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 2020

The AIH Transcript for September 15, 2020

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello. I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

CH: Tonight:

CO: Healthy margin. In Canada's first COVID-19 election, New Brunswickers return Blaine Higgs and his Progressive Conservatives with a majority. We asked the premier what he's planning to do with it.

CH: Heated debate. A new law in California makes it easier for convicts who fought fires while incarcerated to do so professionally when they get out. And a former inmate turned pro firefighter says that is long overdue.

CO: Sometimes a little says a lot. To show how little coverage women's sports get in the paper, our guest removed all the articles in the New York Times sports page about men leaving us a whole lot of space for reflection.

CH: Co-op data. Canada's Mountain Equipment Co-op is being sold to an American investment company. And our guest, who helped found MEC, in the 70s, is not a happy camper.

CO: Where there's smoke, there's fire. Unless you're in British Columbia right now, where the smoke that's filling the air is coming from the massive wildfires south of the border.

CH: And inwardly mobile. A Malaysian man is relieved to find his lost cell phone and discovers that a monkey didn't just take his phone, it took a bunch of selfies as well and tried to eat it. As It Happens. The Tuesday Edition. Radio with a monkey back guarantee.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: New Brunswick election

New Brunswick election

Guest: Blaine Higgs

CH: Blaine Higgs has been rewarded for taking the plunge. The New Brunswick premier was the first Canadian leader to call an election during the pandemic. Mr. Higgs said his Progressive Conservatives needed a majority to handle the possibility of a second wave of the virus. And last night, New Brunswickers gave Blaine Higgs that majority. But his victory wasn't perfect. The P.C.'s failed to win a single seat in the predominantly Francophone northern part of the province. We reached Premier Blaine Higgs in Fredericton.

CO: Premier Higgs, congratulations.

BLAINE HIGGS: Thank you very much Carol.

CO: Why do you think the people of New Brunswick gave you a majority?

BH: I think they recognize that we have momentum in our province. We need stability to move forward on a platform that was put together not only 2018, but presented in a budget format back in March. They saw the progress we're making there. They saw that, you know, how we work together during the pandemic with the three other parties. And the fact that I wanted to produce that same sort of focus I had on other issues to keep moving in COVID. And it wasn't possible to do so. So we wanted stability in our province and now we have it.

CO: All right. So people thought that you were taking a big risk going to the polls in the middle of a pandemic. Why did you decide it was worth the gamble?

BH: Well, it's a confidence builder. For me, we're doing everything in the province only in a different way. So businesses are opening. You know, we're opening up, you know, in the kind of as a record, I think, across the country and seeing businesses and our economy coming back. We're doing routine activities. We're opening up schools. We're sports operations, you know, with both hockey getting back. And we're basically saying, you know, it's different, but we still have to move on. And so we can do an election too. And we were very careful of the public health rules. It was very different. No doorknocking for us. Some parties did that. We did not. And we have very small gatherings, which was also unique. I mean, I went to the acceptance, you know, last night of the new government and with a majority -- and, you know, we had, I don't know, maybe 60 people there at the most in a great big area that would normally seat probably three or four hundred or more.

CO: Right. Well, looking at the map, though, you guess you got your majority. But there is this big swatch of red in the northern part of New Brunswick, isn't there? And the Liberals took that. That's the predominantly Francophone part of your province. Why did you fail to make any inroads into the Francophone part of New Brunswick?

BH: Well, it wasn't a failure of me accepting the northern part of the province, I guess it was a case where the northern part of the province doesn't accept me.

CO: And why not? Why do you think they don't accept you?

BH: Well, I guess traditionally, I say it's as much a political divide as a language difference, because it's been a situation that if you follow the pattern, you would see that it's just traditionally been Liberal ridings. And I think the Liberal Party takes that for granted. I didn't promise a different promise program for the north. I promised a better New Brunswick. And my policies and the platform are for all the Brunswick rising together. We had wonderful candidates. But, you know, when you have someone from the SNB, that, you know, a member of the board member that comes out and says, you know, anyone who runs as a candidate for the Progressive Conservative Party is, you know, it's an aggressive, it's an assault on the Francophone culture. I mean, there's no excuse for a comment like that...

CO: Okay. How about a comment that you made, in which you said that the Liberals could, "run a lampshade in ridings in the north and still win." How do you think that played for Francophone voters?

BH: Well, I think if we look at the history, we would see that the Liberal Party has taken the road for granted. I mean, you look at some of the ridings that have never been anything else, but. And I know that happens in other parties, not just any particular. It isn't all about the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party or parties that always elect one riding. But if you look at the history, I mean, there are ridings that it just wouldn't matter. Carol, if we're going to have a difference in how we, the province, succeeds, it's you can't take your votes for granted. You have to be in a position where people are prepared to look at new ideas, be part of a new process and be part of a bigger goal, which is the province as one. We saw that in COVID. We were achieving that.

CO: But isn't there a reverse way of taking things for granted? If you presume that you're not going to get votes in the north, if you presume that the Francophones would vote for a lampshade if it was a candidate, then maybe you're selling them out too.

BH: No, I didn't presume that at all. You should look at the quality of candidates we had. We had tremendous candidates. I would put our candidates up against anyone who was running in this election. So if I was taken it as a we couldn't win, we wouldn't have the quality of people that showed up.

CO: And do you still own that comment? Do you still support that which you said about lampshades?

BH: The reality speaks for itself, Carol. I mean, you can just do the statistics around the province. And I think that, you know, sometimes people don't really kind of say it the way it is. But it is the reality. And as long as a party takes votes for granted in riding, it very much is an assault on democracy.

CO: But the Progressive Conservatives in New Brunswick in the past have been able to get those some of those ridings without putting lampshades up.

BH: Well, you can see different models. And here's how it works. I have presented a model for an entire province. I haven't distinguished between ridings. I didn't make promises on the bus. I didn't make many promises other than a better and stable government. You know, that can be treated differently in different areas of the province. And obviously, as I moved around the province, people were expecting me to just roll out the promises off the bus. And I haven't done it since I started. And I will not do it going forward. We need a better plan, a bigger plan. And politics has separated our province more so than language.

CO: Do you think that with a majority you don't have to worry as much about any kind of defeating vote? I'm thinking of things like your foreign workers program. Last time we spoke, you were pulling back on the decisions you made about out-of-province workers coming in. Do you think now you don't have to respond to those complaints and those concerns in the part of opposition, now that you have a majority?

BH: Well, no. I think that we have to certainly still reflect the interests of the reality of the situation wherever it is in the province -- whether you're in the majority or whether you're not. I think we still, in order to have an effective government, need to be working with the third party as well as the opposition in order to move the province forward with a stable government. Yeah, it's different being in a majority. There's no question about that. It does bring more security, but it brings more stability for investors to look at New Brunswick.

CO: All right. We'll be watching. Premier Higgs thank you.

BH: You're very welcome Carol. Have a good day.

CH: Blaine Higgs is the newly re-elected premier of New Brunswick. We reached him in Fredericton.

[Music]

MEC sold

Guest: Sara Golling

CH: The Mountain Equipment Co-op always prided itself on being a company owned by its members. But five million card carrying customers were no match for one private investment fund. Today, the Canadian outdoor gear co-operative announced it was in the process of being acquired by a capital management firm in Los Angeles. MEC said that financial hardships and the COVID-19 pandemic left the board of directors little choice. That is hard to swallow for members like Sara Golling. Ms. Golling helped found the co-op in 1971 with some university friends in B.C.. Back then, the company offered five dollar memberships operated out of a van and sold inexpensive mountain climbing gear. Today, it sells everything from canoes to yoga mats to travel luggage. And a membership still costs five bucks. We reached Sara Golling in Rossland, B.C..

CO: Sarah, what are you feeling today as you learn the details that this co-op you helped to start will soon be owned by a private U.S. investment firm?

SARA GOLLING: I'm feeling grief and betrayal.

CO: Why so?

SG: MEC was a co-op. And one of the cooperative principals is democratic member control. The members were never consulted about this. We were never warned just how bad conditions were for MEC. We knew it was bad that we had rather hoped that MEC could survive this rough patch. We weren't given any voice at all in what happened. We were totally ignored by the board when perhaps we could have helped.

CO: There's a five dollar membership that you can buy to be part of this co-op -- and full disclosure, I am one of those members. But there are millions of people. There's like five million members now. If MEC needs to make a change, needs to survive, is this really a co-op in any traditional way where you can consult your members?

SG: I think they could have done it, given the wonders of modern communications, all members could be communicated with by email. Members could vote by email. We used to vote online when we had a vote. We could have been consulted. We could have been asked if we were willing to pony up an extra five dollars, ten dollars, fifty dollars, whatever it might have taken to recapture our co-op. Of course, it may still not have succeeded in surviving if it didn't have a dramatic change of leadership and management. But I think it could have done something.

CO: You're not just any other member like me. You actually helped launch MEC way back in 1971. You were an original member of it. And when it was not supposed to be a profit driven retail store, but it was a co-op, as we're saying. What was the culture you were trying to create?

SG: Well, a co-operative culture, I guess, from a member's point of view, a buyer's point of view a member owned retail co-op is better than the profit driven model because we can buy better things at a better price. And if we paid full price, we could be reimbursed for the overcharge by means of patronage returns. And because the customer is also an owner, there's this sort of seamless identity between the ownership and the users of the services. And because the customer is also the owner, we didn't have to line the pockets of shareholders who would, you know, demand the fat return on their investment. The return on investment that a member gets is good value for money spent. And if the co-op is operated as a co-op should be operated, also a voice in directing the organization -- a vote, one vote for member, not a vote per share or block of shares.

CO: At that time the merchandise was stored in a van for a while (or in) somebody's basement. You were all pitching in, in order to make this co-op work and people to get access to better price of gear and better gear. Perhaps it's a victim of its own success. Can you really maintain an enterprise of the size that MEC is now on that original culture?

SG: I think one of the errors that MEC made was going for excessive growth. And I agree that the size of co-op was perhaps a mistake. It might have been better had MEC helped other co-ops get started, formed a group of sister co-ops instead of trying to be one mega co-op. They tried to focus too much, as I said, on growth, and they tried to do that by restricting board membership to people with master's of business administration and people who had experience managing huge, complex retail operations, which, of course are mostly non co-ops. So they were importing almost an antique co-operative mindset at the top. And I think that was a huge mistake.

CO: And not just the change in ethos, but also achange in merchandise, right? What strikes you as you go through an MEC today?

SG: Too much, too much stuff, being less careful about quality, having too much stuff on clearance. And I think we strayed in some product areas that were just wrong for MEC's values.

CO: Like what?

SG: Travel offering for air travel, you know, rolling suitcases. Recreational air travel is a significant contributor to accelerating the climate crisis. And I objected to catering to it when I was on the board.

CO: Could you have imagined back in 1971 when you were conceiving of the idea of the store -- if someone had told you that one day it would be someplace where there was 200 dollars stainless barbecues to take camping with you, four to five hundred dollar cooler I think I saw recently, and rolling suitcases -- could you have imagined that that was where this was heading?

SG: I would have been a little ticked off. [Laughter] Yeah, I'm not a fan of car camping, and I don't really think it's a way to get people into the outdoors. I think it's a way to keep people in their cars. I don't think it's a way to introduce people to hiking at all or mountaineering or outdoor living. And I think that MEC should have kept itself with self-propelled recreation.

CO: Would you shop at MEC again?

SG: At this point, I kind of doubt it. Why would I? I feel so disappointed, so betrayed.

CO: Sara we'll leave it there. I appreciate speaking with you. Thanks.

SG: Okay. Thank you.

CH: Sara Golling is a co-founder of the Mountain Equipment Co-op, or MEC. She's in Rossland, B.C..

[Music]

British Columbia smoke

Guest: Michael Brauer

CH: South of the border, the wildfires continue. And north of the border in British Columbia, people aren't breathing easy either. You may have seen the pictures in parts of B.C., smoke from fires on the U.S. West Coast fills the sky. The poor air quality means people are staying indoors. And Vancouver has opened clean air spaces for people struggling to breathe. Michael Brauer is a professor of environmental health at the University of British Columbia. He says what his province has been experiencing in recent days is going to become more common. We reached him in Vancouver.

CO: Professor Brauer, what does it look like from your window today in Vancouver?

MICHAEL BRAUER: I obviously can't see the mountains because they're covered with smoke. And even if I look at a patch of trees that are a couple blocks away, there's a haze in between them. So everything's looking very smoky, very foggy. And if I didn't know that this was smoke, it just looks like we've got a typical B.C. winter cloudy day. But we know the sun's up there and actually should be a lot warmer than it is now.

CO: And this is smoke from fires not in the Canadian area. This is south of the border. We know that smoke doesn't recognize borders, but how far away are the fires that the smoke is getting to you?

MB: So these are fires that are actually at bunch of different locations. So we're getting smoke from California, you know, thousands of kilometres away. We're also getting smoke from fires in Washington state. But it's really affecting this whole part of the continent everywhere, from northern California all the way up to B.C. And the smoke's actually starting to also drift into other provinces to the east of us as well.

CO: And meanwhile, what's it like to try and breathe?

MB: So interestingly, I study air pollution. I've been all over the world studying. I've been to some of the most polluted parts of the world throughout my career. This is the first time I actually remember personally being affected by this. So I've got a sort of a horse throat. Over the weekend when I was spending more time outside, you know, I developed a headache, a little bit of sort of a runny nose. And this is kind of what most people who are otherwise healthy are experiencing. And then, of course, where we're most concerned with people who have underlying conditions. And for those people, the effects can be much more severe.

CO: What we're hearing is that, well, usually when there are events of this nature, we hear a reluctance on the part of climate scientists to say this is climate change definitively. They are less reluctant, far less reluctant, now in saying that universally that it's the heat and the intensity of these fires -- yes, there may have been fires anyways. But the way these fires are, how strong they are, how dry the conditions are, how perfectly these out of control wildfires can be only caused by climate change. What can be done at this point if this looks like this is what's going to be happening every year?

MB: Yeah. I would say not only is this going to be happening every year -- the harder part I think is, is that it's going to get worse. So and I don't even know what that means. It's hard to even conceptualize what that means. It may mean that a summer where we have an event like this becomes a good summer and that we get these things like this that last, you know, several weeks and that's typical. So what we're focused on really about what can be done -- of course, we still need to work on on the contributions, the climate change. We're not going to see those benefits in the near future. We're talking decades. We're already locked into this pattern. But we can adapt to this in terms of both the health response so we can have populations that can remain healthy even when we have smoke events like this. And also so that we minimize the sort of impacts just on our livelihood. And we know from the health response that there are things that people can do. A lot of it is really just having planning in place. But some relatively simple things like having air cleaners. We in the city of Vancouver now have clean air shelters where people can go to -- a place where there's an air handling system and high quality filtration, they can go to and actually get some relief. And then if people are able to purchase room air cleaners, which aren't that expensive for their own homes, that's something that they can do. Individuals that have pre-existing conditions, that their disease is better manage, that they have their medication on hand, if they're in contact with their health care provider early in the season. All of that lessens the likelihood of the impacts on those people being severe. And then just for the general public, I think we just need to be more flexible. Most people in B.C. that I know when we travelled in the province in the summer, we're now thinking about there is a possibility of fire or a smoke event that may cause us to change our holiday plans. We may have to go somewhere else. We may need to come back home. So we just need to be thinking about being able to pivot, being flexible.

CO: If the course now is to find ways to adapt and to be flexible and to plan around large fires just to rearrange your schedule in order to sort of live with that, what does that say about efforts to try and stop this or slow it down? Is that lost at this point? Is it pointless to think that we can reverse any of this?

MB: Well, I think we are locked in for the near term and perhaps even our lifetime. But that doesn't mean, if we said stop actions -- and in fact, it makes an imperative to increase those actions and really get serious about it, because we won't get better until we start reducing the root cause of the problem. Even if we're just thinking about this for our children or grandchildren, we need to do that. And of course, anything we do is still going to have, even just from the perspective of -- so in the area where I work on is air quality, many of the solutions to climate change are just getting away from combustion. If we're talking about a situation like this, we want to make the air, if we're going to have smoke from fires, we want to make the air as clean as possible from every other source.

CO: All right. We will leave it there. And I hope the air does improve for you. Professor Brauer thank you very much.

MB: Sure. My pleasure.

CH: Michael Brauer is a professor of environmental health at UBC in Vancouver. Coming up on the program, we'll go to California, where Governor Gavin Newsom has passed a bill to reinvigorate the state's firefighting force by making it easier for former inmates to apply. Our guest fought fires while he was in prison and says it's been too difficult for people with criminal records to do so professionally.

[Music]

Food ASMR

CH: Warning: some of you will find this really gross. But some of you will find it oddly soothing. It's the sound of what's called "food asmr." In this case, a YouTuber named "FoodieLicious" eating roasted marshmallows off a skewer. [SOUNDCLIP: Eating sounds] As I said, that is food asmr. [Clears throat] To some of us, it is nauseating. But to millions of others it's deeply satisfying, which makes food asmr a competitive field. And if you're going to break in, you need a fresh take and you have to give this guy credit for trying. [SOUNDCLIP: Eating and outdoor sounds] See where most food asmr practitioners restrict themselves to eating food, this guy is doing something completely new. He is trying to eat a phone because he is an artist. Also, he's a monkey. On Saturday, a man in Malaysia named Zackrydz Rodzi noticed his phone was missing. He told the BBC there was no sign of robbery. The only thing on my mind was, is it some kind of sorcery? The next day, he called his phone for the umpteenth time and heard it ringing from a spot just outside his yard. After he cleaned it up, he checked it out -- and to quote Mr. Rodzi "Boom. It's full of monkey photos." What allegedly happened is the monkey stole his phone, accidentally took a bunch of selfies, and also accidentally took video of his own face, including some alarming close ups of inside his mouth while loudly breathing on and attempting to eat the phone.

[Music]

Part 2: Graphic designer shows what sports pages look like with men removed

California inmate firefighters

Guest: Brandon Smith

CH: Fires continue to ravage California, Oregon, and other parts of the western United States this week. And in many of the communities under threat, people willing to fight those fires are in increasingly short supply. That's despite the fact that California is home to thousands of people with ample firefighting experience, many of whom would be happy to do the job: former inmates. For years, men and women who fought fires while they were incarcerated have had a tough time finding similar work after their release. But a new law promises to change that. And Brandon Smith says it's a step in the right direction. He's a former inmate firefighter turned professional who now runs California's forestry and fire recruitment program. We reached him in Los Angeles.

CO: Brandon, how much of a victory was it to see this bill get passed?

BRANDON SMITH: I believe it was a great victory for Californians. You know, California is currently, like the rest of the western United States, in a dire place right now where we're basically out of firefighters. So this would be a great step to increase the labour force.

CO: If you just can briefly explain it to us, what will this do for people like yourself? I know you're advanced in this. But for those inmates who have been fighting fires, who are experienced at it while they were incarcerated, what changes for them now?

BS: Right. So now it provides a glimmer of hope for people that they can attain these jobs and that the state is saying that they are worthy of these jobs. When folks are incarcerated, utilize the firefighters, it's commonly thought of this is going to be a story that like I'll tell my children or my grandchildren one day. But now the state is actually saying that it is a possibility to become a firefighter. So the first thing is inspiration. And the second thing that it really does is it provides the start of a pathway for people to expunge the crime that sent them to fire camp, because to be an incarcerated firefighter, you have to be what's considered a low level offender. And so what this does is it acknowledges that this group of people can transition over professionally in the space. Lastly, one of the biggest challenges we have is that people are on probation or parole for periods of 13 months, three years or five years. And one of the challenges is if you are on probation or parole, you have a limited radius of how far you can travel. Down here it's normally around like 50 miles. I apologize I don't know that in kilometres. But now what this bill actually does is it allows local governments, judges, courts, probation, and parole officers to commute or reduce someone's probation or parole if they operate in a fire training program or if they get a conditional job offer from a fire agency.

CO: How many inmates are working as firefighters?

BS: Yes. So currently in California right now, there are 2,500 people in the state of California who are currently incarcerated working as firefighters. Before COVID, before the release of incarcerated people, and for like the past 10 years, that number averaged 9000 people a year, which is a large percentage of the state's firefighting force.

CO: And are those firefighters, are they mixed in with the other firefighters or are they separate crews?

BS: So they work independently on separate fire crews. But while incarcerated as a firefighter, you are working side by side with, "professional firefighters." So when I was working, leading my crew of 20 people who were currently incarcerated, I was also working alongside fire engines, dozers, other crews, people who were not incarcerated.

CO: And how much training do those inmate firefighters get?

BS: We received a great amount of training. I would actually argue that those incarcerated as firefighters receive more training than an entry level firefighter in California. So while I was getting trained, I spent six months getting trained in wildland firefighting. I had to get myself physically ready. So I was going through physical training, what we call PTs. I was doing in class training where I had to go read all the books and learn the materials about fire, become what we call the student of fire. And then I also got on-the-job experience before my first fires. So like we were doing was called prescribed burns or burning in the winter. So when it came time to my first fire, I already had six months of experience and I was ready to go compare to somebody professionally at an entry level where that training would probably take about one month or two months, I got trained for six months.

CO: And so how many years were you fighting fires as an inmate?

BS: So while incarcerated, I did it for two and a half years. Fire season in California, sadly, is not only just a summer thing now or July to November thing, it's year round. So I fought fires while incarcerated for two and a half years and then I transitioned professionally with the U.S. Forest Service. And I did it for an additional three years.

CO: You've already said but it's worth repeating, that nobody can even get into the firefighting program if they have violent felonies like murder or kidnaping or sex offenses. And that's already baked into this. And yet the District Attorney's Association of California has said that they don't like this bill, they say it it goes too far to expunge people's records, and it's not safe. What's your response?

BS: So I understand that there is a public perception around this issue. I understand how the public can view someone like myself and consider me a public nuisance being somebody previously incarcerated or charged with a felony, and now converting 180 degrees into a space of public safety. In America, firefighters are the most respected position in the whole country -- above our current executive, above police officers. Regardless of your political beliefs, everyone loves and supports the firefighters. So coming from a space of being considered a public nuisance, transitioning over to be a public servant can be sometimes hard for people to think about. And I understand how the public can be concerned about this group of people being out here in their homes while they're being evacuated and all that kind of stuff. And the fears that they may have. But as an eye opener, we've already been there. We're still there. So while there is a public concern about, oh, we don't want these people to be firefighters, when folks go evacuate their houses, it's the incarcerated people who are protecting their houses. When it's flooding or the fire is about to come and burn like we're the ones helping out in that space. So we're already in that space. Just give us a chance. And I understand lastly that this is not for everyone. To be a firefighter, it is a way of life. And it takes standards of virtue that regardless of your background, that you have to meet. So just give us the chance.

CO: Brandon, on that note, I'm going to leave it. And I really appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

BS: Oh thank you all so much. I appreciate you all talking about this.

CH: Brandon Smith is the executive director of the Forestry and Fire Recruitment Program in California. He's in Los Angeles.

[Music]

Tamika Mallory

CH: Breonna Taylor's family says they're still looking for justice. But today they got something. Louisville Mayor Greg Fisher announced the city will pay the family a 12 million dollar wrongful death settlement. And he promised police reforms. Ms. Taylor was killed by police who entered her home on a controversial no-knock warrant in March. The city has since banned those warrants and has vowed to make further changes. But at a press conference in response to today's settlement, the family and its advocates made it clear there's one thing they still want above all. Tamika Mallory is a civil rights activist with the social justice group Until Freedom. She was invited to speak today by Breonna Taylor's mother, Tamika Palmer.

TAMIKA MALLORY: The significance of this settlement is a small price to pay for our sister's life. A very small price to pay. They deserve all the money that we can muster up in the world just to help a little bit with the feeling of pain and turmoil that I know exists within this beautiful family. But let us not lose sight on the main focus as Tamika Palmer has said. The officers: Brett Hankinson, Myles Cosgrove, John Mattingly, and Joshua Jaynes must be arrested. We cannot forget about Joshua Jaynes, the man who lied on a no knock warrant application that sent police officers charging in to the home of Breonna Taylor and Kenny Walker. We cannot forget about any of those officers. And if this police department is to do right by this community, if you know of other officers who were involved, they should be arrested and indicted immediately. Again, the restitution portion is one part. But arresting the officers is what will make this city do right by its citizens. And not just Breonna Taylor, but all the Breonna Taylors across the city who are afraid sitting in their homes, because to not have an indictment happen in this city is to say that no matter how much we pay, no matter how much reform we do, we rather pay, we rather cover it than to deal with the issue. And so I have to say to you Mayor Fisher, we want to thank you for your leadership. But we want to say that if for any reason these officers are not indicted that you must structure your police department to fire every single one of them on the spot. That is called getting justice for Breonna Taylor.

CH: Tamika Mallory is an advocate for the family of Breonna Taylor. She alleges that police lied when they obtained the no-knock warrant they used to enter Ms. Taylor's home before shooting her, and is calling for the arrests of all the officers involved. Today, Louisville Mayor Greg Fisher announced a 12 million dollar civil settlement will be paid to Ms. Taylor's family.

[Music]

Women's sports ignored

Guest: Katherine Burgess

CH: Katherine Burgess has been a runner since high school. She's loved women's sports for years. But for years she's also noticed that women's sports get nowhere near the love that men's sports do when it comes to media coverage. So she set out to see just how big a difference there really was. Each day last week, Ms. Burgess, who is a graphic designer, took the sports page of the New York Times and cut out all the coverage that was about men leaving only the coverage of women's sports. Then she posted the pictures on her Instagram, and those pictures are stark. We reached Katherine Burgess in Pittsburgh.

CO: Katherine, what gave you the idea to do this, to eliminate the coverage of men's sports from the New York Times' front page of a sports section?

KATHERINE BURGESS: I've been following the women's sports coverage on the Keeping Track media podcast for some time now. And a couple of months ago, I heard a statistic that said only four percent of these athletics coverage goes towards women. The other 96 percent goes towards men. And that wasn't exactly shocking to me because I grew up as a woman and I didn't see people that looked like me in the media. However, it was still kind of hard to comprehend reason being, I think, just because there's so much media out there that you kind of lose track of it. That's why I decided to physically cut out the men's section to see how little there truly was left remaining.

CO: What did you do? You just took an x-acto knife and has carved out these stories about men?

KB: Yes, that's exactly it.

CO: Okay. And so what did it look like when you got finished cutting up the paper?

KB: Very gutted. Actually, I have a big pile of them right now of the seven pages, and it kind of looks like newspaper shredding leftovers almost just because there's so many little thin shreds.

CO: In fact, you would know what it is because of what's left. There really isn't anything left.

KB: Yeah. And that's why I had to, like, kind of constantly remind myself, oh, I need to, like, give context in the caption so people know what they're looking at because there's not much left.

CO: Okay. Over a period of a week when you were doing this, there were a couple of spectacular times when there was actually coverage. When we do see stories about women in sports, who are they featuring?

KB: Well, this week the U.S. Open was going on with tennis. So there was a lot of coverage with women's tennis that was featured on the front page. And it was awesome. It was very empowering and with it that's why I wanted to cover it for a week, because I knew that just one day in sports wouldn't show a true story. I wanted to follow it for a week to see if there's any patterns emerging.

CO: And of course, great pictures of Serena Williams and she's so photogenic, so it's just fun to see her. But that's the only coverage, right?

KB: Yes. It was mainly Serena for the coverage this week.

CO: Is it possible that because there are a lot of sports events that are cancelled because of the pandemic, is it possible there just were very few things that could have been covered in women's sports in that week?

KB: It is definitely possible. For me, I think what the shocker was that started the project is I'm really big into the running and track and field community. They've been putting on a lot of closed small races with professionals, a tight knit field. And I'm trying to remember there's been countless national and world records that have been broken during a pandemic of all times of track and field. So the lack of proper training facilities and fans in the crowd hasn't stopped records being broken. Yeah, I was kind of shocked to not see the coverage on that when I opened up the Times.

CO: Okay. So we've eliminated that as a possible explanation. So what kind of response have you had to these Instagram postings you've put up?

KB: I had a lot of people reaching out and sharing. There's a lot of men who were high school coaches or gender studies professors, who wanted to reach out and see how to help out and play a hand in helping change the dynamic and landscape of athletics because they want to see an improvement as well.

CO: And you had, I guess, the Olympic runner, Molly Huddle, actually reach out to you about this project. What did she say?

KB: Yeah. Molly, she's been a part of this project from the very beginning. My agency is working with her on this issue. This project started out as kind of a brainstorming session to reach that, which it's very fun at the brainstorming session did so well. But one thing that she was talking about is the importance of something as big and grand like the New York Times for it to give a fair coverage to women, because it's like the last frontier and it would help legitimize female sports.

CO: And yourself, you are an athlete, you're a runner. What does it mean to you? How do you feel when you open up the sports section and see so few female athletes in those pages?

KB: Yeah. Growing up as a female athlete, I definitely at times just felt like I didn't have a position in athletics for me when I got older. And I think there being more coverage of sports and more sports writers, photographers, coaches and everything else just holistically, I think that would help the future generation of female athletes a lot. There was a study done by Ernst and Young that surveyed 800 female executives and it found that 90 percent of them played sports growing up. And the survey has been done over and over at different places, and they found that the women in leadership positions most likely did grow up playing sports.

CO: Very interesting. Have you had any response from the New York Times?

KB: Not from the Times itself, however. There have been differing reporters and journalists from different magazines and papers following the story. I can't remember off the top of my head any of them were from the Times.

CO: So there's no New York Times editor who has contacted review or said anything like, "Yeah, maybe we can do better?"

KB: Not yet. But it's only, I think, like day eight or nine since it started. It's very new.

CO: And what are you going to do now? Do you have another part of this project?

KB: Yeah, I definitely want to keep expanding on it. For my agency, we're looking to hopefully expand upon it and create maybe a short documentary style video explaining the issue and spreading awareness. I think next, I would really like to dive in to TV like maybe take an hour broadcast of sports news, take out all of the commercials and coverage on men and see how many minutes is left.

CO: [Chuckles] I think it would be a lot of dead air.

KB: Hopefully not. Yeah. [Chuckles]

CO: Katherine good work. And I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

KB: Thank you, you too.

CH: Katherine Burgess cut out all the coverage of men's sports from the New York Times for a week to show how little coverage is given to women's sports. We reached her in Pittsburgh. And you can see Ms. Burgess's photos of those sports pages on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Asbestos

CH: Trois-Lacs has a nice ring to it, but so does Welcome to Jeffrey. Or next stop Apalone. Then again, season's greetings from Phenix is hard to top. It'll be a tough decision, but the residents of Asbestos, Quebec agree that it's time for a new name. Last year, the small mining town decided to rebrand, to move away from the hazardous mineral that used to drive the local economy. So the town council announced a shortlist of new names for residents to vote on: Trois-Lacs -- the name of an old municipality, Jeffrey -- the name of the city's first asbestos miner, Apalone -- an endangered turtle, and finally, Phenix -- as in the mythical bird that's reborn from ashes. Seems like an obvious choice. But whatever happens, Yan St-Hilaire will probably be happy. Last year, Carol spoke with the co-owner of the local Moulins 7 microbrewery about why he welcomed a new name.

CO: Yan why is it now time to get rid of the name of your town Asbestos?

YAN ST-HILAIRE: Yeah. In the past we got a great year in the mine. Asbestos found that the fiber was called the white gold and everything was going really well. But in the past years, the perception of asbestos has changed, and the mine has closed, and all be economic stuff in Asbestos doesn't depend on this industry anymore. And the perception of people of asbestos has gone bad.

CO: [Chuckles] Yes I would say that.

YAN ST-HILAIRE: In the mind of the people asbestos means cancer. It's like whether you agree or not it is that. We have to face the truth. We are really really proud of what we've been through. It was born because of the mine of asbestos -- there was no town here before. But now I think it's time to go in a positive way. Change the mind shift for people and the economy here. It's very important. It has a big impact -- the name of our town. But I saw in social media that people ask -- they ask to make suggestions for Asbestos (re)naming. Some have just pointed "Cancerville" -- "Cancertown." So they know the perception of the asbestos is not good.

CO: Now your own brewery there -- you've used a name...it is called Moulin 7. That's a reference to the mine, isn't it?

YAN ST-HILAIRE: Yeah, it's a reference of the mine. All the building that they were working since the opening of the mine in 1880-something. And there was some Moulin -- so Moulin 1, Moulin 2 -- Moulin 3, 4, 5, 6. And they closed at Moulin 6. So that's why we have called our business Moulin 7 because like I said we are really proud of our story. We have to remember that the town exists just because of the mining. We cannot deny that. We are proud. We are not shy. And we are really proud to continue to craft beer -- to get inspired from our town. That's the story. It will not change. It will continue even if we change the name. We need to remember the past, but we need to look forward to a better future.

CH: From 2019, Carol speaking with Yan St-Hilaire co-owner of the Moulins 7 microbrewery in Asbestos, Quebec. Yesterday, the town council in Asbestos released a short list of new town names for residents to vote on.

[Music]

Part 3: The Taliban can no longer ignore women's rights, says Afghan peace talks delegate

Afghanistan peace talks

Guest: Habiba Sarabi

CH: It was a historic moment years in the making. This weekend, representatives of the Taliban and the Afghan government came together to begin negotiating peace. After decades of war, the two sides met in Doha to start hammering out a deal to put an end to the bloodshed. But it will not be easy. Among the most contentious issues is women's rights. Under Taliban rule, women's lives were extremely restricted. They could not go to school or for the most part, work. Habiba Sarabi is a former Afghan provincial governor and one of the four female delegates at the talks. We reached her in Doha, Qatar.

CO: Mr. Sarabi, what was it like to sit down in the same room with the Taliban to talk peace?

HABIBA SARABI: Actually, it is not the first time for me because I have sat with them before -- first time in Moscow and the second time in Doha -- Intra-Afghan dialog. So this is the third time. But the first time was a little bit strange for me. But anyway, it was good. They welcomed me. So he was charming. He was smiling and greeting. So this is something that's breaking the ice.

CO: The Taliban leaders were asked by some journalists why they had no women among their own delegates. Why do you think that's the case? Why did they have no women?

HS: Actually, this is the same question that I asked him in Moscow. And he told me that I'll be the representative of women and their delegation as well. The meaning of this, why they don't have any women in their delegation meeting is that they don't believe to women's rights -- that women be equal to them, to sit at the table and talk. So sometimes even at the lobby or corridor somewhere when and some of them, of course, not all of them -- some of them, even when we go in to say hello to them or Salaam, they're kind of ignoring that there is a woman to talk with them. Or I have seen some of the other lady wanted to go to say hello to them, but they wanted to turn their face and ignore. It means that their behaviour towards women is quite different.

CO: The Taliban say that they do respect women's rights, but that any rights for women must be part of Islamic law, that they can't be in conflict with how they interpret Islamic law. What do you think that's going to mean?

HS: Yes. Sure, sure. This is something that we want a clear interpretation from them. This is something in the future we have to go into detail. What does it mean that for Islamic law? Because every country has its own interpretation. We have Islamic country around the world: Malaysia, Turkey, like Iran and Pakistan and several others. Even in Pakistan they have been growing -- stay in Pakistan -- but you can see Pakistani women they are so prominent and there are women activist in Pakistan, human rights activists, and journalists and filmmakers and singer and so many others. So how they can ignore that and how they cannot see all the activity of these women.

CO: We know what it would be to have the Taliban as the government. We saw what happened in 1996 when the Taliban did take power. What was it like to live in Afghanistan under the Taliban for you?

HS: Oh, it was very tough. Remembering that time, it's difficult for me. In 1996, when the Taliban captured Kabul, I couldn't stay in Kabul because my daughter was in the seventh grade. I have one daughter and two sons. But they stayed at home and they couldn't go to school. So I took my children and went to Peshawar in Pakistan and they went to school. My daughter now has got two master degrees. So this is the situation. The situation has been changed a lot. This is the new Afghanistan and the new generation with a lot of hope and higher education and a different view. So this is the new Afghanistan. And of course, remembering the past, it is harsh and it is very difficult and tough, but we don't have any other choice. We have to sit together to talk, to find a solution for this long conflict in Afghanistan.

CO: Is there any reason to believe that the Taliban has changed at all since the time it had power in Afghanistan?

HS: From my point of view, their mentality they haven't been changed. But some of them they recognize that the world has been changed and the situation has been changed so they cannot stay or govern without the support of international community, without any relation with international community. We have to have contact and connection and network. So this is something that they have to understand.

CO: Among your delegation is Hawzia Koofi. We spoke with her just a few weeks ago after someone tried to kill her and she has her arm in a cast as she attends these talks. But we can see from her what a threat it is for women to have a voice in Afghanistan. Do you think that it's possible that you and the other women can influence how these talks go?

HS: Sure. We are here because we want to have our voice. We want to convey the voice of Afghan women. Fawzia Koofi is here to show that even as someone wanted to kill her, they shot at her. Of course, she will not forget that. But she is here to forgive. Things could have happened in the past, and we have to go for a new future -- our bright future.

CO: You know that since 9/11, since the war began in the fall of 2001, that there have been more than 150,000 Afghans killed, about a third of those being civilians. We know that so many people have left your country, so much suffering is going on. Do you worry because of that, that people will say, let's just go along with the Taliban, let's sacrifice some of these things like women's rights in order just to get an agreement with them to stop the killing?

HS: Oh no, I don't think so. Because all of the people want peace, but of course, why a woman should sacrifice always? We're there to sacrifice? No. And fortunately, the delegation, the whole team, they stand with us and they say that we have to protect the women's rights.

CO: We will leave it there. Ms. Sarabi I appreciate speaking with you tonight. Thank you.

HS: Thank you. Thank you so much.

CH: Habiba Sarabi is a former Afghan provincial governor and one of four female delegates at the Afghanistan peace talks. She was in Doha, Qatar. And you can find more on the story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Rare Diamond

Guest: Reena Ahluwalia

CH: It was discovered at the Victor mine in northern Ontario a couple of years ago. Now, the diamond could fetch tens of millions of dollars at an auction at Sotheby's. It is a 102-carat diamond. And according to the head of the jewelry department at the auction house in New York, diamonds over 100-carats of this quality are extremely rare. Online bidding begins today. And in early October, there will be a live auction in Hong Kong. Sotheby's is not disclosing the owner of the diamond. Reena Ahluwalia is a jewelry designer and a part time professor of jewelry at George Brown College in Toronto. That's where we reached her.

CO: Reena can you give us an idea how big is a 102-carat diamond?

REENA AHLUWALIA: Wow. It's colossal. [Chuckles] It's a colossal Canadian geological masterpiece. It is really large. To put it in context, there are only seven such diamonds that are over 100 carats that ever appeared or sold at auction.

CO: And this is not an unfinished diamond. This is a cut diamond. And that's the size of it. But how big was it before it was shaped?

RA: So it was a rough diamond of 217-carats. So after it was polished, it became 102.39-carat diamond.

CO: And besides being really big, what makes it so special?

RA: It's a diamond from our backyard. It's a Canadian diamond. And it was discovered in Victor mine in Ontario in 2018. It is 102.39-carat, it is decolour, a flawless oval diamond. And it is a Type IIA diamond -- that means that is the most valued and the purest type of diamond.

CO: Now, who would buy it? I mean, it may go up to as much as 30 million dollars US? This is not something you can set into a ring. Who would want a diamond like this?

RA: You know, larger diamonds such as this diamond, they don't come up in auction so often. So there are investors, very wealthy folks who could buy it as an investment piece or somebody could buy it for purely sentimental and emotional reason, because after all it's a diamond and perhaps if not a ring, it could make a stunning necklace.

CO: And these kinds of diamonds, who owns them and who buys these? I mean, we figure, it could be the one of the most coveted and expensive diamonds in the world, but there are others. Who owns those diamonds?

RA: So some of the most coveted diamonds in the world can be seen in historic collections. Well, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and the British royal family own really incredibly beautiful diamonds such as the Cullinan diamond, and that's also a Type IIA diamond. Then you have really wealthy folks, for example, a Chinese billionaire, Joseph Lau, who bought a diamond called the Moon of Josephine at auction.

CO: And that Moon of Josephine bought by Joseph Lau, he bought it for 64 million dollars US and apparently bought it for his daughter, Josephine.

RA: That's right.

CO: You mentioned for you it's special because it's from, as you said, our backyard and this comes from the Victor Mine, which is near Attawapiskat. And this is a Cree community. It's based in Cree community that is very poor and has a severe housing crisis. What do the people of the area around the Victor Mine, how did they benefit from any of this?

RA: When the Victor mine was developed by De Beers' -- the mine and the people of Attawapiskat, you know, signed an agreement so that certain percentage of the benefits will come back to the community. So in terms of housing development and, you know, other kind of facilities.

CO: But if one diamond is ultimately worth about 30 million dollars, there is still even as this mine closes down, that housing crisis still exists in Attawapiskat.

RA: Yes. And, Carol, I might not be the right person to kind of comment on that, because I think it is more of a, you know, as a government and mine and the governance of the Attawapiskat community that have agreements, so I might not be the right person to answer it.

CO: No, I appreciate that. You deal with gems and with jewelry and so on.

RA: The artistic side of it, yeah.

CO: But again, I guess it was just because you felt that it was a point of pride that this should come from this area when it seems like when you juxtapose that the tremendous opulence of this diamond and the people who can buy it with the place that it comes from.

RA: But I have a very interesting story to tell you, Carol. And to relate the story and why I feel that pride. You know, when Victor Mine opened in 2008, I was invited by the Ontario legislature to design a diamond setting to mount Ontario's first diamonds in the historic mace of Ontario. Now, the Ontario mace is a historic piece because, you know, it opens and closes our legislature. And the whole project, once it was complete, it was donated to the people of Ontario. So it was, you know, a big privilege for me and more so, you know, as an immigrant to Canada.

CO: Do you have any idea -- are you speculating as to how much this diamond is going to fetch at auction?

RA: Well, your guess is as good as mine here. [Chuckles] But I would think -- I hope that it brings in and it sells at a very good price. And I say that because, you know, it's still a rare piece of our Canadian geological history. And diamonds are all about light and potential, you know, and dreams. So I think our world can use a bit of Canadian light, don't you think? Positive and bright.

CO: Reena I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

RA: Thank you so much Carol.

CH: Reena Ahluwalia is a jewelry designer in Toronto. That's where we reached her.

[Music]

BIPOC federal court

Guest: Anthony Navaneelan

CH: Canada's Bar Association is pretty diverse, and the clients its members represent are hugely diverse. But the men and women who hear those cases are not diverse at all. 42 of the 44 judges on Canada's federal bench are White. And the lawyers who appear before them say it's time for their appearance to change. This week, 36 bar associations, legal clinics, and advocacy groups sent a letter to Justice Minister David Lametti, arguing that Canada's federal judges need to look more like Canada. Anthony Navaneelan is the vice president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. He helped draft the letter. We reached him in Toronto.

CO: Mr. Navaneelan we know that Canada's federal judiciary is White. That's a well-established reality and has been for some time. Why are you submitting this letter now?

ANTHONY NAVANEELAN: It's honestly the letter we should've sent a long time ago. And I think we were stuck a bit in our own inertia about what the federal court looks like, in particular, what a federal court judge looks like. But over the summer, especially with the focus now on systemic racism and systemic inequality, it was really the kind of shot in the arm we needed as an organization to look around in our own backyard and realize, you know, we have our own problems here in particular in who's sitting on the federal court and whether they're reflecting the public they serve and the people who come before them. And certainly the answer to those questions is no.

CO: Can you describe what you have seen is the effect of that? What is the problem with that the fact that the bench is White and the people appearing before them are not?

AN: I mean, there's a number of concerns. One is that as lawyers going before the court, of course, the number one thing you're there to do is to show your client is right on the law. But when the judge comes from a completely different background from your client, doesn't share any of those same experiences, you're also creating a double burden of trying to have to translate for them their experiences translate for them your client's behaviour, your client's conduct to help understand culturally where that's coming from, historically where that's coming from. You know, the other thing, of course, people think, well, judging is so simple -- you know, you just apply the law, why does it matter who's on the bench? And really, though, the law is written in very ambiguous, very vague terms, words and phrases like 'in the interests of justice' or 'reasonable in the circumstances' -- those words require a normative content to be poured into them to know what they mean. And you can't help bring your own biases, your own perspectives, your own experiences when trying to interpret what does in the interests of justice mean. So it does matter who's up on that bench and it does matter, you know, where they're coming from when they answer those questions.

CO: Do you have an example -- just to illustrate what you're talking about?

AN: Sure. I had one case of a young Pakistani woman, 19 years old, trying to stop deportation to Pakistan, and she was facing family violence in one city. And the judge says, well, why can't she just go live in Karachi, the capital? And, you know, it took a moment to realize, you know, of course outside the west 19 year old women do not live alone in capital cities by themselves. I looked up there, and thought wow this judge just doesn't understand how Pakistan works -- I'm going to really start from scratch here. So it's those kinds of moments that catch you off guard and you really realize, you know, it does matter who's up there and who's making those calls and, you know, how many cases do they not have a good advocate who's able to translate or contextualize their case for the judge.

CO: But someone who is Black or a person of colour does not necessarily mean that they will understand the backgrounds of those who appear before them?

AN: Not always. There's no guarantee. But certainly it helps. You know, you got to imagine the federal court, more than two thirds of their docket is immigration, refugee and Indigenous law cases. And yet there's only two persons of colour or Indigenous judges on the court. Put that in any other context. Like, imagine a court where two thirds of the clients were women appearing before the court and the entire bench was male. No matter how well those judges work, no matter how much they're concerned with justice, they're going to miss things. They're not going to be able to understand the issues fully. They're going to have to put themselves in the shoes of the applicants. It's no different when it comes to Black, Indigenous, and persons of colour. So no. Change the base of the bench doesn't guarantee justice, but it certainly puts us on a better track towards it.

CO: Can you just briefly outline what you are asking for? What are you wanting the federal government to do to address this inequality?

AN: On the federal court right now, there are currently six vacancies on that court and we're asking the minister of justice to fill those vacancies with judges who are Black, Indigenous, or persons of colour. That's a really simple ask because this judicial advisory committees, the ones that screen judicial applicants, last year approved 17 people and recommended them for judicial postings, but only six of them were actually appointed by the Liberal government. So that's a really easy and quick thing the minister of justice can do to make real impactful change on this issue.

CO: One of the things you're calling for, I understand, is a reassessment of the bilingual requirements for a federal judge. Why would that make a difference?

AN: So there is a lot of anecdotal and even personal evidence that persons of colour in Canada are finding the bilingualism requirement to be a barrier to access to positions like judgeships. So, of course, you know, we think French English bilingualism is a core value of the federal court, it's a pillar of the court. And the court needs to have a very strong roster of bilingual judges. But the concern now is the idea that if every judge has to be bilingual, is that cancelling out other types of diversities that are also equally important? Even sticking with the example of bilingualism, yes, having judges speaks English and French is very important. But perhaps having a judge who speaks English and an Indigenous language is another type of bilingualism that right now gets virtually no credit.

CO: The government, the federal government, in its defense says it's already been making progress in this regard and that of 64 new federal and provincial judges appointed by the federal government, made since December, more than half have been women, three percent have been Indigenous, 19 percent have been visible minorities. So is that encouraging progress?

AN: It's encouraging. But we have to remember, right now 27 percent of Canadians identify as Black, Indigenous or persons of colour. In fact, that stat is from 2016 from the last census -- it's probably higher now. So telling us now what we're up to 20 percent is actually not moving us closer to where we need to be. We're still behind the curve on it. Also, those diverse appointments that the federal government is pointing out are to provincial superior courts and provincial courts of appeal. Our letter is specifically addressed, the federal courts, Federal Court of Appeal, Supreme Court. They've not appointed a BIPOC justice to the federal courts since 2017. The Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court remain all White benches. So we are not seeing movement in the federal court system.

CO: We've heard from the justice minister David Lametti's office, a spokesperson who says that they are committed to having a judiciary that looks more like Canada. Do you think that's all talk? Do you think that they'll act on it?

AN: Well, if it is talk, it's big talk. Of course, because the prime minister included Minister Lametti's mandate letter in 2019. It's something we know the government believes. It's something they do want. But of course, words only count for so much. And the time has come for action. So we really believe that when Minister Lametti has that power right now, if there is big talk, it's time to walk the talk.

CO: All right. And we'll be watching. Mr. Navaneelan thank you.

CO: Thank you so much.

CH: Anthony Navaneelan is the vice president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. He's in Toronto.

[Music]

Bus Service

CH: A school board in northern Virginia could be turning the COVID-19 pandemic into an opportunity to teach by example. Instead, the example that Fairfax County Public Schools seems to be setting is that sometimes instead of figuring out how to do a good job well, it's easier just to go through the motions. It has to do with the board's school bus drivers. Their usual services are not in demand right now because the virus is keeping kids at home. But rather than do the work of finding them something else to do, the board appears to have gone through the motions of making a decision instead, and those motions have led them to the conclusion that at least some school bus drivers should spend the rest of the pandemic going through the motions of driving children to school. The Washington Post has gotten hold of an email in which the board orders drivers to drive their regular routes at least twice a week, only without picking up or dropping off a single student. I guess that counts as practice, but I doubt it's making anything perfect. Instead of putting the brakes on all that unnecessary bus driving, the Fairfax County Public School Board has become a perpetual motions machine.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

September 15, 2020 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This