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 AIH Transcript for May 01, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

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

[Music: Theme]

Prologue

JD: Tonight:

CO: The loneliness of the 800-metre runner. South African athlete Caster Semenya loses her appeal — and now, if she wants to compete, she'll have to take medication to reduce her testosterone.

JD: The cure was worse than the disease. Eight former Canadian soldiers sue the government over an anti-malaria drug they say caused serious side effects that they're still struggling with.

CO: Aiming for checkmate, getting stalemate. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is unfazed by the "final phase" of Juan Guaido's attempt to replace him. Now, no one's sure what happens next.

JD: The unsilent treatment. In a new documentary, three Punjabi sisters go public with the story of being sexually abused by a family member — then banding together to take their abuser to court.

CO: Buzz-in kill. One contestant has won more than a million bucks so far by giving answers in the form of questions — but critics think James Holzhauser is a menace to "Jeopardy".

JD: And...in other words, it's beautiful. A high school on Cape Breton reinvents a Beatles classic by performing it in the Mi'kmaq. Tonight, we'll speak with those behind that transformative translation.

JD: "As It Happens", the Wednesday edition. Radio that finds they were only waiting for this moment to rewrite.

[Music: Theme]

Part one: Caster Semenya ruling, Venezuela follow-up, Mi’kmaq ‘Blackbird’

Caster Semenya ruling

Guest: Sharron Davies

JD: Caster Semenya is known for winning. But today, she lost a landmark appeal. The 2-time Olympic champion had challenged new rules by the International Association of Athletics Federations that limit testosterone levels for women competing in races ranging from 400 metres to 1 mile. In a 2-to-1 decision, the Court of Arbitration for Sport said the proposed rules are discriminatory — but that, quote, "such discrimination is a necessary, reasonable and proportionate means" of "preserving the integrity of female athletics." Unquote. Sharron Davies is a former Olympic swimmer who supports the ruling. We reached Ms. Davies in Bath, England.

CO: Ms. Davies, why do you support the decision to uphold rules that limit testosterone levels for female runners?

SHARRON DAVIES: I'm just very pleased with the result today. I mean I'm very much an advocate for female sport, and by female sport, I mean people that carry the XX chromosome, not the XY chromosome. Because the moment you're carrying a Y chromosome, you go through male puberty, you have all of the advantages of a bigger heart, of more red blood cell count, a better ability to grow muscle, to retain that muscle, to have muscle memory. So there is a huge advantage to the Y chromosome. And as it was shown today, Caster Semenya has that Y chromosome and has those advantages.

CO: Sorry, how is it shown that she has the Y chromosome?

SD: Oh, it's been very well-documented. And it was in the Cas report. So it's all there in black and white. And ultimately, you know this comes from the fact that when she was young, she was visually diagnosed as female. And so therefore, she spent her young life as a girl. And she moved into sport as a girl. But when she was 18 years of age, the IAAF were aware of her condition.

CO: But she — we're calling her she because she identifies as a woman — and well… she's a woman, right?

SD: She is a woman, but she's not a female. So that's my point. My point is that sport should have a category that's protected for female. Because otherwise, in ten years, time, all the world records in the men's events will be held by men, and all the world records in the women's events will be held by people with a Y chromosome.

CO: But they're not saying that she can't compete as a woman. She's cleared to compete as a woman.

SD: Absolutely, absolutely. And that's her choice. So to be able compete as a woman, she needs to reduce her testosterone levels. So she is left now with a choice as to whether she would like to do that, or whether she doesn't want to do that. And that's totally up to her. You know and I have no problem with the way the Cas have obviously presented their case today, and withheld you know the IAAF’s action. But ultimately, long-term, I still would like to see female sport protected. Because otherwise, young women are just not going to get the same equal opportunities.

CO: But how different is this advantage that you're describing? How different is it than the advantage of height or lung capacity?

SD: The advantage is huge. So if you look at the results of male and female elite competition, on the whole it's between 8 and 12 per cent. And in some events like powerlifting, it's 20 per cent. Now, if you look at how dominant Michael Phelps was in the world of swimming — swimming being obviously my sport — he was less than a quarter of a per cent better than the next male athlete. Now, you're saying that it's okay for people with male biology to race in women's events with a potential advantage of 12 per cent, which means we cannot live with them.

CO: Does this mean that Caster Semenya is going to have to take drugs — hormones — in order to reduce those testosterone levels?

SD: Only if she wants to compete in female events. No one is saying she has to take them.

[crosstalk]

CO: If she wants to compete, she has to.

SD: If she wants to compete with other females, where she has a biological advantage, then she is being asked to reduce her testosterone levels. But nobody is insisting that she takes those drugs. She is perfectly capable and able, if she wishes to, to have a normal level of testosterone for an XY individual, and race with other XY athletes.

CO: How would you feel if you were confronted with that choice? What would you do if you were faced with the same thing?

SD: Carol, I'm sorry, you keep asking me the same question, and I'm going to keep giving you the same answer. No one is saying she can't be involved in sport…

[crosstalk]

CO: But she has to take a drug.

SD: We’re just saying that it needs to be a level playing field. And I do know exactly how it feels because I swam 20 years against East Germans. And at no stage did I decide that I was going to take testosterone so that I could beat them — even though they were full of testosterone.

CO: Because you knew you didn't want to have these drugs in your system.

SD: No, because I didn't want to cheat. I wanted to actually compete on a level playing field with the rest of the females in that race. And so we were vocal continually for years and years and years that the East Germans were being fed very nasty, old-fashioned steroids and testosterone, which was giving them an unfair advantage. And very little was done. And I don't want a whole generation like my generation to suffer with those losses.

CO: But Caster Semenya has natural high.

SD: No, she doesn't have a natural testosterone level. She has a testosterone level that's equivalent to an XY individual, which is what she is.

CO: But it's not artificial. It is her own testosterone level.

SD: Because she is a biological male.

CO: But she's competing as a woman. she's accepted to compete as a woman.

SD: Exactly.

CO: And so you're saying there's no other option for her…

[crosstalk]

SD: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that maybe we ought to discuss these things openly without people calling everybody names, without everybody getting horrible. We need to be open and honest, and we need to use science, and we need to use research, and we need to use biology because sport is very effective by biology. This isn't about working in a shop or what you choose to wear when you go out of an evening. This is about something which is incredibly affected by biology. But maybe there needs to be an extremely good discussion about should we create other categories? Should we protect an XX category — a female category? Have an open category, or maybe have a separate category? I'm not suggesting that we all have the correct answers at the moment. But I am suggesting that we need to talk about these things. And not PC crazy about this because it has to be fair going forward for female sports.

CO: Okay, not being PC crazy about this. But I just want to point out with Madeleine Pape said, who's a former runner who competed against, and lost to, Caster Semenya a decade ago. And she said it was unfair at the time. And now, what she’s saying is that she believes this is an outdated and indefensible position and the one that did the sports body has taken. That she says that it's the 21st century, and we know that sex is not binary. And shouldn't sports bodies be trying to be more inclusive?

SD: But sex is binary. Gender isn't binary. Gender it is fluid. But sex is binary. Ninety-nine-point-nine-eight per cent of the whole world fits into a binary category. So I'm very sorry, but I totally and utterly dispute that. And if you speak to any science doctor, they will also agree with you. Sex at the moment — the sex that you're born with, and the chromosomes that you are born with — will stay with you for the rest of your life. They will not change no matter what you do, no matter what hormones you do, it will not change. That is binary.

CO: Okay, but are you not suggesting to have another division — another class — for Trans and Intersex athletes?

SD: Yeah, I think maybe that's an option. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying let's have a conversation. Let's have open and honest debate. Let's have proper research. Because at the moment, the research has not been done properly, and women's sport is almost being used as a live experiment. And that's something that I disagree with as well. Because we just don't have the back research. So we need to do that too. But let's have open, inclusive ways of going forward where everybody can be offered a fair and level as we can possibly get the playing field. And if that means creating an extra category then let's do it. I'm so for that. I'm just out there for you know asking for open debate. And that's all.

CO: So Caster Semenya should be able to compete, but not against women like you?

SD: If she wishes to compete in the female race, she will need to reduce her testosterone. if she wants to compete in a race with other male bodies that are born male with male biology, she doesn't need to do anything. So that's her choice.

CO: Do you think she should compete against men?

SD: I don't know. I'm not Caster. Caster is entitled to do whatever caster would like to do with regards to the rules — inside of the rules — which is trying to create as fair a platform as possible for sports.

CO: We will leave it there. Ms. Davies, thank you.

SD: Thank you very much.

JD: Sharron Davies is a former Olympic swimmer, who won a silver medal in 1980. We reached her in Bath, England.

[Music: Industrial]

Venezuela follow-up

Guest: Demitris Pantoulas

JD: Supporters of Juan Guiado have once again taken to the streets in Venezuela. But it seems Mr. Guiado has failed in his latest attempt to topple Nicolas Maduro — at least for now. Mr. Maduro has held on to the support of military commanders — even after Mr. Guiado called yesterday for troops to defect, and topple him. Many countries have declared Juan Guiado the legitimate president of Venezuela. But he's not yet managed to seize power. Demitris Pantoulas is a political analyst in Venezuela. We reached him in Caracas.

CO: Mr. Pantoulas, what is the mood in Caracas today?

DEMITRIS PANTOULAS: The mood in Caracas today it is one of people being so really stressed and really worrying about the situation. Many people had hoped yesterday that things would significantly change after Guiado and some members of the Army announced an uprising against Maduro. That didn't materialize. And today, people don't know what exactly will happen after. Some people they are out on the streets demonstrating. Police are repressing them. But the general mood is a one of perplexity and anxiety.

CO: But yesterday, it did look like… well, we've seen this many times before, haven't we? When it looks like this is the moment. But it did when Mr. Guiado appeared with a man who was supposed to be under house arrest, and his supporters were there, and the military seemed to be on his side. And then it all came tumbling down again. So it is your feeling that there's that momentum that we felt yesterday has now been lost?

DP: What we can definitely say is that after yesterday, the two political polls — the two political opponents — they don't have the power or even the strength to impose their will to the other side. So both of them they don't have a significant or sufficient power to overthrow or to finish the other.

CO: What do you think actually happened yesterday? Because it did seem at some point that there were military coming over to the side of Juan Guiado. And then suddenly, it seems to be something happened in the background. This is the State Department in the U.S. is suggesting there was something that happened. Somebody changed their minds. Who flipped over? What happened there, do you think?

DP: From what I hear, and from what I saw, it is what Guiado and Leopoldo Lopez they were organizing this uprising for a significant time now. But they were in a hurry to do it because they were afraid that the government could infiltrate their plan and stop it. And that's why they were in a big hurry, and they didn't organized all the details. And main people from the army that were going to support them, they felt betrayed, or they were perplexed by what was going on. So that's why it failed.

CO: And it failed, but then why didn't Mr. Maduro then have Mr. Guiado arrested? And along with well… Leopoldo Lopez you just mentioned, he fled. He went into the Chilean Embassy. Now he’s in the Spanish embassy. But why hasn't Mr. Guiado been arrested?

DP: Because President Maduro knows, but the reaction of the community if Guido is arrested it will be very, very strong. And probably, he is afraid of military intervention from the US. At the same time, we don't know exactly inside of the army what is the relation of power. Probably some in the army saying to Mr. Maduro that he cannot cross the line and arrest Guido.

CO: And some of the members of the military might be concerned as well about their fate if Mr. Maduro leaves.

DP: Of course, of course. Guiado, it's clear that he has some links in the relations with members of the army. And we know for sure about that Maduro controls most of the army. But we cannot certainly say what's going on. For sure, President Maduro doesn't have sufficient power to arrest Guiado. Guiado was in a demonstration today. I saw him speaking on the crowd.

CO: And did he look concerned? Was he looking over his shoulder? Did he look worried about what might happen to him?

DP: No, he didn't look really worried. But he wasn't so fresh as the other times. I think he now realizes that things it's not so easy as he was expecting two or three months ago.

CO: Ok, what you're describing in general it sounds like a standoff at this point between Mr. Maduro and Mr. Guiado. Neither has the strength to push the other one out. So I mean it could end up with a fair bit of violence. A lot of people could get very hurt in the days and weeks. Is there another way out? Is there any other way to resolve this?

DP: Of course. You can have a power-sharing agreement that we’ve seen in many African countries in the past between the two powers. But this power-sharing agreement is after negotiation. After yesterday, I think more and more politicians and more people in the streets we are realizing that if you don't negotiate, if you don't sit in the same table with Maduro, Mr. Guiado The country will go to account. So I think a negotiation solution, power-sharing agreement, a transitional government, and then elections.

CO: And do you think that that’s increasingly now a possibility?

DP: Absolutely. Because as I said, yesterday, tpeople realized that Guiado doesn’t have sufficient power in order to overthrow Maduro, and Maduro doesn't have sufficient power to finish off with Guiado and Leopoldo Lopez

CO: Just I guess finally before I let you go, on a personal level, what is it like right now? You’ve been living in Caracas over these past months. What is life like for you?

DP: I've been living in Caracas more than 10 years, and then I can say it is really, really hard to live in Caracas. In the last four months, electricity comes and goes. Water comes and goes. Internet doesn't function. Public transport doesn't work anymore. To be honest, it is very difficult to survive and to live in Caracas at this moment. People will have to consider the option of a negotiation and move on. Otherwise, I think we have all of us to emigrate.

CO: And that's not so easy. So maybe the other solution is more viable. Mr. Pantoulas, I appreciate speaking with you very much. Thank you.

DP: Many thanks.

JD: Demitris Pantoulas is a political analyst in Venezuela. We reached him in Caracas.

[Music: Emma Stevens singing “Blackbird” in Mi’kmaq]

Mi’kmaq ‘Blackbird’

Guest: Katani Julian, Emma Stevens

JD: That is just a little bit of a cover of "Blackbird", by The Beatles, of course. The cover being performed by students at Allison Bernard Memorial High School on Cape Breton Island, after they translated it into their native tongue — Mi'kmaq. We played that song on the show last night, and then a lot, a lot, a lot of you wrote to tell how much you loved it. We got comments like, "Beautiful"; "I sat in my driveway"; "It gave me goosebumps". So we decided to find the people who made it. Katani Julian is the teacher who did the translation, Emma Stevens is the 16-year-old student who did the singing. We reached them both in Eskasoni, Cape Breton.

CO: Emma you have done just a beautiful job singing this song “blackbird”, thank you.

EMMA STEVENS: Thank you.

CO: And we heard people describe it as it gave them goose bumps listening to it. Does it have the same effect on you when you're singing it?

ES: Sort of. It doesn't give me goose bumps, but I kind of get the feeling that like I'm about to get them because it’s such a beautiful song.

CO: That's what it looks like with the video of it. I feel you just getting right into those lyrics. Is that what it’s like?

ES: Yeah, I love the song. I didn't really know it in English. But the Mi’kmaq version just kind of got me into listening to it in English, and now it’s one of my favourite songs.

CO: What do you think of the lyrics, do they speak to you? I mean this is blackbird/ take these broken wings/ and learn to fly all your life/ you're only waiting for this moment to arise. That’s the English version. But you’re singing this in Mi’kmaq. What does that say to you those lyrics?

ES: They speak to me in a way I feel like it makes me more hopeful for like everything. And it should help with like how our language is slowly like disappearing. It's kind of going away. And those lyrics make me feel more inspired to like learn my language more than I already know. And to show like non-Mi’kmaq people the beauty of the song, and our language, and Mi’kmaq.

CO: And you know what? You had exactly that effect — because people were writing and contacting our show last night after we played it, and talking about how it brought tears to their eyes — even though they know the lyrics in English, but had never heard it in your language. And someone said please give me a whole album in this language. I will pre-order it right now. So did you know you're going to have such an effect on people who don't even know your language that it touched them like that?

ES: No. And I'm glad that it gave them kind of a new view on music. Our language is such a beautiful thing. And not a lot of people hear it. And I know it's just like a little song and it’s just a little cover. But in our language, it's really beautiful. And it just makes a big impact.

CO: I want ask your teacher, hi Katani.

KATANI JULIAN: Hi.

CO: About the translation. So how did you go about translating “Blackbird” into Mi’kmaq?

KJ: Translating songs that are in mainstream culture like a song like by the Beatles can be difficult because there's some concepts that we don't have in our language. Like, for example, it would say like take these sunken eyes/ and learn to see. We don't have that concept of translating it. It just sounds really odd. The concept of sunken eyes would be you do not see properly. Your vision is impaired. So I just took that concept, and I explained it to my dad. It was a little hard. I had to be back and forth with my dad about certain topics.

CO: What's the Mi’kmaq word for Blackbird?

KJ: Pu’tliskiej

CO: You mentioned the lines take these sunken eyes/ and learn to see/ you were only waiting for this moment to be free. I mean these are universal ideas, aren't they?

KJ: Yeah, absolutely. And it's familiar to us as Native people. And from what I understand, Paul McCartney wrote this about the civil rights movement in the United States. So in some sense, you know we have something in common with the civil rights movement. Because to some extent, our people have been oppressed in this country you know by the Indian Act, and you by the federal government, and you know the whole residential school thing, and attempts at assimilation. So you know it spoke to me personally like that. So it really strikes a chord in my heart as well — this song.

CO: What effect did that have on your dad when he saw Emma in the video singing the song that he had translated?

KJ: Well, he didn't know what I was asking a translation for. He wasn't too familiar with the song. But I went to him the other day before it was released, and I told him I want to show you a video of this young girl singing. And he says why are you showing it to me? I said because this is what you helped me translate several months ago, and this is the culmination of the project. So I played it for him. And he's usually not at a loss for words very often. But he was absolutely quiet. And he's a tough guy. But he had tears in the corners of his eyes. And he loved it so much.

CO: And that last refrain: Blackbird fly/ blackbird fly Into the light of the dark black night. And Emma, when you sing that, it's so rich. I'm translating in my head, but learning it, saying it in Mi’kmaq, how does it change it, do you think, when you're singing it in your own language?

ES: It makes me proud to be First Nation. Being First Nation is a really big part of my life. That is the biggest part of my life. And I'm so passionate about my culture and my heritage that like it gives me a good, warm feeling inside hearing it in Mi’kmaq, and hearing those lyrics in Mi’kmaq.

CO: What other songs would you like now to maybe sing in Mi’kmaq?

ES: There's not a lot of songs that like you can translate in Mi’kmaq — because not a lot of words would fit. And I would like to write my own songs in Mi’kmaq, like “My Unama’ki”

CO: This is a song you sang?

ES: Yes.

CO: This is “My Cape Breton”?

ES: Mmm hmm.

CO: I told you our listener would like you to have a whole album in Mi’kmaq with your voice on it. Do you think that one day we'll have that?

ES: Definitely. I would love to do that.

CO: Emma, I hope so too. And I hope that we hear that soon. And I thank you so much for speaking with us, and for singing this song for us.

ES: You're welcome.

CO: And Katani, thank you for your translation, and for speaking with us as well.

KJ: Thank you very much for having us.

CO: All right. Bye to you both.

ES: Bye.

JD: Emma Stevens is a high school student at Allison Bernard Memorial High School, and Katani Julian is a teacher at the school. We reached them both in Eskasoni, Cape Breton. And we do have more on this — including some behind-the-scene photographs — on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Jazzy guitar]

Part two: Anti-malarial veteran, Jeopardy champ James Holzhauer critic

Anti-malarial veteran

Guest: Dave Bona

JD: Today, eight former Canadian soldiers filed a lawsuit against the federal government, claiming they were poisoned by the military-issued, anti-malarial drug known as Mefloquine. The soldiers say they're still living with debilitating side effects of the medication. Side effects like psychosis, aggression, and insomnia. They also say they had no choice but to take the drug, during tours in countries including: Somalia, Rwanda, and Afghanistan — because the price of opting out was to be left behind, or sent home. Dave Bona is one of the first plaintiffs, and a former member of the now-disbanded Canadian Airborne Regiment. We reached Mr. Bona in Kingston, Ontario.

CO: Dave, as you know all too well, the controversy around this drug is decades’ old. What does it mean for you to finally see it face legal action here in Canada?

DAVE BONA: It's going to force the government's hand that they're going to have to finally, actually do something about this instead of pretend that there's not an issue. Whatever comes of this, even if the government fights us, the press that we're going to receive from this we're going to be able to reach more veterans that are suffering right now with the misdiagnosis of PTSD.

CO: When did you first take this malaria drug Mefloquine?

DB: Ninety-two in Somalia.

CO: So you were part of the Canadian airborne regiment that was in the peacekeeping mission in there?

DB: Yes.

CO: And what effects did it have on you? Did you immediately know that there's something weird about it?

DB: From the first day I took it, like I started to feel ill almost immediately. That evening, I had my first seizure.

CO: I understand you had what could be described as some psychotic episodes?

DB: Yes. While I was deployed in Somalia, midway towards the end of the tour, I actually got up in the middle of the night one night. Like I woke up; I was walking across our compound barefoot, I had my rifle in my hands, and I remember having the intent that I was going to go shoot someone. I went back to my cot, I put my rifle away, and the next day, when I was cleaning my rifle, I went to clear my weapon, and a round came out of my rifle. So I got up in the middle of the night, loaded my rifle, and I was going out to shoot someone.

CO: Good grief! Did you associate this with the drug?

DB: Well, how do you put it? You knew something was wrong. But everyone was having problems. Everyone was having the crazy dreams. Everyone was having the anger management issues. Every once in a while, you’d see someone freaking out, getting all paranoid and stuff like it. It just sort of blended in with what was where you were at and what you were doing, you know?

CO: We'll just remind people what happened. Because the airborne regiment you were part of was disbanded if people remember after what's called the “Somalia Affair”, which is probably one of the darkest periods in Canadian Forces history. And there were two soldiers charged in the beating death of a Somali teenager. And during the inquiry that came out later, there was some discussion as to whether or not what they had done may have been under the influence of this drug. Why did it never go further than that? Because this was at that point still experimental, right?

DB: Yes. At the time of the inquiry, the drug was cleared for use by Health Canada. It was actually cleared for use three months after we hit the ground in Somalia. So it's pretty much clear that that drug trial we were subjected to they weren't even trying to follow it…

[crosstalk]

CO: We’ll just tell people, it was an unlicensed drug when you were deployed, and you were part of a clinical study.

DB: Yeah.

CO: Did they tell you what side effects you should look for? Anything to worry about?

DB: No, nothing. We were just basically told shut up and take it. If you didn't take it, you were either not deploying, or you'd be court martialed.

CO: As you know, the Defence Department has always maintained that there were no long-term effects of this drug, and that there is no evidence that that Mefloquine causes these symptoms, and the things that were happening to you and others. What do you say to the Defence Department?

DB: The problem with the Defence Department — particularly the Surgeon General — publishing a report that states that there is no conclusive evidence Mefloquine causes any long-term side effects is odious. Walter Reed Army Medical Research Institute that developed Mefloquine has published numerous case studies clearly showing that the drug causes permanent neuropsychiatric issues. The American FDA, in their black box warning, clearly shows or states that drug causes permanent neuropsychiatric issues. And by the Surgeon General publishing that report, they effectively have killed Canadian soldiers — because Veterans Affairs is not allowed to contradict any published report when it comes down to providing help for veterans. So you put in help — oh, I'm having significant anger management issues, or I'm feeling suicidal ever since I took Mefloquine. Anything with Mefloquine in it as an application is automatically denied.

CO: You know that the argument is that the symptoms that you're describing, and that others have described, are very similar to post-traumatic stress disorder. And that that the argument is it's not the Mefloquine, it's PTSD. What do you say to that?

DB: I have both, ok? I was in Rwanda, and I've been exposed to a lot of trauma throughout my career. There's physical symptoms like the numbness and tingling in my extremities, the balance and dizziness issues, the sensitivity to light, you know? The tinnitus — the ringing in my ears, you know? The physical symptoms associated with Mefloquine poisoning that are different from PTSD symptoms that I suffer from.

CO: This does mass tort that you are pursuing and with the other soldiers, you say Somalia, Rwanda. Those are in the 1990s, but this goes right into recent years, doesn't it, with Afghanistan. So what would you like to come out of this? What do you and the others who are joining this want to achieve?

DB: We would like the government to acknowledge the injury caused by this drug. I don't know about other people, but I want my life back. You know I'm tired of seeing the hurt in my kids’ face, in my wife's face when I have one of these Mefloquine-related departures — these significant anger management issues. I'm tired of that. I want my life back.

CO: Dave, we'll be following this case. And I appreciate speaking with you today. Thank you.

DB: Okay, thank you very much.

CO: Bye.

JD: That was Dave Bona, a former member of the now-disbanded Canadian Airborne Regiment, and he is also one of the first plaintiffs in a "mass tort" legal action against the Canadian government. We reached Mr. Bona in Kingston, Ontario.

[Music: Sombre]

Kenny on Bill 12

JD: Jason Kenney is demonstrating his version of diplomacy. The new Alberta premier has enacted Bill 12 into law. That gives the province the power to cut off oil and gas supplies to British Columbia. But he says he wants to talk to the neighbours first about their resistance to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Here's what Premier Kenney had to say, when questioned by reporters today about the move.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: Why not just stop the shipments now? What are you waiting for?

JASON KENNY: My intention as a new premier is to seek common ground, and to try to explain the position of Alberta to Premier Horgan, and for that matter, to Premier Legault on these energy issues — and to Prime Minister Trudeau, which I hope to do in at greater length in the near future. So I've always said we want to start by trying to build relationships, find common ground, and not start immediately with our highest card to play. I've always said that using this legislation would be the final and not the first step in responding to a campaign of obstruction. But what we're demonstrating by proclaiming into law Bill 12 is that we are prepared, if necessary, if there is no other way to defend our interests, we’re prepared to use this very powerful tool.

REPORTER: Sorry, but then what is B.C. doing right now to obstruct? What is it they’re doing that is illegal or unconstitutional?

JK: Well, the British Columbia government has withheld permits. And has indicated, as Premier Horgan said in the last campaign, that they will use every tool in the toolbox to stop this project — and that's what they've been doing in a practical way. And I'll be sending a letter to two premier Horgan outlining the measures taken, and the statements made by their government, which we believe constitute a campaign of obstruction.

JD: New Alberta Premier Jason Kenney speaking to reporters in Edmonton earlier today. Now, in response, British Columbia filed a legal challenge in an Alberta court today. And B.C. Premier John Horgan held his own press conference this afternoon.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: Premier, yeah, I guess it seems as though Premier Kenney is linking the high price of gas here with obstructing twinning of the pipeline. Do you think that message is going to resonate with the public?

JOHN HORGAN: Not if you tell your viewers the truth. And the truth is we haven't been frustrating permits. So I’ll put that right back to you, man. I've told you the facts. Mr. Kenny, who's been on the job for a day, and is just decompressing from the high rhetoric of campaigns, is saying something that's not correct. And if you asked Ian Anderson, the former CEO of Kinder Morgan, he will tell you, as he has in the past, and that's some of you have written it, that we were not thwarting permits in any way. And we were in existing court cases. And we launched a reference case to protect our jurisdiction. So I would say how do I relieve the public's concern about this? Tell them what I just said. I don't want to start on a bad foot with the new premier. I want to work with him to the best of my ability — as I tried to the best of my ability with the former premier. I tried not to be provocative. I've tried not to elevate the rhetoric. And I think that’s what most people would prefer to see.

JD: That's British Columbia Premier John Horgan speaking to the media this afternoon.

[Music: Indie rock]

Jeopardy champ James Holzhauer critic

Guest: Charles Lane

JD: James Holzhauer has been turning "Jeopardy!" upside down. The professional gambler has racked up well over a million dollars over 19 consecutive games. It's made him an instant celebrity. But not everyone is cheering him on. Charles Lane knows the game. He appeared on a 1991 episode of the quiz show. That's right, one episode. And Mr. Lane says the latest champ is a threat to the game itself. His critique has quickly become a rallying cry for the Holzhauer haters who are asking — who is really being played here? Charles Lane is a columnist for the Washington Post. We reached him in Washington, D.C.

CO: Charles, what did James Holzhauer ever do to you?

CHARLES LANE: Nothing. I have nothing personal against James Holzhauer. What I am a little concerned by is the application of kind of database probabilistic optimization to an innocent game show like Jeopardy. And I think it kind of spoils it for me.

CO: Okay, those are a lot of big words. You've used another one not so big. You called him a menace, and you've written there's nothing admirable about his strategy. He's taking the fun out of the game. That's pretty harsh.

CL: Yeah. Menace was just a little attention-seeking, over-the-top journalism. But for the rest, I do think that not just James Holzhauer, but anybody who would approach jeopardy in the way he does, kind of just makes it a less enjoyable viewing experience for me. It's not so much that he's winning the game — although, obviously he's very good at it. He's kind of beating the system. And you know, it's the most polarizing thing I've ever written, Carol. I've gotten angry letters, people calling me an idiot, saying I'm a sore loser because I lost on Jeopardy. And some people saying thank you, thank you for finally putting into words what I felt.

CO: You had one of the positive ones — ones who said thank you — is a guy Tom Nichols, who is a five-time winner, and he's a “Hall of Famer” in Jeopardy. And he says you're right. So you've hit something. But what about the people who are angry with you? Why did they defend this way that Mr. Holzhauer is playing the game?

CL: The main argument they have is that I have something against excellence. You know that here comes a guy, he practiced, he's perfected his game, and you're trying to shoot him down just because he's better than everyone else. And honestly, that could not be farther from the truth. I'm just saying that like all good things, it can be taken too far. And there is a point at which Jeopardy ceases to be Jeopardy, and turns into The James Holzhauer Show. And I think if you really think about it, that's contrary to the spirit of what Jeopardy has always been. You know there are two basic views of why you would like to watch any competition, right? One is to view genius, and excellence, and brilliance, and perfection on display. And the other is that you like to see competition. You know you'd like to see drama, spontaneity, suspense — the things that happen when people don't have all the risks under their control. And what is to me very disappointing or troublesome about the favourable reaction to Holzhauer is it seems like our society is seeming to just one-sidedly glorifying the perfection model of why you would watch a competition.

CO: What is so different about what James Holzhauer does then other competitors?

CL: Well, obviously, the first thing that's different is he knows a lot. I mean the guy is a professional gambler, so he understands odds. And you know all of that is unique to him. The added element is the way he moves around the board in Jeopardy to first go for the high money, harder questions. And then seek out the “Daily Double”. And that strategy has two effects. It enables him to build up a huge amount of cash very early. And also deny those big money opportunities to others. So that in many of these games — including the one that was broadcast last night — he's way ahead very early in the game, and often has put it away where the others don't even have a chance.

CO: He comes from a Las Vegas background, doesn't he? He's a gambler, and he has that kind of cold that you need in order to bet big, take chances, and he does that better than anybody. But as you point out, he's also very good. He’s really knowledgeable. So isn't that kind of exciting to watch?

CL: And as I said in my article, although many people are overlooking it, up to a certain point, I'm happy to watch it. But I think the old Jeopardy rules, which existed before 2003 — in which returning champions were limited to a certain number — five — of return visits, and then came back for a tournament of champions, was the better approach from the point of view of the show. Jeopardy has now kind of got a tiger by the tail here because the ratings are going through the roof here, but there's no sort of honest way to say okay James, you've made your point. Time to go. And so it's at risk now it can just get repetitive. Do you want to watch every night as James Holzhauer blows away the competition for the fiftieth time in a row? I don't. I just wonder how many other people are going to want to.

CO: Now, you were on Jeopardy way back in 1991. What was your own experience?

CL: Dismal. I lost. I finished third in a field of three, and it was painful, and horrible, and for the next 10 years, I couldn't even watch Jeopardy.

CO: Why? Describe what was so painful about it?

CL: I came up against a guy who was really good, and I could never ring in, and a lot of people are saying — and they're free to say this — that I'm just jealous. But you know honestly that was 28 years ago. So it did take me 10 years to get over it, but I did get over it. And I'm not really feeling sour grapes toward James Holzhauer because I lost. I'm writing as a fan of Jeopardy, who appreciates the show as more than just some sort of you know cut-throat, winner take all competition. But as a show that had a real kind of a generous spirit. It had a heart.

CO: But how do you get treated when you're a loser on Jeopardy?

CL: They give you consolation prizes. I got scented trash bags and a pair of Gitano jeans. I'm not sure that brand exists anymore.

CO: Uh Huh. Were they thankful? Did they pat you on the back, and say better luck next time?

CL They take you right out to the back entrance, and open the door, and you go into the parking lot. That's the unceremonious conclusion.

CO: Okay. And now do you think that at any point they're going to take James Holzhauer out into the parking lot?

CL: They might. But when he gets there, there will probably be a cheering throng, you know? And he's obviously like Ken Jennings, who was one of the champs who was on I think almost 75 times. He's headed for a great career. You know he's gonna be able to write books. He'll come back for Jeopardy tournaments. So I don't think even the ignominious trip to the parking lot will be very painful for him.

CO: Okay. Thanks, Charles. Good to talk to you.

CL: Thank you.

JD: Charles Lane is a columnist for the Washington Post and a former "Jeopardy!" contestant. He is also the author of a new book, "Freedom's Detective". We reached Charles Lane in Washington, D.C. And we do have more on this story on the “As It Happens” website.

[Music: Hip-hop]

Stolen bell

JD: For years, a bell has sat — appropriately enough — on Bell's Corner in Leduc County, near Edmonton. It was a landmark in the community — because it's big: about 315 kilos, that’s about 700 pounds in old money. But regardless of its status — and its weight — last week, someone stole that giant bell somehow. And its owner wants it back. He's a normal-sized bell, Bob Bell. He spoke with CBC Calgary this morning.

SOUNDCLIP

BOB BELL: The bell was built in 1903, purchased by the Moravian Church in Mill Woods. I purchased it from them. I had it on top of my dealership for some 17 years. And then when I sold, I took it down, and I moved it out to the farm. And the bell has hung at Bell’s Corners for the last 11 years. And now, somebody has decided to steal it.

DAVID GRAY: So was it was it the copper they’re after, do you think?

BB: Well, I think that's what they felt that it was copper. I had it painted a gold colour, and they may have thought it was made of copper. Copper is worth quite a bit of money right now, from what I understand.

DG: But as you point out, it's 700 pounds, right? I mean how do you steal something like that? Did you see signs of trucks, or any evidence of how they did it?

BB: Yes, there's a sign of truck tracks. With the oil activity, a lot of these smaller trucks have pickers on them, and they're able to probably extend a picker arm and pick it up. It was cut off probably with a cut-off saw, and hoisted onto a truck, and taken.

DG: How do you feel about this because it's kind of a strange thing to steal?

BB: I feel very, very sad. It is a tribute to my grandparents, and to the community. I thought it would be there way beyond my time, and at some point in time, my children or whatever could see it and get some history from it.

DG: How do you go about getting something like that back, do you know?

BB: With today's media, it's certainly going to get out there. And as I said, if you'd like to bring it back and just set it underneath where it was, we'll figure out a way to get it hoisted back up and then welded back on.

JD: Bob Bell's 700-pound bell was stolen from his farm in Leduc County, Alberta last week. He was speaking with David Gray, host of "The Calgary Eyeopener".

[Music: Acoustic guitar]

Part three: Hot Docs: “Because We Are Girls”

Hot Docs: “Because We Are Girls”

Guest: Jeeti Pooni, Baljit Sangra

JD: When the Pooni sisters were growing up in Williams Lake, British Columbia, going to the local movie theatre to watch Bollywood was the highlight of the week. The Punjabi sisters — Salakshana, Jeeti, and Kira — grew up in the sleepy, rural B.C. town in the 1970s and '80s. But for the Poonis, the movies were more than just an outing. They were an escape from a shameful secret they were harbouring at home, and from each other. For years, they had all been victims of sexual abuse, at the hands of the same family member. Their story — and the criminal trial years later against their abuser — is the subject of an NFB film premiering at the Hot Docs Film Festival in Toronto tonight. It's called "Because We Are Girls." Here is a clip from the film — introducing Jeeti Pooni.

SOUNDCLIP

[Music: Bollywood]

JEETI PPONI: My name is Jeeti. I'm the middle daughter in my parents quest for a son. We grew up in a small mill town in northern British Columbia. Our family was your typical Punjabi family. We kept to ourselves, but were always up to celebrate an occasion with singing, and dancing, and eventually drama. The best day of my life was getting married, and leaving my family, my hometown, and a dark secret behind.

JD: Jeeti Pooni and her family are the subjects of the film, "Because We Are Girls." And Baljit Sangra is the director. They both joined Carol in the “As It Happens” studio for a feature interview. And a warning: parts of this interview are disturbing.

CO: Baljit and Jeeti, Welcome to the “As It Happens” studio.

JP: Thank you.

BALJIT SANGRA: Thank you.

CO: And thank you for this film. This is just a remarkable can I say expose of what happens in a family when there is a dark secret. Jeeti, in the clip we just heard, you were describing yourself as the middle daughter in my parents quest for a son. Did you have an understanding quite early about your role as a girl in a Punjabi family?

JP: Well yes, I watched my older sister. And her role was to babysit us, and cook and clean. And I followed that that suit as well as I grew up. And as well as my mom; I watched my mom not just work outside of the house, but in the home. She kept everything together and in order. And my dad worked in the lumber mill, so he was basically the head of the house, who provided for all of us.

CO: And as that middle daughter, because being a middle child is always difficult to begin with, but you were in this family. How would you describe yourself? How would you describe your childhood, who you were as you're growing up in this small mill town in British Columbia?

JP: Well, my childhood was very vibrant in ways. My sisters and I, we were very close to each other. At first, it was just the three of us. And it felt safe to be around my sisters. Because going to school, there was a lot of racism and stuff. And just being home was safe.

CO: This is in Williams Lake?

JP: This is in Williams Lake, yes.

CO: Were there many Punjabi families in Williams Lake when you were growing up?

JP: Oh yes, yes. And then the gurudwara was eventually built. So that was a social gathering for the whole community.

CO: Baljit, you were as the filmmaker, you found a very rich story here — a story about sisterhood, about growing up Punjabi in rural Canada, but a family dealing with a dark secret, which is sexual abuse. How did you hear this story? How did you learn that the story was there?

BS: Well, me and Jeeti are friends. So she told me many years ago — around 2007 — that her and her and her sister were victims of sexual abuse. I think your sister was with us too, and we had lunch. And that they were going to go to the police, and that they were not going to tell their parents is something that they decided that they were going to do. And Jeeti said you know what do you think of this as a documentary? I thought that was amazing. I’m like wow! This would be really an amazing documentary for their community. And then it just sort of sat you know for a long time. And then when the file got moved along — it sat with the police for a long time — then it eventually went to preliminary hearing in 2013, and then it got moved up to Supreme Court 2015. So there's a lot of momentum now behind the story. And Jeeti was like she wants this to be on a world platform. Like we talked because now this train is leaving the station, this is momentum, and these kind of stories just do not happen. Historical sexual abuse cases rarely go to Supreme Court. And when that's going to move forward, and the parents not knowing at the time that this is what they were doing, that would have a huge impact on their whole family. So yeah, Jeeti was a catalyst of the story.

CO: But this wasn't a new story you're going to tell. This wasn't just about the court case.

BS: No.

CO: You knew you were going to have to go deep into the story of this family. Jeeti, did you know the degree to which you would have to open up your life, and the darkest corners — all of them — of your family before you got into this film?

JP: Absolutely. That's one thing that had to be considered even when I first broke my silence. That okay, once I say this is what's happened to me, everything's going to come out. And the whole truth is going to come out. And one other thing I want to say is in total, we're five living children, we're four sisters, and only three of us went forward to the court case. So that was an element as well. Like I'm bringing my sisters into this. And I knew my sisters Kira and Salakshana would be supportive, and I knew my parents would come along eventually as well. And I wasn't afraid in any way of not sharing the truth. Because the secret had been kept so long, and it had hurt all of us inside, and it was eating away at us. So having it come out, and being honest and truthful, that was the best thing that we have ever done.

CO: The story is your family, and there's just wonderful home video footage, isn't there? I mean just as there are for so many families, but there's just delicious moments of the birthday parties, and you’re in your snow suits, and in your saris, and your shalwar kameez, and running around. And if that's all you saw, you’d think wow! What a happy family this is. But there was what was going on underneath, you know? And so when it begins I supposed to really turn is when your nuclear family becomes the extended family — when all these relatives move in with you. Who showed up, and how did that change things for you?

JP: Well, my parents felt a sense of duty to help other family back in India for economic prosperity. So they helped you know sponsor relatives, and they stayed with us. And it was one after another after another — it was never-ending. And it changed so much of our family because there was no just you know initially us three girls and then dad and mom and our uncle. It became a huge extended family, where we at one point I think we were like 14-15 people living in the same house.

CO: It looks like chaos actually. There’s film of this.

JP: And there's six of us in this tiny little bedroom, so three aunts, and us three daughters. It changed also the fact that my parents and my mom, their attention got diverted. So us three girls kind of got lost in that mix.

CO: And among that mix is your cousin, who's eight years older than you at the time. You call him Bhaji, which I understand means brother and Punjabi. And you are told — you're instructed — this is someone to respect. This is someone to listen to. He has some authority here. And he gained your trust. At what point did he begin to abuse that trust?

JP: The moment he came, I remember he came in August 1980. And my parents left for India October 1980. And soon after they left, he raped me for the first time.

CO: How old were you?

JP: Eleven.

CO: Can you describe — because you do in the film — what was the first encounter with him?

JP: The first encounter was he woke me up; I was sleeping, and one of my aunts was in the bedroom. And somehow he managed to open my bedroom door quietly, and shook my leg, asked me to come outside, and I remember being really sleepy and groggy, and looking at the shape. And I'm like oh ok, it’s Bhaji. He must have something to say. And I got up, and I went outside, and he waited for me in the hallway. And then from there, he took me into our family living room, and that's where he raped me.

CO: I'm so sorry. That wasn't the first or last time, was it? It was first time, but not the last time. It began a pattern.

JP: It was a pattern. It happened probably thousands of times. I mean I never kept count. And it became a routine. It's something that you know that was just done to me. And something I didn't understand as to what is this person even doing, and why is he even doing it?

CO: It starts to wear you down, doesn't it?

JP: [sigh] Yeah.

CO: Did you know it was happening to your sisters as well?

JP: No. Definitely not. And eventually, I was 22 years old when I found out that it had happened to all of my sisters. Of course, my sister Kira had said something to me when I was 12, and she was 10. Oh, Bhaji put his hand down there or something. And it was explained off by him. I approached him, and I said this is what Kira thing. And he's like oh, it was just an accident. And my 12-year-old brain believed it. And even fast forward, when I when I learnt that at age 22, that it had happened to all my sisters. That was the darkest day of my life.

CO: Why didn't you tell anybody — any adults?

JP: Well, my parents hadn't created an environment where we could communicate and tell our feelings or share our feelings or share any sort of hurt. As girls, if something broke around the house when we were young, we were punished. My dad punished us physically. So there was always that fear oh, I'm gonna get in trouble. And then compounded by the culture of what we had seen in the Bollywood movies, and what I had heard about other girls in our communities being shipped off.

CO: They got sent back to India, didn’t they?

JP: Yeah, you get shipped off, or you could be killed. So that would have been my fate, no matter what was being done to me — and if I had nothing to do with it at all. So it was not safe to tell anyone. And it was safe for me just to stay quiet and bare it. And eventually, what happened was because I was groomed from such a young age, you were made to feel that I had something to do with this, and I was taking part in this. So I was to blame for what was happening to me.

CO: In the film, when you and your sisters describe what this experience is like, reviewing what was like as children, you do such an extraordinary job — the three of you who do take part in it — of saying all the reasons why you internalize it. Because to begin to tell anybody then where does that go? How many more people get involved? What then happens? All the consequences come tumbling down on you, don't they?

JP: Well, so many consequences because there's also intermarriages. One of my aunts — my mom's sister — is married to my cousin's brother, right? So then you have to think how is it going to affect so and so's life? How is it going to affect the family honour? You automatically know it's never going to be questioned. What is this man, who's almost 10 years older than then myself, what was he doing this to her for, right? It's always the reverse oh, she's the one who's the slut, or however one wants to phrase it. And you know that from a very young age that you're going to be blamed, So just keep your mouth shut.

CO: You're listening to “As It Happens”, and I have in studio with me here Jeeti Pooni and Baljit Sangra. Jeeti is featured in this new National Film Board documentary called “Because We Are Girls” that Baljit has made. You use footage from Bollywood — because Bollywood… we all think Bollywood is fun. But there are lessons in Bollywood, aren't there? About how girls are supposed to behave, and you get to actually see a lot of Bollywood films because even in Williams Lake, there's a movie theatre that shows these films, and you watch them. I just play a little clip in the documentary.

SOUNDCLIP

JP: You see the woman ask for forgiveness by touching her husband's feet. And the husband moves his feet away, not accepting the woman. You see how she's changed. When I was a little girl, I couldn't really figure out too much, you know? But as I got older, in my teens, I got it. The bindi would be smudged, the sleeve would be ripped off, and you'd watch the Indian man pull off the lady’s sari. And the lady would go tumbling to the side. And then she would really go jump off a cliff.

CO: That's a scene from your documentary, Bajit. And you sprinkled these Bollywood scenes all through the film. How familiar were these scenes for you growing up? Were you a Bollywood watcher as a Punjabi girl?

BS: I watched Bollywood films. I went to the theatre with my parents, and there was a multicultural channel that would play it like twice a week, and all the family would gather around the TV. So I grew up with it. But it's interesting like I didn't really obviously understand all the implications of the films. When we went back to look at some of these titles that were popular when they were growing up, I was like oh my goodness! Through a feminist lens, watching these movies — how they would dictate a role of a woman — and these were family movies. And we looked at some films that you know the rape scene was so violent. And this is a movie you would take your kids to. And in these movies, the good girl is so pure, you know? She has to be the purest of pure — like even if there's a misunderstanding, somehow it’s going to be her fault, and she has to beg for forgiveness. And if there is a bad girl, she was really bad. Like skimpily dressed, and you know always manipulative, and conniving, and it's a bit of a trip — Bollywood movies. And I knew we had to put in the movie because when I asked each of them in the interviews what was your most favourite memory of childhood? And they all said going to the cinema to watch a Bollywood movie. That was for the mom, the dad, the sisters. You know and the mom was working in a motel… I mean a hotel in the kitchen. So she was really tired. So that's something she looked forward to — needing that two hour, three hour fantasy. The father, who you know had a love of music, and bought the records of these films, and would play them at home, and the girls would dance to. So he had a real love for Bollywood. And again, that's an escape for him. You know he's working in the mill, supporting so many people. So that was his escape. And for the daughters, it was their escape too. It had to be in the movie because it was such an integral part of all their lives.

JP: With these films, every each and every clip she's used, we've seen those films. So seeing them when I was four or five years old, and then seeing them when I was 13-14 as a teenager when the VHS and the beta came out. So my father brought a video player in the house, and the messages got reinforced.

CO: And what kind of pressure were you under in your family to fit in — to fit the role model that you saw? This sort of romanticized version of this that was in the imaginations of your family?

JP: Well, my dad, he made it sure from when we were little girls don't look into my eyes when I talk to you, bow down. And my younger sister, Kira, she was only like three years old. And she'd keep on staring at him, and we both have big eyes, right, as well as Salakshana. And my older sister and I would obey, and she wouldn't. So then obviously she was physically punished. Seeing all that happen over the years, and experiencing it, you have no choice but to become submissive. And my sister Kira does mention of obviously dad was trying to break her down, right? Like a horse.

CO: To take the saddle and the bridle, as you say.

JP: Yes, yes. So it happens from the moment you're born. And it changed when my brother was born because he didn't get the same treatment as we had.

CO: Of course, the revealing moments of the film are when the family members find out. What was the reaction of your father when you told him what had been going on to you and your sisters?

JP: Wow! I'll never forget that day. His head was bowed, shoulders slumped. He cried. We all did. And my uncle was there, and it was really hard for the men to hear — including my brother and my husband to hear what had happened to all of us. And that it had happened to all of us — all the girls, right, in the house. So it was a very difficult moment.

CO: And your mum?

JP: Mum seemed just there was a part of her that seemed very distant. It could be because as a parent, you feel your failures, not being able to protect your children, or not you know listening to your daughters that want to do something about this.

CO: Because you had made some attempts to tell them, but you just got shut down. There was no way that you were being encouraged to tell the whole story to them.

JP: Yes, two of my sisters had approached my mom back in 1992. And I wasn't married then. I was dating my husband. And when they said to her this is what Bhaji has done to us, she immediately turned around to me, and said there's no way someone's gonna marry you, and she walks out. And the other thing she said before she left is you know basically shut up, your father's gonna hear you. And she turned around, and she and she left. And then my sisters and I, we were just looking at each other like okay, where do we go from here?

CO: So as grownups, when you're telling them this, and that you did have an idea what you wanted to do about it. What did they think you should do about it once you told them? What did they want to do about it?

JP: Initially, my dad had said okay, there is going to be a sit down. There was a phone call made to my older male cousin. And basically, they said okay, we want to sit down with your younger brother and ask you know why did he do all this talk to our daughters? We want to sit down. But then that never happened. And instead, what started happening was the finger pointing oh, Jeeti this, Jeeti that. Because of the Jeeti, that's why the others got abused as well. And I immediately got therapy for myself. And four months later, I was ready to go to the police. And I looked at my sister Kira and said okay, parents aren't going to do anything about this. Let's do this. And we called the police.

Baljit, as the film maker in this, you are now I guess involved in documenting what was going on in this family, right?

BS: I got involved after preliminary trial going up to Supreme Court, but I knew that this had happened, and that they had reported it to the police. I remember Jeeti was telling me it was going to prelim. I’m like you know take a video diary, and just start recording your feelings and what this process is like. Because you know that's the first time they’re going to court, and they have to tell their story to a judge. And I'm following them, I'm going up to Williams Lake with them, and then we find out the trials are adjourned, that’s such an emotional toll on them. It was hard to plan to shoot as a filmmaker because it's getting canceled. And two, it’s taking a huge emotional toll on the three sisters because they've prepared themselves mentally, rereading all their statements. So this trial process went from 2015 to 2018.

CO: Okay, but there's another element. It's not just that there's a camera following you. I mean for goodness, Baljit. You had this access — this is the extraordinary thing about this documentary is that the entire family trusted you to document this, to make a record of things, of seeing moments of grief and sadness and honesty and truth coming out that were extraordinary. How did you gain their trust?

BS: One, I’m from the same community as them. So I've grown up with the same social and cultural values. So there's a lot that doesn't even have to be explained that I get. And also, it took three years to make this movie. So I'm gaining their trust and more access as time goes by. I think also for like in terms of the trust of the sisters, a big part was when I went up to Williams Lake just by myself with a camera, and doing sound, and you know sharing a room with them in the hotel, and getting up in the morning. You know I'm their friend, I'm also a filmmaker trying to capture these moments. I think that gave me a lot of access and trust. You know, we started with the parents you know just tell us your immigrant story coming to Williams Lake. So it was low and slow like the peeling of an onion. I let the parents know that all of that is important because you represent so many people. Like you know they were doing the best with what they knew. And that they had a lot of pressures at a young age to sponsor their family. Like I let them know that that was an important part of the story to. So many people in our community can relate to that story 100 per cent.

CO: And you got it too yourself.

BS: I got it too, and they got it too. I go this is a very common story. Like a lot of people will relate to your story.

CO: And the trust Baljit was able to get with your family culminates in a moment — a tea party — just a family sitting down for tea, and we see this moment with your parents, Jeeti, and your two sisters. And your mom and dad, and saying why, why did this happen? Why didn't you stop it? Why didn't you know? And your father is kind of suggesting well, there’s blame enough to go around for everybody — including you girls. What was that moment like for you?

JP: Well at that point, it was like holy! We've been through so much, and he still doesn't get it? That did run through my mind. Oh my God, he's still blaming me! I was like Dad, I was eleven years old. And then also, we had to hide this from our parents that we went to the police. They didn't find out until the police wanted to interview them. So sitting there listening to what my sister Kira had to say, and what my dad had to say back as to the blame, and how us girls had a huge hand in what happened to us, it did throw me off for that for that minute. But then you have to go back, and remember that okay, he can only do the best that he can. And he can only see this through the lens that he's been programmed to see this. Things are shifting, things are changing, but slowly in our family. He still chose to be a part of our lives, and embrace us as daughters.

CO: And to testify.

JP: And to testify. And that's his way of showing support, and doing this documentary. They weren't able to do anything back then. That's my mom and dad's way of showing support. So you see the change bit by bit by bit. And us girls standing up strong, it helps our parents build some sort of a spine to stand strong, and say okay, this isn't our shame to carry.

CO: Baljit, of all the people you record, the faces we see of the family, we don't see the man who did this. You know who he is. Tell us what you know, what were you able to actually inform us about what's happened in this court case?

BS: Initially in one cut, there were some pictures of him, and there was a little mention of him. But we took that out. This is really a family story. We really didn’t want to put a lot of attention on the cousin because then it's about everybody's relationship to him and that's the whole movie.

CO: And his identity is known. It’s not under seal. You can actually say who this cousin is?

BS: Yes. Yes. Yeah.

JP: I just feel it's been about him from the day he landed in our family in 1980. We were supposed to respect him, and give him the regard. And then going through breaking our silence, it was about him. Going through the court case, it was all about him. And now, through this film, it's about us girls, our resilience, our bravery. Personally, I found there's no need for any mention of him, and give him any more attention than he's had for the last 30 some years.

CO: But you were successful. He was convicted.

JP: Yes, for four counts out of six, he was charged and convicted — a guilty verdict, yes.

CO: So what we know is that there were a conviction on four of the six charges against your cousin. But now it's happening is whether or not his charter rights were violated by the length of time since the crimes happened, and that's for the court the Jordan Principle, is that right?

JP: What happened was after the verdict, he filed an application saying that his charter of rights was violated because the trial took too long, so there was a breach there of his human rights. So that's what's being brought forth in court now. And the judge just has to announce that decision, and that decision is coming down June 10th.

CO: But you feel you had a victory. You feel you were successful. You did what you wanted to do?

JP: I do feel a victory. I feel he puppeteered the whole justice system for it to benefit him, and that's what all these delays have been about. And in the end, the judge gave a decision obviously that we're happy and that it's favourable. The trauma will live on. It's an everyday thing my sisters and I, our family, will have to live with. And we have tools to cope with it. It's something that that will always be with us.

CO: Baljit captured a great scene of you and your sisters having a snowball fight back in Williams Lake at the very end. You're victorious, and you're having a snowball fight the three of you. Did this whole thing, everything you went through — including being part of this documentary — did it did it bring you closer together as sisters?

JP: Mm hmm mm hmm. It gave us time to bond on a different level instead of just being serious about everything. It was nice to see the fun moments, and remember that even though we were going through all this trauma as children, we still had very fun lives. And the snowball scene is right across from the theatre.

[crosstalk]

CO: The Bollywood theatre.

JP: That used to play the Bollywood films, yeah. So it just gave us it gave us that moment to be innocent. It took us back to our innocence, and remember that we were once little girls because that's what's forgotten. We're seen as adult women. And how dare you know we come out now with all of this because we could have stopped it. But one has to remember that we were children when this all started. And those children, those girls, have been forgotten.

CO: I want to thank both of you. Baljit, for making the film. And Jeeti, for you and your sisters, and your generosity and letting us into the story. Thank you both.

BS: Thank you.

JP: Thank you for having us.

JD: Jeeti Pooni and director Baljit Sangra speaking to Carol in the "As It Happens" studio, about the new NFB film "Because We Are Girls." It premieres tonight at Toronto's Hot Docs Film Festival. And we have more on their story on our website.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

May 01, 2019 transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode