is a great example of where you sort of allowed an eco-tourism type industry to thrive while still not impeding the animals in their natural behaviors. So I think this growing industry of drone photography, eco-tourism, and just general photography will again sort of be a much more sustainable activity in the long run if we can regulate it to preserve the integrity of these landscapes that the animals are actually existing in.

CO: And I appreciate speaking with you. And giving us a new perspective. Thank you.

CL: Thank you.

MY: Clayton Lamb is a PhD candidate and Vanier Scholar at the University of Alberta. We reached him in Fernie, B.C. And we've got more on our webpage cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Neighbour’s privacy

MY: Dateline: London, England.

[Music]

MY: There's plenty to see at the Tate Modern. I mean the museum's 360 degree view of London from the 10th floor overlooking the Thames, it is alone worth the price of admission -- which by the way, is free! Except for special exhibitions. And there are in fact some special exhibitions you can view for free from that viewing tower. But the museum is kindly requesting that you do not look at them. They were never intended for display. And to that effect, the Tate has mounted a discreet placard on the wall of the terrace which reads "Please respect our neighbour's privacy." The neighbours live in the adjacent upscale apartment complex, a glass and steel building. Last year they launched a lawsuit against the museum which is before the courts this week and they claim that since the Tate terrace opened they've been subjected to "near constant surveillance by museum visitors." The lawyer representing the plaintiffs stated that one claimant "discovered a photo of himself had been posted on Instagram to 1027 followers." The residents reportedly offered to pay for a screen to block part of the terrace overlooking the residents but the museum has rejected their proposal arguing the public has a right to an unobstructed view from its platform. If not to the view of living bodies of art.

[Music]

Trump’s exchange with reporter

MY: U.S. President Donald Trump was not in a good mood at a news conference this afternoon after the midterm results and unsurprisingly CNN was the main target. Here's his exchange with CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta -- who was in turn defended by NBC's Peter Alexander.

SOUNDCLIP

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I think you should let me run the country. You run CNN. And if you did it well your ratings would be much better.

VOICE: If I may ask one more question Mr. President. If I may ask one more question...are you worried.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Peter go ahead. That's enough. That's enough.

VOICE: Mr. President I was going to ask... Pardon me ma'am.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: That's enough. Peter lets go.

VOICE: Mr. President if I may ask on the Russia investigation are you concerned that you may...

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I am not concerned about anything [inaudible] because it's a hoax. That's enough. Put down the mic.

VOICE: Mr. President are you worried about indictments coming down in this investigation?

[Chatter]

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I tell you what -- CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible, person. You shouldn't be working for CNN. Go ahead. You are a very rude person. The way you treat Sarah Huckabee is horrible. And the way you treat other people are horrible. You shouldn't treat people that way. Go ahead Peter.

VOICE 2: In Jim's defense I've traveled with him and watched him -- he's a diligent reporter...

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well I'm not a big fan of yours either. To be honest with you.

VOICE 2: I understand. So let me ask you a question if I can. You repeatedly said...

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You aren't the best.

VOICE 2: Mr. President you repeatedly -- over the course...

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Just sit down please. Well when you report fake news -- when you report fake news which CNN does a lot you are the enemy of the people. Go ahead.

MY: The U.S. President is speaking to reporters today following the midterm elections. In a statement CNN said that the President's attacks on the press are dangerous and have gone too far. The network says it stands behind Jim Acosta and journalists everywhere.

[Music]

Part 3: Heidi Heitkamp Loss

Heidi Heitkamp Loss

Guest: Byron Dorgan

MY: Last night was not a good one for Democratic senators running in the heartland. Claire McCaskill of Missouri was defeated. And here's a clip of North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp conceding to her Republican rival.

SOUNDCLIP

[Crowd chanting] Heidi! Heidi!

VOICE: Thank you. Thank you all of you. Thank you all of you. What a night huh. Let me tell you first off how incredibly proud I am of the team that we put on the field -- all our D-NPL candidates and the wonderful legislative candidates that I met. We offered an alternative. You know in many cases we still are hopeful that that alternative would be picked. In my case... It's not. In my case, it's time to come back home to North Dakota -- continue our work for the state of North Dakota.

MY: Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp conceding defeat in North Dakota last night. The Republicans solidified their hold on the Senate in part by pushing Democrats in so-called red states often campaigning on national wedge issues like the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Senator Heitkamp voted against the nominee. Byron Dorgan is a former Democratic senator from her state North Dakota. We reached him in Washington.

CO: Mr. Dorgan you just heard and I'm sure you'd heard it already -- Heidi Heitkamp admitting defeat. What's it like for you to listen to that?

BYRON DORGAN: Well, very disappointing. I mean I was so hopeful that she would win a second term in the Senate. North Dakota has had a tradition of really disregarding political parties and being much more regarding of individuals who are running no matter what party they're from. North Dakota it has always been a lot about retail politics. The question is do they know you? Do they like you? Do they trust you? And if they do, they don't care so much whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. I think that has changed. I think last night suggested a significant change.

CO: So what went wrong for Senator Heitkamp in this campaign?

BD: I think she ran a wonderful campaign. She was a very strong candidate. But as I said I think there's more tribal politics than I had ever expected in North Dakota. I think the changes that Donald Trump and some other circumstances of push people into the discussion about you know 'am I a Republican? If so, I'm not going to really be interested in looking at the alternative.' And so that's the kind of tribal politics -- I think Trump's retail politics. And I think that's unfortunate.

CO: Let’s talk about those other circumstances because we saw other Democrats in battleground states in the Senate go down last night. Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Joe Donnelly in Indiana. Bill Nelson in Florida. As you know they had one thing in common with Heidi Heitkamp -- they all opposed Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation for the Supreme Court. So how big a hit do you think that Senator Heitkamp took by voting against Brett Kavanaugh?

BD: Well I don't know the size of the hit but clearly it was a disadvantage -- casting that vote or having to cast that vote right smack in the middle of a Senate election it was very difficult. She did what she felt was right. She was authentic and strong and courageous and made the vote no matter what the vote might have cost her politically. I personally just as an aside should tell you that I haven't easily gotten over being angry with Justice Kennedy. He knew exactly when he decided to retire from the Supreme Court he knew exactly what he was doing and the time he was doing it to put the Kavanaugh hearings right smack in the middle of the 2018 elections. I am not very happy about that. But nothing we can do about that.

CO: So you think that to some extent people like Heidi Heitkamp were set up --if they were going to vote against this nomination that they were going to pay that price.

BD: Well I don't call it a set up but you know I think Justice Kennedy chose the time he would announce his retirement which meant that the successor would be voted on right in the middle of [inaudible] stages of an election. And I think that's unfortunate. Wish he hadn't done -- he did it. The President put Mr. Kavanaugh's name forward and it of course became very controversial and it did affect senate election -- there is no question about that. The question is how much did it affect it. But I think in Heidi's case you know she was running very close, neck and neck, and so I think it had a significant impact.

CO: Now but you mentioned that the state North Dakota is not one for partisan politics -- it's retail politics, it's dealing with the issues that matter to people in North Dakota. So what was it about this Brett Kavanaugh nomination for Supreme Court that would affect them enough to make a voting preference based on that.

BD: Well I think it is not just the Kavanaugh vote -- the Kavanaugh vote clearly hurt. But as I said I think this moves closer to a circumstance of North Dakota, South Dakota, and a couple other states in that northern Great Plains up in the heartland of becoming much more partisan. You know it's interesting, for a long while for nearly 20 years Senator Conrad and I were both the senators from North Dakota, Democratic senators. Senator Daschle and Senator Johnson both Democrats from South Dakota. And you know with the defeat of Heidi Heitkamp the realignment of the Dakotas is complete. I mean there are not Democratic senators or members of Congress from either of the Dakotas at this point. We'll see. I mean it may turn around again -- it may turn back. But I think the looming presence of Donald Trump in this election with respect to North Dakota at least is very significant. Now it is not the case in other parts of the country. There are other parts of the country where the presence of Donald Trump has crossed the Republican Party dearly. But that was not the case in North Dakota.

CO: What's your advice to Democrats as they look toward the next election in 2020?

BD: Well first of all you know you have to have a good candidate. Then you have to have a message that people care about. And then you have to have raise the money to get the message out so that people understand it. What I hope is the case going forward is the Democratic Party understands we've got a lot of work to do in the heartland. We're largely a coastal party. You know 30 percent of the Democratic caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives -- 30 percent of the Democrats in that caucus come from just two states, New York and California. And that tells you a lot. We're much more a coastal state than we should be. There was a time when we elected Democratic representatives, congressmen and women, you know from Oklahoma and Kansas and South Dakota and North Dakota. We have not been doing that any longer. And so we need to change that big red map across the centre of the country on election night. And that's all about message. All about telling people that we have a platform that they can rely on. You know we care a great deal about working families and the health care and a wide range of issues. But we've not been very good carrying that message in the heartland.

CO: All right. We'll be watching. Mr. Dorgan thank you.

BD: Thank you very much.

MY: Byron Dorgan is a former Democratic senator from North Dakota. He was in Washington.

[Music]

Lori Chaffey

MY: Nurse Lori Chaffey began her morning one March day in 2012 like most others. She'd driven into work with her colleague Stephanie Chaisson -- the receptionist at the medical clinic in De Grau, Newfoundland where they both worked. The two were the only employees in that day and they locked up lunch to eat together. Soon afterwards Chaisson would be dead -- shot by her estranged abusive husband while Ms. Chaffey was in the bathroom. Lori Chaffey has shared her story hoping it sparks more serious discussion about workplace safety and domestic violence. Here she is telling the CBC's Fred Hutton what happened.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: While I was in there -- I was brushing my teeth I heard a loud noise. A bang. [Voice softens] And I stopped for a minute. And I looked out the door and I could Stephanie lying on the floor in front of where my doorway was to my office -- not moving. And I saw a shotgun or a rifle. I think it was a rifle actually -- it was pointed over her and I realized that she had been shot. To this day I can only see her lying there -- I don't see anything else. Anyway I snuck back through the door and tried to close the door -- it had no latch onto it. No way of locking the door. And I could hear him roaming around the clinic yelling and screaming at her. I heard him load the gun a second time and shot it again. And I could still hear him pacing around the clinic -- yelling and then I heard him reload the gun. I was strategically trying to think what I could do to survive if he'd come into where the bathroom was. Anyway I heard the third shot ring. And I heard a groan from him. And I realized that he must have shot himself.

VOICE 2: Where you were you surprised that this happened?

VOICE: I did. I guess because I had never experienced this in my lifetime and although I'm a nurse practitioner and a nurse I have heard and seen things over the years and even what she had been telling me I never truly understood the gravity of how bad it was. [Cries]

VOICE 2: This was domestic abuse obviously?

VOICE: Yes. And she had told me stories you know that she had slept with a bat and she had asked for help -- she had a restraining order on them. We had asked for cameras so that we could see the front of the building and they wouldn't give them to us.

MY: That was Newfoundland nurse Lori Chaffey speaking with the CBC's Fred Hutton.

[Music]

MS St. Louis apology

MY: The Prime Minister apologized in Parliament today for one of the darkest chapters in Canadian history. In 1939 the MS St. Louis carried more than 900 Jewish refugees from Germany across the Atlantic to escape the Nazi regime. The government of William Lyon Mackenzie King refused to give the refugees asylum and the ship returned to Europe. It's estimated that a quarter of the passengers were murdered in the Holocaust. Here's a part of Justin Trudeau's apology today.

SOUNDCLIP

PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Mr. Speaker, Adolf Hitler alone did not seal the fate of the St. Louis passengers or the Jews of Europe. To harbor such hatred and indifference towards the refugees was to share in the moral responsibility -- in their deaths. And while decades have passed since we turned our backs on Jewish refugees time has by no means absolved Canada of its guilt or lessened the weight of our shame. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in this House of Commons to issue a long overdue apology to the Jewish refugees Canada turned away. We apologize to the 907 German Jews aboard the MS St. Louis -- as well as their families. We also apologize to others who paid the price of our inaction whom we doomed to the ultimate horror of the death camps. We used our laws to mask our anti-Semitism, our antipathy, our resentment. We are sorry for the callousness of Canada's response. We are sorry for not apologizing [inaudible].

MY: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologizing in Parliament today for Canada's refusal, in 1939, to accept Jewish refugees aboard the MS St. Louis.

[Music]

Cassidy Little

Guest: Cassidy Little

MY: As you probably know Coronation Street is the longest running soap opera in the world. Corrie's not only one of the most popular soaps in Britain -- it also has a large devoted fan base right here. So it's big news that a Canadian actor has joined the cast. Cassidy Little is from Newfoundland --St. John's, Newfoundland. He's not only an actor but a comedian, a dancer, and a veteran of the British Royal Marines. Last week Mr. Little made his debut performance on Coronation Street. We reached him just before he went on stage at a theatre in London's West End.

CO: Cassidy when you got the part on Coronation Street did you realize how big a deal this show is?

CL: No. [Chuckles] Of course not. Of course not. I mean I've had some family members who watch it -- in fact my aunt Brenda watches it religiously and has them for many many many many many many years but I had no idea. It actually took the actors in the green room up in Manchester to say, 'Really? You're Canadian. Geez this is going to be huge in Canada." And I was like, really? Are you serious? It actually kind of caught me off guard.

CO: What role are you going to play on Coronation Street?

CL: So if you're watching Kevin's got a son named Jack -- and Jack unfortunately contracted sepsis which is a poisoning of the blood and as a result he had to have a boloney amputation. And that kind of injury can be devastating to a personality. Anybody young or old -- it does matter because you are literally losing a limb and so they brought in a character named Greg who is quite a bit long in the tooth when it comes to being an amputee. He's a veteran. He works with the Paralympians. And as a result he's got a very positive vibe about him and I suspect that the goal here is that he rubs off a little bit on Jack.

CO: And so your own experience of having lost your leg. What does that do for your understanding of the rule?

CL: Well I mean I know Greg. You know as good as any actor can know their character because you know I was in Afghanistan. I did two tours as a Royal Marine Commando and left my leg behind in Afghanistan along with a couple of friends. So the ups and downs of being amputated halfway through your life -- I'm very very very familiar with that. But at the same time trying to find the positive out of something negative -- I mean I strive for that every day and luckily I'm surrounded by people who love me. And it's tough not to be positive when you have that kind of positive influence in your life. So all I can hope for is that I'm taking some of that positivity and showing it through Greg.

CO: But also through Greg -- I mean are you also understanding what it is to rebuild your life after losing your leg? Learning how to walk. Learning how to do everything differently. Is that something you can bring to this role?

CL: Oh absolutely. Absolutely. I can remember getting a note while I was in hospital. And then you know I mean the amputation was the least of the concerns when I got back to hospital after being in Afghanistan because I had a double fracture in my pelvis, I nearly lost the other leg, I had a brain injury -- there's a whole list of things that had gone wrong. And I remember getting a note from my sister, a woman named Beth, that said we really don't envy you because you know there's a reason we don't remember learning how to walk because it's an incredibly frustrating thing to do -- now you have to relearn to do that and we will help you as best we can. But we don't envy that you have to go through this. So it's tough. But that's not to say that it's not impossible because you know people who are significantly more injured than I was -- learn to do it every day.

CO: I understand there is really an interesting story about how you came to be in the Royal Marines can you tell it to us?

CL: [Laughs] Yes I can tell you some of it -- I promise that the full story would offend a lot of viewers, listeners, as the case may be. But I'll tell you a little bit of it. I was bartending at a bar called Christians Pub in St. John's, Newfoundland. I went to see George Carlin and as a result I ended up trying to give stand-up comedy a try in England. When I came to England about a year into giving this a try I'd made a bet with an ex-girlfriend about quitting smoking which then turned into another bet about getting into better shape and as a result of that bet I walked into the Royal Marines recruiting office. Needless to say, I won both of the bets.

CO: And that led you to being Afghanistan.

CL: Well once I got into basic training I started to do better than I thought I was going to do. In fact I think it's safe to assume that better than anybody thought I was going to do because the attrition rate in the Royal Marine Commandos is 99 percent. Their old advertising slogan was 99.99 need not apply. So I was doing better and as a result they gave me preference when I came out of basic training -- after 32 weeks they said where do you want to go first? And I volunteered for Afghanistan as quickly as I could.

CO: And do you have any regrets about that?

CL: No. No no no no. Man if I spent all that time regretting something then really not only did they take my leg but then they get to take a part of my recovery, a part of my life, and that means that I'm feeling the negativity based on their influence and they don't get it take me. They got me once. They don't get to take me twice.

CO: Cassidy you're an inspiration.

CL: No. No no no no no no. There's a lot... No no. And I'm not arguing with you about this especially not with everybody listening. [Chuckles] I promise you I'm a guy -- I'm just a guy who's trying to keep the wolves from the door and make sure that his daughter doesn't want for anything and that's all I'm doing. And I'm really lucky because I've got a good agent and I've got incredible family and incredible friends. And by the sounds of things I've got an incredible country behind me as well which is pretty awesome. So I just got a lot of people supporting me. So I'm just riding the waves.

CO: One other story is that you wanted to be a ballet dancer initially. What happened to that?

CL: [Laughs] Yeah I did. Yeah I [inaudible] a dancer. I was training as a dancer when I was in university but I actually got injured and had to give up my scholarship in St. Louis, Missouri. The irony that it takes me to go to England to join the Royal Marine commandos, to do two tours of Afghanistan, get blown up, lose a leg, all to end up doing a version of Strictly Come Dancing over here and then winning it four ten's. That irony is just -- I love it. I always look back on that and kind of giggle about that.

CO: You're just about to go on stage aren't you?

CL: I am that's why you can hear this kind of frantic feeling in my voice because as we get closer and closer to the house open I'm getting more and more nervous about having to go out in front of a few hundred people.

CO: And what are you playing tonight?

CL: So I play a character named Woody. So I'm a bit of an antagonist in this I'm not only disruptive but you know I end up bringing some violence to the stage as well. So it's a great role to play especially since there's so many similarities between myself and Woody but at the same time there's such a huge difference when it comes to the aggression level.

CO: And what's the play called?

CL: It's called Soldier On. And I'm lucky enough now to be able to state that I'm a West End actor which is kind of cool because I thought I'd be a Broadway actor. And it is at a theater called The Other Palace.

CO: Well Cassidy -- soldier on, and thank you.

CL: Hey thank you for talking. And thanks for support me.

CO: Bye.

CL: Bye bye.

MY: Cassidy Little is an actor from Newfoundland. He has signed on for several appearances on the long running British soap opera Coronation Street. We reached him in London.

[Music]

Richard Rose

MY: 100 years ago people in the small town of North Sydney, Nova Scotia got some very very good news. They found out a day before the rest of the world that World War 1 was over. Communications about the armistice reached the Western Union telegraph office there and its employees usually tight lipped while relaying coded messages between Western Europe and North America couldn't help but spread the word. Amateur war historian Richard Rose spoke to CBC's Information Morning in Cape Breton today about the town's reaction to the news all those years ago.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: It was complete and utter joy. Because North Sydney had been effectively on the frontlines as a major convoy port. They would have seen the troops coming through here to guard all the facilities. They would have seen ships assembling for convoys. They would have seen ships limping back in that had either been damaged in collisions in the convoys or had been damaged by a submarine attack. And of course they would have seen the casualties coming ashore from those. So along with that plus North Sydney lost her share of young men and women during the war. They had gone overseas to serve and a great many didn't come back. So having seen all of that once the word got out that the war was effectively over -- you can imagine that it would have gone through in North Sydney in short order. It was also a Sunday which meant that nobody much was working. The shops would have been closed and so on. And the party was on. From what we can find from our research it was just pandemonium. People came out banging pots and pans. The U.S. had a naval air station here from mid-1917 to the end of the war -- a lot of people there, there were over 300 U.S. personnel here -- so we found out that a couple of hundred of them got joined up in a parade. Every soldier and sailor and people off cargo ships who weren't on duty and the people joined in and celebrations went on and on and on. Bonfires were lit once it came to dusk in the evening. And again from our research we found out that normally in that period bars would not have been open on Sunday but in that case we were told that the bars opened and that the celebrations stayed on well into the night. So effectively by the time the rest of North America found out about the war being over North Sydney was nursing a giant hangover.

MY: That was amateur war historian Richard Rose speaking to CBC in Cape Breton.

[Music]

Seirá

MY: After three decades of silence the air raid warning system in Los Angeles is sounding off again. But it's not blaring a warning about an attack by foreign forces, instead it's playing Seira -- a new soundscape from Australian composer Lawrence English. Six decommissioned sirens across the city have played the work since last Friday. And for 12 minutes every afternoon it will play until Sunday November 11th -- Veterans Day. Here's a bit of "Seira" our sound of the day.

[Sound: Seira]

MY: That's part of Seira. A new soundscape from Australian composer Lawrence English.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

November 7, 2018 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This