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 2019

The Current Transcript for October 21, 2019

Host: Laura Lynch

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

He's literally throwing a wrecking ball into our democracy and we can't be numb to this.

LAURA LYNCH: Democracy in danger. So say many in the United States and so say many others about another crisis in another country.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: This is a prime minister who, since he came to office, has shown scant regard for the basic norms of democracy or for the rule of law.

LL: As Canadians go to the polls to exercise their fundamental democratic right, today we go to two giants of democracy, the United States and the United Kingdom, where the state of the nations are messy and troubled. Also today, seeking answers in these difficult days, some are turning back to the stars.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 2: I think that in times of great change, human beings look for something to help us hold what we're going through in a greater context, and astrology, that's exactly what it does.

LL: Horoscopes herald a resurgence in the ancient practice of astrology. We'll also look at whether it's time for Canada to check out loonies, toonies and bills in favour of digital dollars. That's in half an hour. I'm Laura Lynch and this is The Current.

Back To Top »

A raid on democracy

Guests: Daniel Ziblatt, Meg Russell

SOUNDCLIP

CHUCK TODD: Good evening. I'm Chuck Todd here in Washington. I don't say this lightly, but let's be frank, a national nightmare is upon us. The basic rules of our democracy are under attack from the president.

VOICE 1: If we allow President Trump to get away with trading our influence abroad in order to advance his political interests, our nation's standing in the world will suffer irreparable damage to the health of our democracy...

VOICE 2: Boris Johnson as prime minister is undertaking a smash and grab right against our democracy. He's trying to shut down parliament in order...

VOICE 3: Pitting parliaments against people is saying we're happy for you to lose trust in ballots. Well, I think it's a very, very high stakes game.

VOICE 4: This government will not do a Brexit any further. We will not allow the emphatic verdict of the referendum to be slowly suffocated by further calculated drift and paralysis and they cannot hide forever.

LL: Democracy under attack. A raid on democracy. That's the language coming out of the United States and the United Kingdom at the moment. In the U.S., the president is facing an impeachment inquiry. And in the United Kingdom this past weekend, British lawmakers slammed the brakes on Prime Minister Boris Johnson's efforts to push through a new Brexit deal. Once again, putting their parliamentary democracy to the test. Today as Canadians head to the polls. We focus on these two pillars of Western democracy that are under strain. We start in London. Meg Russell is the director of the Constitution Unit at University College London and a senior fellow at the United Kingdom in a changing Europe. She's in London. Hello.

MEG RUSSELL: Hello. Nice to be with you.

LL: Let's start with events this weekend in the British parliament. What happened with that rare Saturday sitting of the parliament and what does it mean for Boris Johnson?

MEG RUSSELL: Yeah. Well, this was the first Saturday sitting of the House of Commons in 37 years. And it was held because we had well, we had two deadlines really staring us in the face. The biggest and most well-known is that we have a deadline currently to exit the European Union on the 31st of October. But we also had a piece of legislation which was put through by parliamentarians to say that in order to avoid what people refer to as crashing out of the European Union without a deal agreed, because we're trying to trying to secure a deal for our departure that unless parliament had approved the deal by the 19th, which happens to fall on a Saturday, that the prime minister would need to write to the European Union partners and request an extension to the 31st of October deadline. So he did rather surprise everybody, actually, by coming back from Brussels last week. But at the very end of last week with a deal agreed. And so that meant that there was this kind of emergency meeting of parliament called to see whether MPs would approve that deal before the deadline to ask for an extension. But some MPs were concerned that in order to get the deal finally agreed, you need a two stage process, not just at this - Sorry. This gets a bit technical - but you need not just an in principle agreement on the deal. You actually need a piece of legislation to go through both of our chambers of parliament to put that into effect. And that time is running out for that by the 31st of October. So they declined to approve his deal. They said they wanted the legislation to go through first before they would approve it. And therefore, he had to seek the extension, which he has now done. And where we're heading for another very difficult and argumentative week at Westminster in the week ahead.

LL: So how would you describe the state of democracy in the U.K. right now?

MEG RUSSELL: It's very troubled. It's the norm in British politics is that you have a majority government with a united party. Parliament and government are in harmony. And the government can get its legislation through. We have Brexit, as an issue has divided both of the political parties right down the middle, particularly the Conservative Party. We've had MPs rebelling on all of these votes. So the government just doesn't have a stable majority in parliament. And yet it's trying to put through this enormously divisive policy which is dividing not only parliament, but the country.

LL: One of the moments that tested Britain's democracy was when Boris Johnson prorogued parliament several weeks ago. This is Lady Brenda Hale from the president of the UK Supreme Court.

SOUNDCLIP

BREDNA HALE: The effect on the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme. The court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to parade parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

LL: What does that episode say about the role of courts in upholding democracy?

MEG RUSSELL: Well, the courts acted very much as a long stop in that case, and that was also extremely unusual in British politics. I mean, you know, if we look at some of the things which characterise British politics, one of the most famous things, aside from what I've just said in terms of governments normally having a comfortable majority in parliament and depending on the majority from their own party, is that we don't have a written constitution. There are a couple of important consequences from that for this episode. One is we don't have it laid down in a constitution; what referendums are used for, in what circumstances they must be used for, what kind of issues which you would see in many other constitutions. And I think that's one of the things that's got us into this difficulty. But when you have a written constitution that really puts the courts at the top the pinnacle of your constitutional system, they in the end adjudicate what should happen. We have- it's not quite right to say unwritten, a lot of it is written down, but we don't have a single document and we certainly don't have a document which has the status of higher law. So in principle, Parliament is at the pinnacle of our Constitution. It can in theory, make or unmake any law. So normally the courts would not step in in a case like this. But what happened was that the prime minister, because of these difficulties in parliament, actually used his executive power to shut down parliament. And he was seeking to have parliament shut for five weeks of the remaining eight weeks running up to the Brexit deadline. Parliamentarians were enraged by this. They wanted to be able to hold him to account for the negotiations he was having in Europe and so on. And so it found its way into court. And the courts, precisely because parliament wasn't sitting, couldn't do what it would usually do and say, look, this is a difficult political question. It's a political hot potato. Parliament must decide this, not us. Parliament was not sitting so it couldn't decide. So the courts were necessarily sucked in to this big controversy. So now, you know, there's controversy now about the role of parliament. There's controversy about the role of the courts and even now controversy about the role of the queen, because there have been suggestions that the prime minister, if he lost a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, might refuse to resign. So this is an extraordinary period where all of our institutions are being brought into question. And I would go back to I think the start point really for all of this was the referendum and what the referendum did was it kind of confused matters in terms of the basic principles of our Constitution, as to whether parliament is sovereign or whether the people are sovereign? So we're seeing a clash between - and Boris Johnson to some extent is stoking this - parliament and the people, which is a very unhealthy and potentially quite damaging state of affairs.

LL: Meg Russell in London. Stay with us as we broaden our focus and bring in an American perspective on democracy in the US. Daniel Ziblatt is the co-author of How Democracies Die. He's also the professor of science of government at Harvard University. He is in Berlin today. Hello.

DANIEL ZIBLATT: Hi there. Great to be with you.

LL: How would you describe the state of U.S. democracy at the moment?

DANIEL ZIBLATT: Well, you know, it's interesting listening to this conversation about Britain, because there is a commonality, although the U.S. has a written constitution, it's a very short constitution. And so what the U.S. and Great Britain have in common is a real reliance on unwritten rules and norms to make the systems work. So, you know, we have a Supreme Court but the court only has developed over time. And it's getting in its ability to kind of rule on this rule on the legality of a congressional decision. And so like the U.K., then the result of this is that there's kind of what the system is a lot softer than we realized. And, you know, Donald Trump was elected. It was pretty clear, though, to a lot of us that he was somebody for the first time who was explicitly not committed to Democratic rules of the game, who really advertised himself as an authoritarian and threatening violence in election and election back in 2016, threatening to not necessarily accept the results of an election. So you have a kind of wrecking ball come into this system exposing the fragility of this system. And I think it's turned out that President Trump is really as authoritarian as advertised in his instincts. The system of checks and balances is quite robust. The midterm elections last November were really critical turning point because what we saw when the Democrats retook the House was that our system of our elections work. There is the past that, you know, for those who worry that tyranny was around the corner. And be clear, the American system is very different from other countries around the world where presidents have really, ambitious presidents, have secured themselves in power. So what we've seen is a kind of the rise of the check of Congress. And since November 2016, though, rather than a kind of smoothly functioning system of checks and balances, what you see is a kind of permanent state of institutional warfare. So just very quickly, I mean, we have to think in 2019 and the first 10 months of this year, we've had the longest government shutdown in history. We've had a declaration of emergency to circumvent Congress. And we've had the beginning of an impeachment investigation. So I think this really shows what happens in a context in which you have a kind of soft, a system of checks and balances confronting a political leader with authoritarian [unintelligible].

LL: You've written Republicans are playing constitutional hardball and it's posing a serious threat to democracy. Tell me how.

DANIEL ZIBLATT: Well, it's so amazing. So President Trump certainly is part of this. I think one of the most in he is a Republican. He's entered the Republican Party. I think to me, the most egregious thing that has happened and I've been personally sort of very sceptical of impeachment, but something that has begun to change my mind. What is the effort to subvert free and fair elections by trying to outsource a kind of authoritarian. Technique of investigating your political opponents by kind of trying to get the Ukrainians to do this. So if, you know, if you have an incumbent in office, powerful coming in office, trying to subvert the rule of law and subvert the self-correcting mechanism of elections, this is a real danger to democracy. The Republican Party itself has gone along with this. And so, you know, really one of the things that are in our book, Our Democracy Today, what we know throughout history is that it's one thing to have a demagogue. It's another thing to have mainstream political elites allying themselves with a demagogue and sort of failing to kind of overlook the abuses. And that's what we see in the case of the Republican Party.

LL: The role of the Democrats as being scrutinized to. Elijah Cummings was the Democratic congressman who chaired the House Committee on Oversight, and he died last week. But in the midst of investigations into the president and his family, he had this to say in February.

SOUNDCLIP

ELIJAH CUMMINGS: When we're dancing with the angels the question will be asked, in 2019, what do we do to make sure we keep our democracy intact? Did we stand on the sidelines and say nothing?

LL: And what do you think? Is enough being done to keep democracy intact by the Democrats?

DANIEL ZIBLATT: The Democrats have really faced two options. The party leadership has been very different than some of the kind of backbenchers in the Democratic in the Congress. From early on, people kind of in the margins of the Democratic Party have been pushing for impeachment and pushing for a kind of really extreme position, I would say. I think the leadership under Nancy Pelosi has been incredibly restrained and I think correctly so. You know, there has been a temptation to fight tit for tat in response to Republican abuses that Democratic leadership has I think for a good reason, been reluctant to do this, knowing that that there's a threat of escalation. When each side escalates this is how democracies really get into trouble. But a point at which the abuses have become so clear, there is a responsibility to stand up for the constitution to call out abuses. And I think that's what the Democratic leadership is now doing. And it seems to me it's basically proceeding in the right fashion.

LL: We are already running out of time. And I just want to make sure I asked you both, Meg Russell, when you look at both the U.S. and the U.K., do you see the turmoil as a sign of democracy in peril or a sign of democracy at work?

MEG RUSSELL: In a sense, it is democracy at work. But I think that one of the things which is really important is that we are not complacent about this situation. I think one of the risks we see this not just in Britain and the US, but across Western Europe and elsewhere as well, I guess, is that the long established democracies have fallen into a kind of state of complacency, which assumes that democracy will always be there. You know, Britain and the U.S. have been two of the most stable democracies for hundreds of years. But we can't take it for granted that democracy will always be there. And when it comes under attack, there are some real similarities, I think, with what Daniel was saying about the fragility of our systems. When a leadership takes over, which is not prepared to go along with the usual norms and respect the rules. You discover that they can tear up some of those norms very, very quickly. And when you have a leader who is very aggressively seeking to set the people against their politicians, a classic populist line, that is very dangerous even in well-established democracies like ours, I think.

LL: Daniel Ziblatt could the challenges that we're seeing to government affect the public's perception of democracy in both countries?

DANIEL ZIBLATT: Well, I think that's a great question, because what happens is dysfunction breeds disaffection. And so there is always the, you know, this idea that the parliament's just talk king shops. This is a critique often made against democracies in the 1920s and 30s where people become frustrated with it. And so it's important that democracies remain effective. Although I think the US is not descending into authoritarianism, it is descending into a kind of dysfunction that is dangerous for democracy. But the video I would just add that as much as I agree with the last statement about the fragility of democracy. I think we do have to realize that democracies are messy. And so for authoritarians who might be looking at Britain and the US and saying, well, democracy is a mess. Look out. What a disaster is. They're also very transparent. So we see all that the kind of dirty laundry in the windows here. Authoritarian systems aren't being transparent. So things look like they're running smoothly, but often they're not. So in a sense, the fact that we see a kind of process of self-correction underway in both systems makes me think that although these systems certainly are facing new challenges, they are responding. Politicians and citizens are attempting to respond to serious challenges. And so I continue to think that democracy is the best alternative.

LL: But, Daniel, is there still a need to strengthen the democracies? And if there is, what is the answer?

DANIEL ZIBLATT: Well, first of all, I think I mean, to two things I would say. One, politicians have to remain committed to the rules of the game, both norms and formal rules. And I think least in the US, you have a Republican Party that's increasingly not committed to the rules of the game. And citizens need to punish politicians at the ballot box for not doing this. And that at the end of the day, Polish citizens like to be able to send their politicians a message. And when they don't, when politicians don't respond, you get these kinds of populist kind of backlashes that we're seeing both in the U.K. and in Britain. So citizens need to send a message and politicians need to listen to the message.

LL: And Meg Russel, same question to you. What's the solution to strengthen democracies we've been talking about?

MEG RUSSELL: I completely agree with what Daniel just said about democracy being messy. And I think that one of the things that we need to do, I think that those people who are engaged in the system need actually to explain that and to celebrate. I mean, if we ask what democracy is for, it's for governing complex societies without descending into violence and civil war. You know, democracy requires politics, and politics is all about negotiation and compromise. You know, things get muddy. Not everybody gets what they want all the time. And I think that politicians need to be a bit more honest with people about that. And they actually need to celebrate that. Messiness is when people are expecting politics to be simple. You know, simple black and white issues where in the right you're in the wrong. We must win. You must lose. That's when it begins to get dangerous. And I think both of our countries have slipped into a kind of polarized politics. And one of the frightening things is that sometimes those people who are trying to defend the institutions are seen as being on one side of the political argument. We should all be seeking to defend our institutions because our institutions are precious. We need them for democracy to function.

LL: Wise words for all of us, especially here in Canada as we go to the polls today. Thank you.

DANIEL ZIBLATT: Thank you.

MEG RUSSELL: Thank you.

LL: Meg Russell is director of the Constitution Unit at University College London. That's where we reached her. Daniel Ziblatt is the co-author of How Democracies Die. He is also the professor of the science of government at Harvard University. He was in Berlin.

[Music]

LL: Well, tomorrow, tune into The Current for full analysis of the federal election results. We're going to convene a special election edition of our national affairs panel. Former high profile MPs will also weigh in on the results. And we'll hear what Canadians across the country fear and hope for as they react to the outcome. And of course, tonight you can get all of the results and analysis as the polls close right here on CBC Radio One or on CBC TV, CBC News Network, CBC Gem, CBC News Dossier and our CBC News app. The CBC News is next. Then, is cash still king.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I don't want anybody to know my business. It's like I just rather have my money in my pocket and do my thing and be on my way.

LL: Our plans for new digital currencies worth the paper they're written on. We'll find out in our next half hour. I'm Laura Lynch and you're listening to The current.

Back To Top »

Far flung voters

Guest: Natasha Gauthier

LL: Hello, I'm Laura Lynch, and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

LL: Still to come, millennials are looking to the alignment of the planets to make sense of it all. We'll find out what's behind the rising popularity of astrology, in half an hour. But first, making sure everybody gets the chance to vote.

[Music: Theme]

LL: Across the country today, Canadians are casting their ballots in the federal election. For many people, it's as easy as walking down the street to your local school or community centre. But for others, it's a bit more complicated. We spoke with Natasha Gauthier from Elections Canada about the length returning officers go to make sure people get to exercise their franchise.

SOUNDCLIP

NATASHA GAUTHIER: Well, it's been very busy. It's a big country. A lot of remote communities, weather challenges. So, yes. So are workers on the ground? Well, you know, bend over backwards to make sure that people are able to vote. As an example, I'll give you what's happening right now, today. In Manitoba, as we know, last week, terrible winter storms slammed into the province. And we know that First Nations communities have been disproportionately impacted by this. So one of the things is today in Winnipeg, there is what we call a super pole, which is basically a really, really big pole at University of Winnipeg. And that's been set up to make sure that even people who have been moved out of their homes because of a weather disaster are able to vote. We really want people to be able to exercise their Democratic right to vote, and your geography should not be an impediment. You know, if you are not able to go to the polling location, we will bring the polling location to you. So what we just recently did was we did our helicopter ballot drop off. So this goes to 27 lighthouses all up and down the Pacific B.C. coast. So you're in a lighthouse. You can't leave. There's maybe no road to even get in and out. If you have to fly in and out and your supplies get dropped off by plane, so your ballot gets dropped off by air as well. Another really interesting thing that we do is there's a huge mining development, a nickel mine in Labrador. It's called Voices Bay. Huge development. It's run by the mining company Vale. What we do is Vale provides a company plane for two Elections Canada workers and people can vote over a number of days. Then they take the ballots back to Goose Bay. You should definitely go out and vote. It's a rate that every Canadian citizen over 18 has. Madison Yetman. Last week, a young woman in Winnipeg who has terminal cancer and she just turned 18 and her dying wish was to vote. And so we took a special ballot to her hospital room. And so she was able to vote in her hospital room for the first time. And as her family has said, sadly, probably for the last time as well. So she launched a campaign basically saying, what's your excuse? So certainly as she is able to do it, we encourage everybody to go out to their polling location today and vote.

LL: Natasha Gauthier at Elections Canada and a reminder, if you need help figuring out where and how to vote, go to elections.ca. You're listening to the current on CBC Radio One and Sirius XM. I'm Laura Lynch. Up next, are digital currencies going mainstream?

Back To Top »

Bank of Canada's digital currency idea could have 'unintended negative consequences,' says journalist

Guests: Zane Schwartz, Brad Berens

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Facebook announcing a new digital currency called Libra. And Facebook says this digital currency aims to make it as easy to send money around the world as it is to send a photo. The currency is set to launch in the first half of next year will be run.

LL: It was big news this summer when the company that forever changed the Internet announced its plans to do the same thing for money. Facebook Libra has since had a somewhat rocky start, with some corporate partners walking away from the scheme and politicians voicing concerns. But the idea of taking cash digital still has plenty of currency. Bitcoin is thriving in certain circles online and now central banks are getting in on the trend. China and Switzerland are looking at ways to launch their own digital currencies. And Canada may not be far behind. Zane Schwartz is a senior reporter with the Canadian technology news site The Logic. He's with me in our Toronto studio. Hello.

ZANE SCHWARTZ: Thanks for having me.

LL: Are there crypto loonies in our near future?

ZANE SCHWARTZ: Could be here already. There was a study last year showing that five percent of Canadians own Bitcoin. And that was up from just 2 percent a year prior. So the banks looking at getting a crypto loonie before there's other non-Canadian crypto money being used regularly.

LL: So tell me more about that, the Bank Canada's plans, because they didn't just put up their hands and say, we're doing this. You had to go hunting for this.

ZANE SCHWARTZ: Yeah. So I filed some Freedom of Information requests and got some internal Bank of Canada documents that discuss replacing all coins and paper money with digital money. And as you were just saying, there's a growing trend amongst other banks. China looks like they're about to launch their own coin in the next maybe six months at the most. Facebook is very close as well. And the bank is really interested in making sure that where people are, which is online, paying for things, that they're not removed from that conversation and that they can continue to operate digitally as they have, you know, with coins and paper.

LL: But these documents didn't say for sure that this was going to happen.

ZANE SCHWARTZ: No. I mean, the bank has been very clear to emphasize since the story came out that this is a research proposal. And one of the things that they repeatedly state is this is not a decision they would make alone. This is a decision they would make if directed to by government. What they're trying to do is put themselves in a position where if a government says, we'd like you to launch a digital coin, they're fully ready to go. So in May, they did the first ever transfer of digital money from one central bank to another. So this was in partnership with Singapore. And that's sort of a key step to being able to have it be widely adopted. So they really are trying to put themselves in a position where they're ready to go. If somebody- if there was an election soon and someone decided they wanted to tell them to tell them to go.

LL: If there is an election soon. So, answer a basic question for me. Why? Why be ready for this?

ZANE SCHWARTZ: There's a couple of potential benefits for the bank, but mostly it's about threats. So as crypto currencies are increasingly being used, the Bank of Canada is removed from that process. So the last thing that they want is for there to be transactions happening where they have sort of no role in it. And part of this is for monetary policy reasons. So let's say they're concerned about an economic downturn. They can print more money. Well, if no one's using Canadian money, then that's not relevant. But part of it also is about opportunities. So more and more people are using digital means to pay for things, whether that's adding your credit card to your phone or using theorium or Bitcoin or one of the many other crypto currencies that are sort of increasingly widely used. And if China does this, so the second largest economy, if Facebook does this, one of the largest companies in the world, Canada, doesn't want to be left behind.

LL: Well, are there other countries that are getting involved in digital currency as well?

ZANE SCHWARTZ: Yes, it's fairly common to have a research project at this point. So we knew that Canada was sort of thinking about sort of high level. What the internal document shows that this was a strategic priority. So it was presented to the bank's board of directors. It was presented to Governor Stephen Poloz as one of sort of three key strategic priorities. And the bank, when asked about it, I guess maybe three or four days ago now said this is something we're still researching. We haven't made any decisions yet. But they did say that if they do introduce it, privacy will be front of mind, because if you pay with cash, it's effectively anonymous. If you use a digital means of payment, the bank would be able to share information with police or tax authorities, which could be good for them, if let's say they're trying to stop illegal activity or terrorist financing, but may also have unintended negative consequences. And in other countries, a lot of privacy groups have pushed back against the idea of not having the anonymity of cash.

LL: You've mentioned talk about privacy. The Bank of Canada's deputy governor, Tim Lane, spoke on a panel about central bank digital currency this past spring and the International Monetary Fund. And I just want to play part of what he had to say about privacy concerns.

SOUNDCLIP

TIM LANE: I mean, privacy could still be respected in the sense that if you buy a cup of coffee, the person behind the coffee counter doesn't know your address and phone number. But at the same time, it would not be anonymous in the sense that if you are transferring large amounts, then the law enforcement officials could have access with proper authorization.

LL: How do you how far do you think that goes to allay privacy concerns?

ZANE SCHWARTZ: It doesn't go that far. So that's the same way that they talk about it internally. To be fair, I mean, good for him for sort of being so candid about it. They talk about it as having the same level of privacy as a bank account. So in theory, law enforcement can get a warrant and say saying you're spending all of your money on candy, we should look into this, but that is different. So what they're saying is the person you're buying something from wouldn't know who you are, but the government and police still would. That is very different from cash. Like, let's say I don't necessarily want the government to know what medications I'm buying or maybe where I'm buying them. And this was a point of concern, actually, for party leader Maxime Bernier.

LL: The People's Party of Canada.

ZANE SCHWARTZ: Yes. Yes, indeed. When the article came out - I'm paraphrasing, but he he raised some very vocal, serious concerns about this. But I it's not just him. In the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union has raised concerns about this. It's you'd want to have clear safeguards. Right? Would they need a warrant or would they just be able to access it as they feel appropriate?

LL: Without you even knowing.

ZANE SCHWARTZ: Right. Would you know that they've accessed it? And I think that. It's entirely possible that a balance could be struck that Canadians would be happy with. But right now all we have is the Bank of Canada saying we'd like to be able to share information with police and tax authorities, but we don't really have any further details than that.

LL: This is the first time this idea of Canada creating its own form of digital currency has come up. And back in 2012, the Royal Mint began looking into digital currency. What happened is something called the mint chip. Sounds like ice cream.

ZANE SCHWARTZ: Yes. Oh, we lost it too soon. So it was privatized to Toronto Tech Company was sold in 2016. But basically what happened there was the Bank of Canada was a bit ahead of the curve. So this is well before Libra, well before China. Now, if anything, we are right on trend. So we are in a position where we could be launching a digital currency soon. China's about to. Singapore, Sweden are pretty advanced as well. Back in 2012, I think the bank was a little bit ahead of the game and there was less willingness. And this also Bitcoin wasn't nearly as popular. So in the end, they sort of mothballed the project.

LL: There have been concerns over the viability of other digital currencies. We mentioned that, like bitcoin. How does the Bank of Canada creating its own digital currency change some of those concerns for consumers?

ZANE SCHWARTZ: So one of the big selling points of a centrally bank supported digital currency is that you know who's behind it. So there's a lot of concern amongst the government of Canada, other governments around digital coins being used for terrorist financing, being used for drug purchases. But if it's pegged to the Canadian dollar, it's controlled by this Crown Corporation. There's a stability that comes to it in the same way that there's a stability that comes to the Canadian dollar. So you're less likely to see the massive fluctuations. There's people who've gotten incredibly rich off Bitcoin. There's people who've lost their houses off Bitcoin. And that's sort of the same pitch that all of these countries are making. Let the government be in charge of digital coins and they say it will provide sort of more stability to it.

LL: But, you know, you can't help but think about things like hacking. How does that approach that?

ZANE SCHWARTZ: I mean, if I am sympathetic to the bank because they don't often have internal documents come public. But I mean, I've asked. They don't say.

LL: You've asked about hacking and they won't say anything.

ZANE SCHWARTZ: Yes. I mean, it to be fair, they feel like they can't say anything about anything. But it's a major concern. Right? I mean, digital money is only good if it is, in fact, discreet. If I can show up and have something that can pass for digital money, well, then, you know, I don't need to work. I'm sure it's front of mind for them, but they certainly have provided no public information or public assurances as to how they would safeguard from hacking. I mean, they spend tens of millions of dollars on anti-counterfeiting measures for paper bills. So I can't imagine them not thinking about it, but I'd love for them to say how they're thinking about.

LL: Okay. So what are you watching for next?

ZANE SCHWARTZ: I think the big question is. So at first the bank just said this is an internal research document, we don't really comment on it. But then after there was some pushback from some politicians, they said, look, we're a Crown Corporation. It's not up to us. So the big question now is will this be a priority for whomever forms government in twelve hours? Because the bank is putting itself in a position where it can go if someone says go. So will someone say go?

LL: All right. So interesting. Zane, thank you so much.

ZANE SCHWARTZ: Thank you.

LL: Zane Schwartz is the senior reporter at The Logic. He was with me in our Toronto studio. So how would everyday Canadians feel about leaving cash behind for all digital currency? Our producer Peter Mitton went looking for opinions at his local Home Depot.

SOUNDCLIP

PETER MITTON: How would you feel if the government got rid of cash, replace it with an electronic money and they could track the way we spend it?

VOICE 1: No way. I don't like the car. I make my own money. I should know what to do with my money. Nobody should tell me what to do. Simple as that.

PETER MITTON: You ever make money in cash?

VOICE 1: We do it sometimes. You know, sometimes people pay you cash money. Just 50 bucks, 100 bucks. Nobody gonna pay you with a cheque for 50 bucks.

PETER MITTON: The government doesn't even know about it?

VOICE: Well, do we know everything they do with their money? We don't.

VOICE 2: I don't like that idea.

PETER MITTON: How come?

VOICE 2: Because I like the choice of paying cash. Flexibility. I don't need to be have every transaction tracked, some clients paying cash. Most pay e-transfer or other things. But some places give discounts for cash.

VOICE 3: I don't want anybody know my business. It's like I just rather have my money in my pocket. Do my thing and be on my way.

VOICE 4: I think it's coming anyways. Whether they do it or anybody else. Facebook is coming out with their money. So I think honestly, in 10 years, I think I'll probably be a standard bank.

PETER MITTON: Are you worried about losing some privacy?

VOICE 4: You know, I don't believe we have that much already. So my point of view is that we're my generation is holding on to this idea of privacy, which is almost non-existent anyway. If you knew everything that companies know, you'd see we really don't have it. And the generation [unintelligible] son is dead don't have the same concept of my wife's son of privacy that we do. And they're okay with it.

PETER MITTON: How old is he?

VOICE 4: 25? 27?

VOICE 5: 27.

VOICE 4: Sorry.

VOICE 5: Yes, I don't like that. I mean, I don't like the idea of losing privacy. Personally, I really don't. I think it's, sad that we are so trackable. Just just first commerce and for, you know. So to me, I actually have a bit of a difference of opinion. I think if we can hold onto as much privacy as we can. We should try and do it every step of the way.

LL: So those are some customers at a Toronto Home Depot. Brad Berens has been listening in. He's the chief strategy officer at the Centre for Digital Future for the Digital Future at USC Annenberg. And we reached him in Portland, Oregon. Hello.

BRAD BERENS: Hello. How are you today?

LL: Fine, thank you. You just heard that reaction from Canadians about going cashless. How common are those kinds of concerns?

BRAD BERENS: And those are totally common concerns. We ran this thing in the US called the Future of Money and Banking Project. And one of the questions we asked was how would you feel if we no longer used cash in society? 72 percent of folks in the states said they'd like to keep some purchases private by using cash.

LL: Okay, is that possible? Even now, is it possible to use cash and not have anyone know what you're doing?

BRAD BERENS: Sadly, I think the answer is no. I'm much less worried about the Bank of Canada tracking people's purchases, although it's not a great idea. But if you walk into almost any store and you have a cell phone in your pocket, then you're already probably being tracked. And even if you don't have a cell phone in your pocket, we have biometrics. There's been dozens of articles over the last few months about facial recognition technology. There's also voice recognition, retinal print, gait recognition, all sorts of biometrics that make it really, really hard to keep things private. Even if you do have a big wad of bills in your pocket.

LL: Well, you said you just said you weren't that concerned about the Bank of Canada tracking data. Why?

BRAD BERENS: I'm less concerned about a Crown Corporation, which is backed by the government doing these things than I am. Facebook. Facebook is an extraordinarily alarming if it's creating a currency. It's already tracking everyone we know, everything we like. With Portal it's tracking everything we watch. And now it wants to also track everything that we buy. And that's not a reassuring from a company that's shown that it's not terribly interested in preserving democracy. So it's just a question of relative anxiety. I've got plenty of anxieties to go around.

LL: Okay, tell me tell me what your anxieties are about something like the Bank of Canada tracking down.

BRAD BERENS: The any system can be abused. And so you are if I'm thinking, okay, how likely is it that the government is going to misuse this information? And the answer is, you know, there are always bad actors in any organization. The nice thing is that you have a democracy in Canada and people are elected today. And that's a matter of fact. And so the sort of wheels of justice, although they may go slow, eventually they'll turn around. And so. So that's why I'm less concerned, because there's no one who's elected at Facebook or any of the other places that could get into the money business. Compared to Canada, I think that the government of China, which has shown that it's very invested in surveillance, it's obvious what their motivation for moving into a cashless society is, which is really more easy to keep track of their population.

LL: So if I was a consumer who wanted to keep all of my transactions private, could I?

BRAD BERENS: Good luck.

LL: Good luck?

BRAD BERENS: No. Yes, you can't. I mean, if you're first of all, if you're using a phone or any kind of technology to make any kind of payment whatsoever, it's being tracked. So the only way you're going to be able to keep things private is with a wad of bills. And then you have to go to extraordinary lengths to, you know, put a rock in your shoes or that your gait is different. Wear a hat. It's covering your ears and dark glasses. Gosh, you probably want to have something on your throat to vibrate your voice into lack of recognition. All of this to go to the pharmacy and buy haemorrhoid cream because you're embarrassed about the condition. So, you know, it just seems unlikely that people are going to work that hard.

LL: Okay, then, given that, how realistic is it to think that will become a completely cashless society any time soon and have to deal with all of that?

BRAD BERENS: I think we're going to become a cashless society way before the Bank of Canada insists that it become one. You're watching people have the most convenient technology in the history of the species, which is the smartphone and having mobile technology, having digital assistants floating around us all the time. It's not so much that it's becoming difficult to pay with cash. It's that it's becoming so convenient to not pay with cash. There are some restaurants and cafes in the states that are no longer accepting cash. And there is a bit of a kerfuffle around that because, you know, it's legal tender. Therefore, you should be able to use it to buy your latte at the store. There are some coffee shops that are saying, no, we're not going to do that anymore. So I think that we're it's not Canada and the Royal Bank of Canada that's going to be doing this. I think it's just technology and the way the behaviour is trending.

LL: But what about people who don't have bank accounts? There are people who don't have bank accounts. How do you think going cashless is going to impact them?

BRAD BERENS: It could go one of two ways. The unbanked in the US as a population of many millions. And not only do we have the unbanked, we have the under banked people who have trouble maintaining bank accounts. For them, digital currency could either cut them out of the economy more. The hope is that perhaps with a digital currency would make other forms of banking where we aren't a victim to predatory fees. Banks in the US at least make most of their money through fees that are always an unpleasant surprise to the people who have the bank account. That's why people who are poor or unbanked or under banks go to payday lenders, for example. So, you know, on the on the down side. Going to an entirely digital economy could cut these people out even more. From being able to manage money, to earn money to break out of poverty. On the plus side, it's possible that this would enable new forms of banks that would enable people to have bank accounts and become banked. We're just going to have to see how it plays out.

LL: What kind of transparency would you like to see if digital currency becomes a reality?

BRAD BERENS: I think if we can have the same kind of transparency that we have with physical currency, which is to say not much, I don't think this is the big issue. It's more about regulation than it is about transparency. So in the presentation that was made to the Bank of Canada, there was this one moment where it's at the time may come that merchants, banks find it too costly to accept banknotes. And I just think that's ridiculous. I mean, that's it's too costly for merchants to pay their employees a living wage. But we still make them do. At least we tried to. So I think that tight regulation on how people treat other people we're using money is something that's very important.

LL: All right. Brad Berens, we watch this going forward. Thank you.

BRAD BERENS: It's a real pleasure.

LL: Brad Berens is the chief strategy officer at the Centre for the Digital Future at USC Annenberg. He was in Portland, Oregon. We contacted the Bank of Canada to ask about its plans for a digital currency. We received an e-mail statement which reads in part: "Any potential system would need the support of government and would have to comply with Canadian privacy laws. The public values privacy. And this is an important feature we would seek to maintain in designing a Canadian banking digital currency." Well, coming up in our next half hour, we lighten up our election coverage just a bit with an idea that might just take off in the share economy. A vote butler, someone who casts your ballot for you. I'm Laura Lynch, and you're listening to The Current.

Back To Top »

This is That

LL: I'm Laura Lynch, and you're listening to The Current. Technology is increasingly a factor in election campaigns for better and for worse. And as we're about to hear, someone is trying to harness technology to make voting a little more convenient.

SOUNDCLIP

[Music]

PAT KELLEY: I'm Pat Kelly.

PETER OLDRING: And I'm Peter Oldring.

PAT KELLEY: With a special report for The Current: This is That Decision 2019.

[Music]

PAT KELLEY: During the 2015 federal election, 68.5 Percent of eligible voters cast a ballot. Now, that might sound pretty good, but it still leaves 31.5 Percent of the electorate out of the democratic process. The question is: how do we make Canada's voter turnout higher? Well, there's a Start-Up out of Calgary, Alberta, that has a solution. It's developed an app called Vote Butler, and it's designed to make voting easier, more fun and less stressful. With just a few clicks, users can assign their votes to a stranger who votes on their behalf. To tell us more, I'm joined on the line by Vote Butler founder Larry Schmidt. Hello, Larry.

LARRY SCHMIDT: Hey, how are you doing?

PAT KELLEY: I'm good. How are you, sir?

LARRY SCHMIDT: I'm doing very well. Thank you for taking the time to speak with me.

PAT KELLEY: Well, it's a pleasure to talk to you about your controversial app, I would say. Tell us a little bit about how Vote Butler works.

LARRY SCHMIDT: Well, certainly Vote Butler is obviously it's an application that you download to your smartphone and it works very similar to something like Uber or Skip the Dishes. You go on to Vote Butler and with just a few clicks Vote Butler determines who it is that you should be voting for, based off of some of your information. And then it assigns what we call a Vote Butler to you, this is an individual who will go to the polling station on your behalf and cast your vote based off of the information that you put into the app. So really what it is, it's putting the convenience back into democracy because I think we can all agree that that's something that's been surely lacking over the last 10, 20 years.

PAT KELLEY: Well, do you really think it's such a chore for people to show up and do their civic duty of voting?

LARRY SCHMIDT: Oh, it is. You know, and that's the reason we launched the company three months ago. We did a lot of polling of people. And the main question we asked them was: do you vote? Lot of people said no. And then we said, why? And they said, it takes too much time for me to have to walk all the way to the end of the block to the elementary school and fill out the paperwork. And, you know, maybe I don't get to go vote right away. I got to wait three, four minutes. People had a real problem with that.

PETER OLDRING: Okay. Well, I want to I want to clarify a couple of things. So with Vote Butler, if I were to be using that, am I simply telling the butler whom I would like to vote for?

LARRY SCHMIDT: Wow. No, we want to take that work away from the individual. I mean, for you to have to do the research and to come up with the candidate that most aligns with your principles and your values and etc. I mean, even just talking about it, I'm sort of falling asleep. What it does is that it goes in and it uses data that you've already given to the Internet or to your phone. So it goes off of your social media accounts and your Netflix, you know, what kind of news stories you have been watching and...

PETER OLDRING: You're Netflix?

LARRY SCHMIDT: Working with our proprietary algorithm, it comes to the conclusion of where you should be voting for.

PAT KELLEY: How is what I'm watching on Netflix a correlating to Vote Butler?

LARRY SCHMIDT: Well, you can get a pretty darn good sense of somebody's political leanings by the type of movies that they're watching. I mean, if they're, you know, devouring night after night after night rom coms from the early 2000s, there's a high likelihood that person is going to vote NDP.

PETER OLDRING: Well, then the second question is, if you're not instructing the app how to vote, how do we know that it's accurate? Going through all of your information and voting based on that, how do we know that this is accurate?

LARRY SCHMIDT: Well, we haven't had the election yet, so we don't totally know. But we've been doing a lot of beta testing. And in our beta test site, we're operating at a 30 to 40 percent success rate. And for an algorithm, that's pretty darn good.

PETER OLDRING: Okay. I'm sorry. So hold on. So that means 60 to 70 percent of the votes are not accurate.

LARRY SCHMIDT: I know where you're headed with this. And I tell you why. We found out that there was a tiny glitch in the app and that was because it comes with preset settings. So when you first set up your account, if you don't tailor the settings to who you are, it's going to give you a skew to give you an inaccurate representation of who you are. And it's on me. That's my fault. The default setting in the app is alt right. So If you don't toggle that, it's going to say that you're all right.

PETER OLDRING: I'm sorry. So the default settings, if you don't go in and toggle them yourselves, will cast your vote alt right.

LARRY SCHMIDT: You're right. But that's why I'm on here.

PETER OLDRING: Is to what?

LARRY SCHMIDT: To sell the virtues of Vote Butler.

PAT KELLEY: I'm just curious, are these who are these people that are going to cast votes on your behalf? Who are the actual butlers? How have you found them?

LARRY SCHMIDT: Have you been living under a rock? We live in the gig economy. These are individuals who are working these jobs that are part of the gig economy.

PETER OLDRING: And you are just trusting that the people that you have hired as as temporary employment, that they will fulfil the responsibilities of voting on someone's behalf.

LARRY SCHMIDT: Of course I do, because they get a commission for every vote they cast.

PAT KELLEY: They get paid per vote. Can I ask how much a vote butler is paid per vote?

LARRY SCHMIDT: Well, it's three ninety nine for you to send your vote. Vote Butler takes 13 percent of every vote. Cast the vote. Butler gets 40 percent. So you do the maths. They're getting a dollar and 16 cents every time they cast a vote on someone's behalf. Well, I'll tell you. It could be pretty good business if they're at that voting booth all day long because a, you know, 300 people in the riding have assigned them to it.

PETER OLDRING: Well, sir, it just seems to me as though there's a lot of a lot of red flags with this app that need to be addressed.

LARRY SCHMIDT: Wow. We still have time. The election tonight till the 21st. So I just want to reiterate, the reason that I'm on here is to let Canadians know about the app. Vote Butler is here to bring back the convenience that has been sorely missing from democracy for so long. So download vote butler and get someone else to vote on your behalf.

PETER OLDRING: Thank you very much, Mr. Schmidt.

LARRY SCHMIDT: Well, thank you for having me. Wooh [unintelligible] dizzy.

[Music]

LL: Yes, I think I'll just cast my ballot all by myself. Thanks to our friends at Kelly and Kelly for being such a critical part of our special coverage of this election campaign. You are listening to The Current. And I'm Laura Lynch.

Back To Top »

Millennials are turning to astrology to cope with an uncertain world: journalist

Guest: Julie Beck

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: We do a lot of ceremony here so this is actually a pentagram that we have decorated. We change out the [unintelligible] just to activate our circles and our place of learning. We are predominantly [unintelligible] here.

LL: Upstairs at the rock store, a shop full of crystals, tarot cards and books of esoteric knowledge. In Toronto, an astrologer who goes by the name of Lady Samantha welcomes about a dozen students to a night class.

SOUNDCLIP

LADY SAMANTHA: I place Miers and the first House. Mars rules Aries. Planets are like gods. Saturn, if you think of Saturn, [unintelligible] other times swallowing his children.

LL: Tonight's lesson is on the sun signs and how to read a star chart. Those are the basics of astrology, the ancient teachings about how the planets movements supposedly affect our lives here on Earth on matters from love and money to life and death. It may not be scientific, but astrology is once again popular.

SOUNDCLIP

LADY SAMANTHA: There are more and more people that aren't necessarily like hippy or eccentric, but just intrigued, generally interested and open. That's the difference. I think people nowadays are open to different forms of learning and self-exploration and things that were used eons ago.

LL: The return of astrology is supposedly being fuelled by millennials, young people born in the 80s to 90s, and that's about half of the class here tonight. But of course, the astrological action today is happening online apps offering astrological advice have millions of users and they're attracting millions of dollars from investors. And astrologers like Chani Nicholas are amassing huge followings online.

SOUNDCLIP

CHANI NICHOLAS: Oh, you know my numbers. Hold on. Let me just text them.

LL: Chani Nicholas is one of the most popular astrologers online today. She has more than a quarter million followers on Instagram. And her astrology shows up everywhere from Oprah's O Magazine to the music app Spotify.

SOUNDCLIP

CHANI NICHOLAS: I've been doing astrology since I was 12 years old, which is a long, long time ago. So for, you know, the better part of three decades.

LL: She's based in Los Angeles, but she traces the roots of her astrological interests back to her hometown, Nelson, B.C., in the 1970s and 80s.

SOUNDCLIP

CHANI NICHOLAS: It was really kind of wild and crazy, had a very hippie, free love, partying culture. So when I was starting out, you had to like buy books which were very expensive and hard to get because again, you couldn't just order things on Amazon or you had to go to the library. Hopefully a library would have like maybe one or two astrology books. So getting access to the knowledge was really difficult.

Now, anyone who's interested can go as deep as they want into their star sign on their phone. And the question is why so many people are.

SOUNDCLIP

CHANI NICHOLAS: If it's helpful and useful to you and if you find it healing. That's my main aim. I think that in times of great change and in times of great uncertainty, both of which we're definitely in at the moment, human beings look for both answers and meanings and something to help us hold what we're going through in a greater context. And astrology, that's exactly what it does. It talks about the context of the moment that we are in, both personally and also collectively.

LL: That was astrologer Chani Nicholas. Julie Beck is a senior editor and writer with The Atlantic who's looked into why so many people and so many millennials are feeling those healing vibes. Her piece, The New Age of Astrology, was published last year, and she's with us now from Washington, D.C.. Hello.

JULIE BECK: Hi. Thank you for having me.

LL: There's been something of a stigma around astrology for quite a long time, but it sounds like that's changing. What did you find?

JULIE BECK: I think it is changing in some ways and not in others. I think a lot of the response I got to this piece was still, you know, why are we giving attention to this? Astrology is not scientific, et cetera, et cetera, which it's not. But I think that for a lot of young people, the fact that it's not scientific is not necessarily a barrier to them being interested in it. A lot of people who I spoke to, it's not so much that they believe in astrology, that it's "real" or that the planets are really doing these things to them. But it sort of provided them a language to speak about things that were happening in their lives, and in the world around them, that they found useful and helpful. And to them it mattered more that it was useful, than whether it was real.

LL: So let's get into this a little bit more. You check this out. It's not real. Tell me about that.

JULIE BECK: It's not real. I don't know. It's worded to tell you about that. I think that a lot of people, when they write about astrology and they kind of just get hung up on like that National Science Foundation survey that, you know, asks people if they think astrology is scientific and the percentage of that. And I think that sort of hides the nuance of what the people who are into astrology really think about it. And for the most part, the people who I spoke with, they would say things like, we don't believe in it, but we take it seriously. A lot of times it's something that they dip in and out of. I think something that Chani Nicklaus just said was that people will turn to astrology and in times of uncertainty or stress. And there was actually a study that found that people who are under stress are more likely to read their horoscopes and be interested in astrology, even when they are not stressed they don't believe in it. You know, maybe it's romantic relationships or maybe it is work problems, just something where there's a high degree of uncertainty. Because what astrology does is it looks forward into the future or, you know, it says that it looks forward into the future and it is kind of predicting things for you, which can be comforting even if deep down, you know, like this isn't real or it has no basis in reality, but it just is giving you something to hold on to in the future to reduce that uncertainty.

LL: Chani Nicholas talked about the 60s and 70s is the last time it had been so fashionable. Do you see similarities between that time period and the era we're living in now and in terms of stress and tumult?

JULIE BECK: Well, I was not alive then, but I think there are some parallels in that. That was also a very stressful and uncertain time for a lot of people that may have made astrology seem appealing as well. There are a lot of surveys and stuff now that find that millennials are the most anxious generation and they're more likely to say that their anxiety and stress has increased in the past year. And I think some of that was attributed to politics and just like divisiveness and the uncertainty that people feel around them politically in them in the U.S. right now. So I think that also does apply. There's sort of the stress writ large of the culture and then there's like the person's individual stress.

LL: But there's something else. Organized religion is actually on the decline. Can some of astrology's popularity be seen as a replacement for that?

JULIE BECK: I think that you could. But I will say when I spoke with people, that seemed to be less of a thing than I expected it to be, because I don't know that people are necessarily replacing religion with astrology. I think in some ways they're drawn to it, maybe because it seems like a more spiritual or mystical practice. And one thing that I did find was that people seem to be reacting a little bit to just like this sort of quantified, data driven aspects of our lives. So, you know, millennials, especially in Genesee, have grown up online. They've grown up with all of these things that are tracking all of our data all the time. And so I think it's sort of a reaction to that to say, no, I want to go to this like less quantifiable, more mystical thing and find meaning through that. One thing that was very interesting to me when I was researching this, is like everybody wanted to give me their explanation for why astrology was back. And a lot of them were just diametrically opposed. So some people would say: "Oh, you know, these young people, they're so narcissistic and astrology just like tells you all about yourself and they love that." And that may be true, but other people were saying: "People feel so powerless right now with everything going on in the world, and so they want to like turn away from the earth and look up to the stars." And that may be true, too, right? But those are kind of opposed things, like navel gazing or star gazing. And I think it can be both.

LL: So I want to play you some tape now. We asked a Toronto astrologer named Lizbeth if she would put us in touch with one of her younger clients. And Alexandra Babiak was kind enough to share her story.

SOUNDCLIP

ALEXANDRA BABIAK: I'm 27. I'm about to turn 28. Most of my friends are interested in astrology, I guess to varying degrees in the past few years, I guess, I'd say I've had more of a serious interest in it. I guess I started out looking at some of those apps. They're kind of general. So I started actually following things that are more specific to my chart. I guess the biggest one being like Saturn Returns. Basically, it's like Saturn returns to the same place it was when you were born. And this is around the age happening for, you know, people born in the early 90s or late 80s. So it's sort of just coincided with, you know, one year approaching 30 and you need to start getting your life together, assert your independence, stop relying on your parents and other people for whatever, like money, emotional support, all of that. Consulting astrology helped me sort of feel like I had this control over my life, whether it's a placebo effect, you know, like some people might argue that. But I do think that having my birth chart read and having her tell me like this is what all of these things mean based on your kind of mind map, it just helped me feel better about like the changes that are ahead.

LL: I wonder if any of that resonates with you. It certainly seemed to be touching on some of the points we've discussed.

JULIE BECK: Yeah. The thing that stood out the most to me from that was she's talking in great detail about this Saturn Return concept. And I think one thing that seems different with this wave of interest in astrology as opposed to previous times when people were interested in it, is that the people who are into it seem to be much more deeply into it and have a deeper knowledge of the concept. So I think it's a lot less, you know, like, hey, baby, what's your sign sort of. You know, just like very surface level, umm.

LL: Pickup line.

JULIE BECK: Right. Maybe people are doing that, but it's a lot more like, oh. Whenever I always find out when Mercury is in retrograde because everybody starts tweeting about it. So it's, you know, Mercury retrograde and my Saturn return and my birth chart and what is my rising sign and what is my moon sign? And just all of these like much more complex concepts that I don't think were as widely known before this wave of interest in astrology. So maybe I think that's facilitated by the Internet, right. Because you can just if you're interested in it, you can just go down the rabbit hole as deep as you want to go to.

LL: But without going to deep down the rabbit hole, maybe we can do some quick translations for the audience. Mercury retrograde.

JULIE BECK: Sure. So my understanding is that when Mercury goes into retrograde and again, I'm like explaining this from the context of astrology. I'm not endorsing it. But that when the planets go retrograde, I guess they're supposedly like appear to be moving backwards. And that with the mercury one, it's always like, oh, communications are getting scrambled. And like all of these little difficulties come up. It sort of seems like Alexander and the no good, horrible, very bad day or whatever that book was. It seems like people will tweet about it in terms of like, oh, all these little things are going wrong in my life. And so that's kind of that one.

LL: Saturn's Return.

JULIE BECK: So Saturn Return is supposedly Saturn is coming back to the same place in the sky that it was when you were born. And that is supposed to be like a period where you're kind of re-evaluating your life or renewing your life or deciding what you want to do as an adult. I think that's what your listener was talking about there.

LL: Okay, so I know that I used to pay more attention to astrology when I was younger. And the last few birthdays I haven't even looked at 'it's your birthday today and what that means'. What did you find out about when people need astrology or think they need astrology in their lives and when they no longer need it?

JULIE BECK: Yes. So I like I said before, it seems like in times of stress and uncertainty, people are really drawn to astrology. There was one woman I spoke to for my story who I think really exemplifies this, and she was someone who was just really unhappy in her work life and her dating life. She was trying to find a partner, and trying to find a new job, and going out all the time with friends who she didn't really feel were good for her. And she kind of got this idea into her head from one of the astrology websites that said: "Oh, next year, Jupiter is going to be in this place in your chart and it's going to bring all these great things for you, if you spend the time this year getting ready for it." So she starts doing all this stuff. She stops going out. She starts cooking at home. She starts dating. She starts looking for new jobs. And then, you know, lo and behold, the next year, when Jupiter comes into whatever area of her chart, she finds the man she's going to marry. She gets a new job. She cut some friends out of her life. And of course, you can say like: "Yeah, well, of course these things happened because she started preparing for them and changing things in her life." She attributes it somewhat to this Jupiter belief, because she started doing all these things. And then she told me: "Now I don't really read my horoscope very much, because now I'm happy."

LL: That story and all the voices we've been hearing throughout this interview are are women. Do you find astrology to be mainly a female space?

JULIE BECK: It does seem to be a space that is dominated by women and queer people. There's not really good research on why that would be, because the research dollars are not pouring into this. But it seems like people- People mentioned to me that because astrology was for a long time and still is to some degree like a more stigmatized, kind of marginalized thing, that it was historically more welcoming to marginalized people.

LL: There's likely to be someone listening out there who thinks it's a waste of time to talk about astrology at all. Why do you say it's worth thinking about?

JULIE BECK: I'm sure there are a lot of people who say that. What I would say is that attention is not an endorsement. And I don't think that we should ignore the things that people find meaningful. People find truth in fiction all the time, and we give that plenty of attention. So to me, I think the things that animate people's lives and where they find meaning are worth critical thought and examination, even if they are not, quote unquote, "real".

LL: Julie Beck, thank you.

JULIE BECK: You're welcome. Thank you for having me.

LL: Julie Beck is a writer and senior editor with The Atlantic. She is in Washington, D.C. Well, that is our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio 1 for Q. Tom Power speaks to Antonio Banderas about his new film, Pain and Glory. We'll wrap things up. Today we're going to tie together a few threads from the program. We were just talking about astrology and of course, we've been talking about today's election for weeks. So let's end with a peek into the party leaders horoscopes for this week, courtesy of astrology.com. I'm Laura Lynch. Thanks for listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Justin Trudeau, jug meeting and Maxime Bernier all share the sign of Capricorn.

VOICE 2: As you push forward, it might feel like you're only facing more resistance. Instead of fighting the tide, you might do well to stick with the projects that are already on your plate and hold off on an aggressive approach until the tone has shifted. Don't be afraid to lean in to opportunities to turn a solo project into a team one.

VOICE 1: Andrew Scheer is a Taurus assigned ruled by Venus.

VOICE 2: A brilliant time to set an intention related to beginning a major undertaking with your significant other or your business partner. Whether you are trying to set a new romantic tone, save up for a joint investment, or get the ball rolling on an important proposal. Allow yourself the time to really key into your vision as a team. One on one teamwork plus passion can lay the groundwork for an exciting win.

VOICE 1: Elizabeth May's birthday is at the beginning of June, making her a Gemini.

VOICE 2: Your confidence is on fire and you feel like you're glowing from the inside out. If you've been fantasizing about a certain kind of date night or making a particular fantasy come true, now is your moment.

VOICE 1: And finally, the ram. Yves-Francois Blanchet, leader of the Bloc Quebecois, is an Aries.

VOICE 2: You are happy to get swept away by whimsical, wild daydreams that you're content to keep to yourself, or share with a lover, when the mood is right.

VOICE 1: The information contained in this report is for entertainment purposes only and does not constitute a serious prediction of any outcomes for any leaders or their parties heretofore mentioned. Always seek the opinions of people who actually know what they're talking about, not the alignment of the planets because astrology is not real. CBC Radio will have full coverage of the federal election after the polls close in your region.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Monday October 21, 2019 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This