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 2024

The Current Transcript for September 20, 2024

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: The fact that this technology exists can make us feel like we need to get it, otherwise we're bad parents. At what point does it become really inappropriate to be tracking them?

MATT GALLOWAY: Part of parenting is wondering where your kids are and what they're up to. Well, wonder no longer. Increasingly, parents are using AirTags and apps to track everything from precisely where their children are to how fast the car they are riding in is going. In 30 minutes, the rise of surveillant parenting and the impact of tracking and spying on our kids has on them and on us. Also this morning, on the brink of all-out war, what might happen next and the rapidly escalating conflict between Lebanon and Israel. Plus:

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: With this trial, we hope that something will start to change in our country. Because MeToo wasn't enough. It was not enough.

MG: The details are horrific. A man admitting to drugging his wife and then inviting other men to sexually assault her. In an hour, how a very public trial has ignited an overdue national conversation in France about sexual violence and consent. But we begin with the undecided, those still trying to make up their minds with the U.S. election just weeks away. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Trump or Harris? What undecided U.S. voters are thinking

Guests: Amy Danzer, Cameron Lewellen, Jeff Herr

MG: Well, the countdown until Americans cast their ballots is on, with just over six weeks to go until the U.S. presidential election. And with that clock ticking, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are trying to win the votes of a small group of people who may decide the outcome. They are the undecideds. Polls suggest this could be the closest presidential race ever, and strategists say it could come down to these particular votes in America's battleground states. So today, we're going to chat with three undecided voters in three swing states to see what will move the needle for them ahead of the 5th of November. Amy Danzer is a grant writer at the University of Pittsburgh, and she is in Erie, Pennsylvania. Cameron Lewellen is an IT professional. He's just outside of Atlanta, Georgia. And Jeff Herr is a magazine publisher in Tucson, Arizona. Good morning, everyone.

CAMERON LEWELLEN: Good morning.

AMY DANZER: Good morning.

MG: Amy-- the election is just weeks away. It feels from a distance that the United States is a very divided place and people have either parked their vote on one side of the ledger or the other. You're an independent. Can you just explain why you are still undecided?

AMY DANZER: At this point, I've heard a lot of ways that the candidates are trying to get votes, but I'm not sure that they have made those into plans. What I'm interested in is not so much the stump speeches that they're making, but in what their plans are, not just for me and my generation, but largely for the generations that come after me. You know, grandchildren or great grandchildren. And I think that because our political system with the parties have been in such a state of trying to get voters for the next two to four years, that they're not making plans for the very long term.

MG: Do you mind me asking who you voted for in the past couple of elections?

AMY DANZER: For the president, I've actually written in for the last two elections.

MG: Who did you write in?

AMY DANZER: Kasich for the last one. And before that, I think it was Mitt Romney.

MG: That said something about the fact that you don't feel that either party was particularly offering up a candidate that you were comfortable with.

AMY DANZER: That is true.

MG: I'm going to come back to that because I think there are a lot of people who wonder whether they're political orphans or they don't feel aligned to one party. Cameron, what about you? You voted for Donald Trump in 2016 when he won Georgia, then for Joe Biden in 2020 when he won Georgia. What is holding you back from making a decision this time around?

CAMERON LEWELLEN: I feel like Amy and I could be related. I am very much in the same camp where I am concerned about the fact that we aren't really getting anything that really resembles policy. We should be hearing the details of what you are planning to do. I am descended from a group of great family members that were civil rights leaders in Arkansas. My grandfather had a quote, "We always have to have long term goals for short term frustrations." And so where, you know, inflation might be the news of the day, the long-term economic health of the country is the news of tomorrow. And my concern is that from either party right now, we've turned this into somewhat of a popularity contest. And I reserve the right to have my vote earned.

MG: You voted for Trump in 2016. Why did you vote for him then?

CAMERON LEWELLEN: So, being from Arkansas, right, I can say that my family actually had great interactions with the Clintons before Bill became president. Fast forward into 2016, I felt like it was a bit of a coronation for Hillary. I didn't like the way that Bernie Sanders was handled. And so, Trump was an anti-establishment vote. In 2020, I had tired of Trump and was ready for a fresh new direction. And I thought, at least in the beginning, that an invigorated Joe Biden would actually get about the job of governing.

MG: Jeff, you are a different kind of undecided voter because as I understand it, you voted Republican all your life, but not this time, right?

JEFF HERR: That's correct.

MG: Why have you abandoned or felt abandoned by the Republican Party? Tell me a little bit about that.

JEFF HERR: Well, the Republican Party as I knew it, no longer exists. It's now MAGA. And that is a completely different thing. And I only imagine that former GOP thought leaders like Senator John McCain --rest in peace-- Mitt Romney, are just freaking out because this guy, the things he says and does, it's just unacceptable across every plank of the Republican platform.

MG: What in particular do you think is unacceptable from what he said?

JEFF HERR: Well, being an honourable elected official, respecting the rule of law, making sure that we're not squandering tax dollars on things due to his mistakes along the way. In no way would a true Republican impose tariffs on China and Canada, sadly, in the agricultural sector. Those are just examples.

MG: And so, given your feelings on the Republican Party, I mean, what is the decision that's facing you in just a few weeks time?

JEFF HERR: Comes down to whether I can learn enough about Kamala Harris's policies, her approach to governance. There is a decent amount of information out there for voters on her website. And to Cameron's point, it would be nice to hear them articulate them and take some questions and provide some answers about how that might all work. So, I'm digesting all the information I can get about her policies. The other alternative is just to not vote for the president.

MG: Just to stay home.

JEFF HERR: Yeah.

MG: Amy, for you, I mean, there are a lot of different things that are going on in your country right now, but what's the big issue for you? I mean, maybe there's more than one, but what's the thing that will help you determine who you're going to vote for?

AMY DANZER: I think that we need to have policies, economic and otherwise, that look to the future of where we want the United States to be and who we want to become. If we are looking at the economic prosperity of the United States, that also leads into how we feel about our leadership position in the world. If we just look to provide tax breaks for the right constituents, allowing somebody to be elected in this particular cycle, then we're losing the ability to see where our economic prosperity leaves us in the world.

MG: Can I ask you about the issue of abortion? This is an issue that is still very much a hot button issue in the United States, and you are motivated on that as well. Tell me a little bit about how that issue of abortion impacts your vote.

AMY DANZER: So, abortion is very personal to me because I was adopted. And so, I believe in life, and I believe in adoption over abortion, but I also believe in life until natural death. And I don't believe in the death penalty. So, that kind of cuts across the way it may be viewed by different political parties.

MG: Is that something that will impact where your vote goes on the issue of abortion?

AMY DANZER: I don't know that I would necessarily call it the issue of abortion, but I would consider it the issue of life. [MG: Okay.] And the different parties and the different politicians have different viewpoints on that, even within the same party.

MG: Part of this is just trying to understand where your vote might land. Is something like a federal abortion ban something that you would support?

AMY DANZER: Probably not. And that's a very difficult thing for me to say. But I also understand that individuals have had things that have occurred in their life. You know, there may be issues of rape, incest, various other types of things that happen with individuals who are very young and may have gotten themselves into a situation. I know what I would do. I don't know that it is appropriate for me to tell everybody that this is what they should have to do. I think that having some options make some sense. I find it very difficult with some of the state restrictions that have been put into place preventing doctors from providing appropriate medical care when they're having an emergency and therefore putting those women at risk.

MG: Cameron, what about for you? I mean, you are in Georgia, which is a key state. You are a Black man, which is a key demographic. What's the big issue for you in this election?

CAMERON LEWELLEN: It is actually the slow creep toward a greater global conflict. Whether or not it's, you know, the situation in Ukraine or even if you consider, you know, some of the things that have happened with the state of Israel. You know, I live on a street that is highly populated with Jewish people. And at the end of our street, Rose Lubin was one of the first casualties in October. And so, I have a ribbon on my mailbox. And so, the thought that we would be continuing to creep toward a global conflict, which based on the kinds of weapons that we have now, would be just disastrous beyond proportions that I think we can imagine-- that's a major concern. And I haven't heard a whole bunch from Kamala, which is one of the sort of feathers in Trump's cap, if you will, despite all the ridiculous things that he's said, he didn't get us into any additional foreign conflict.

MG: And so, when you hear him say that he takes pride in that, but also that he would try to end some of those wars, is that something that turns your head?

CAMERON LEWELLEN: Definitely. It's hard for me to put into words the fact that I can't imagine being a person on this planet who is standing by watching the number of casualties. Not for, you know, trying to say who's right or wrong in the conflict, but in something that we should all recognize is preventable. And that with good people and good government and good leadership, the United States could play a pivotal role. That's a bigger sort of crisis. Shorter term, it's definitely the economy. But if you don't mind, I'd love to pick up on that abortion angle too, because I have three kids of my own. My mom had me when she was 17, so she had to skip her entire year of high school. And she told me when I got older that there were people that had recommended options to her. Our country is fundamentally founded on freedom. I think we have juxtaposed two different issues on abortion, one which is this freedom between a doctor and a woman and the other which is life itself. And I enjoyed hearing Amy talk about that struggle. I want to be very clear, I'm not in favour necessarily of trying to say at a federal level what someone should do in terms of restriction. I'm in favour of freedom, but that is talking about health care, so that if a woman is in an exceptional situation, rape, incest, anything like that, that is a situation of freedom that I don't have any right to be a part of. But then when we talk about a system that will refuse to look at the systemic nature of abortion, which does impact minority communities far more and which does now put the burden of the mother to kind of engage in medical tourism, I have a problem there because if we are as a society trying to look at systemic issues within the Black community, certainly we would try to think about modernized programs that would either help to prevent that from happening or have a more efficient state run approach to put those babies with families that would care for them, because I believe in life as well.

MG: You mentioned the economy. How does the state of the economy directly impact you right now?

CAMERON LEWELLEN: Well, I think any person who's gone to buy groceries, who's looked at the price of gas over the years and how it's fluctuated, on a localized level, I think we think about, you know, what our bills are. And so for me, looking for a job currently it's difficult because I see that the industry itself is starting to take a shift in terms of tech. We saw that the feds just cut 50 basis points. That feels a little bit to me like they're slamming on the brakes, right? To make sure that we don't go into a situation of deflation. And I'm concerned because I hear a lot about new policies and things from Kamala Harris, but I don't hear that she will kind of kerb government spending, work with Republicans to get a balanced budget or any of the things that would represent fiscal responsibility. It seems a lot of pandering and, again, a lack of policy.

MG: Just the last point on this, I mean, and if you don't mind me asking about it, I mean, before you hopped on this call, you were dealing with a family emergency with your daughter. Health care is about the economy as well. And the two of them come together. What does that do in terms of your anxiety?

CAMERON LEWELLEN: Let's put it this way. Concepts of a plan does not earn my vote. My daughter, like a lot of kids her age, are going to probably have to have her tonsils and adenoids out. It affects how she slept last night, which obviously any parent knows if your child does not sleep well, most of the time, you... [MG: You don't sleep well either.] Having an understanding of where we are with Obamacare matters to me, I think the reason that Trump was unable to dismantle it is because overall it does provide a public good. Not being able to say how we would revise it, update it, kerb pharmaceutical manufacturing, drug costs or anything like that, that matters to me a great deal. Going back to that particular point, that would be a place where I'd probably lean into Kamala Harris because I think she's more likely to look at that as being a feather in the cap of Democrats that they can stand on.

MG: Jeff, you're down in Tucson near the southern border in Arizona. You've been down there for five generations. Immigration is a huge issue, and that border is a huge issue in this campaign. What are you seeing when it comes to immigration that might sway your vote?

JEFF HERR: So, we had legislation up for a vote that would have provided a major overhaul in how we handle inbound asylum seekers, illegal entries by just routine people just coming across for other reasons. We had legislation that was ready to address many of the issues that we're facing at the border. Today, there are these checkpoints along the major highways going north and south coming up from the border-- those are all unmanned right now because they had to move all those people to the border ports of entry nearby where they're just streaming across. They can't focus on, you know, human trafficking, drug interdiction, any of that because they're over there processing these people coming over by the hundreds, if not thousands. Thankfully, those numbers have gone down a bit, but we had a plan in place. There was a bipartisan legislation package that was put to a vote and Donald Trump told Republicans in the Senate to scuttle it. And now we have nothing. There are dozens, if not more, border patrol vehicles, brand new sitting in parking lots down along the border. But we don't have the staff to go put those vehicles to work to help immigrants coming across and to protect people who live along the border. There are issues with immigration. We had the tools to address that in that bipartisan immigration reform bill. One of the best in decades. So, that is really all at the feet of Donald Trump. He made that happen. He has left the border in chaos as a political lever. He wanted to use that against his opponent.

MG: The belief was that he pushed to have that scuttled because he could then run on the border.

JEFF HERR: Exactly.

MG: He also says that he has this plan for the largest deportation effort in American history. Says he's going to crack down on illegal immigration. What do you make of that plan?

JEFF HERR: The idea that we're going to deport 14 million people, some who've been in this country working and paying taxes, I mean, immigrants currently, they generate about 380 billion dollars in federal tax payments a year. So, all that money goes away. It's impractical to think we can deport 14 million people without having a huge impact on the economy. These people are doing jobs that we need, but also it's just logistically impossible. We have two million people incarcerated in the U.S. right now and we can barely manage those people. Now we're going to take another 14 million and start dealing with these humans and moving them around? It's just, it's impractical.

MG: Amy, this came up, this issue of the border came up. It was one of the things that was discussed in this debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Apparently, it's going to be the only debate that they're going to have. What would you have wanted to hear from them that might have given you a sense as to where your vote would be best placed?

AMY DANZER: I'd like to hear some plans, not just platitudes. You know, after the debate, I looked on the websites for both Harris and Trump. Trump has 20, basically, sentences without any explanation as to how some of the things that he would like to do would actually be carried out. Kamala Harris has put some of those types of things onto her website. The plans are not necessarily as fleshed out as I would like them to be. But there are those types of issues that need to be explained, you can't just say we're going to send all of the immigrants home without having some type of plan to be able to do that. And I really don't think that there are plans. I think there are statements to try and get particular portions of the voters to vote because of that statement.

MG: Cameron, was that what you were looking for as well in that debate? Again, it was targeted, that debate, specifically in many ways, at undecided voters. The ones who can, like you, sway this election.

CAMERON LEWELLEN: Yes, indeed. Immigration has typically been one of the things that we talked about as one of the American superpowers. And yet now we're kind of wrapped up in xenophobia where we're having conversations that don't really relate to the true nature of immigration. Which is one, you know, our standing in the world should make us a beacon of hope and where people want to come. But two, if we don't have programs that actually manage those people, we get things like kids in cages. And we also get, you know, people risking their lives. And for what? Right? Because of the fact that our political system can't decide on a methodology to actually work together.

MG: Jeff, you have this really interesting dilemma because one of the candidates you've written off, the other one you still need to hear more from. And if you don't, you'll just stay home. What specifically would you like to see from Kamala Harris that would get you out the door?

JEFF HERR: To Amy's point, I want to see more than just a few paragraphs on her website, but we really need to understand the mechanics of what her administration would do. So, I'm waiting to see that information come out. And if it doesn't, I'll vote down ballot, but certainly not for a candidate for presidency.

MG: How representative do you think you are of some Republican voters in the United States? I mean, the belief is that the party has in many ways been taken over by Donald Trump and those around him. But that's not all Republicans. Right? So, when you, if you speak to friends or family, do they also feel like they're kind of voters that don't have a place to park their vote?

JEFF HERR: Yeah, it's been a pretty dynamic election season. And yes, there are a lot of people who were Republicans who are now independents. And without a nation, without a country, so to speak, electorally. So, it's a challenging situation.

MG: You're all doing the work. But the last question I would ask you is if you had to vote now, I mean, if the vote was today, not on the 5th of November, where would your vote go? Amy?

AMY DANZER: Unfortunately, at this point in time, I think that I would need to go and vote for Kamala Harris because I don't know that I can trust Trump to make decisions that are in the best interest of the United States long term.

MG: Jeff?

JEFF HERR: Ultimately, something has to be done to take Donald Trump out of our governance. I guess, begrudgingly, I would say ten per cent chance I would vote for Kamala Harris. Still 90 per cent I wouldn't vote for president.

MG: What about for you, Cameron?

CAMERON LEWELLEN: Yeah, unfortunately, I would say I probably would vote for Kamala Harris. The last debate showed me something. We've had years and years of Donald Trump, whether it's because of the assassination attempts or Kamala herself, he was goaded into a type of behaviour that did not represent leadership.

MG: It's not today, though. A lot is at stake and you're still doing the work and trying to make up your mind. In the meantime, thanks for walking us through where you are right now. I appreciate it.

CAMERON LEWELLEN: Thanks a lot.

AMY DANZER: Thank you.

MG: Amy Danzer was in Erie, Pennsylvania, Cameron Lewellen just outside of Atlanta, Georgia, and Jeff Herr was in Tucson, Arizona. We're going to be heading to Tucson just before the election. Stay tuned for that, coming up on The Current. Your CBC News is next. And then...

[Music: Theme]

MG: A growing number of parents are using technology to track their kids. Things like AirTags and apps that tell you where those kids are and what they might be doing. Should parents be doing that? And what is the effect of tracking, some might say spying on your children? What does it do to trust? What does it do to those kids? And what does it do for parents' anxiety. We'll talk about that coming up in six minutes. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. Stay with us.

[Music: Fades up]

Would you track your kids with AirTags?

Guests: Devorah Heitner, Valerie Steeves,

MG: Hello, I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: It's 10 p.m.. Do you know where your children are?

MG: Well, do you know where your children are? The answer 40 plus years ago, when that public service announcement ran, might have been no. Today, parents often know exactly where their kids are. More and more parents are keeping tabs on their kids with technology.

SOUNDCLIP

JAMES SMITH: My name is James Smith. I'm from North Vancouver, B.C., and my daughter is eight years old. We use the Apple AirTag that goes in her backpack, her school bag. It sort of gives me a bit of peace of mind that I know when she puts it down and runs off to go play or if she's on a field trip, I know where she is and where her bag is. It's not something I actively monitor, but if I need to be able to find her or her stuff, it's there. So, it's just a peace of mind just in case. I think that she gets a lot more freedom because I don't have to have eyes on her. If she's off playing on a field trip, I don't worry so much. Having these kinds of tools at our fingertips is a great thing.

MG: Well, if just seeing your child's location on an Apple AirTag isn't enough, there's an app called Life360 and you can see everything from your kid's location to their phone battery percentage to how fast they're driving.

SOUNDCLIP

BRITTNEY WALKER: My name is Brittney Walker and we have a 17 year old daughter and two 15 year old sons. So, Life360 not only lets you monitor them in real time as far as their driving, or if they're a passenger in a vehicle, they'll send you drive records telling you they had a lot of heavy braking or they looked at their cell phones while they were driving. It just kind of eases my mind a little bit, I would say. It's kind of like nobody really gives you a guidebook on parenting. And just because I do it one way doesn't mean that my way is right or somebody else's way is right or, you know, some people may be completely against tracking their children. In our situation, it's more for emergencies. Like, if they were to get in a car accident or if they were to be in a situation at a party where they, you know, somebody was trying to peer pressure them into something and they wanted to come home and they couldn't talk or give us an address or in a moment of panic, don't know where I'm at. We can pull it up.

MG: Or, you can use an app called Find My Kid, who tells you where your kid is. And if you haven't heard from them for a while, you can set off a loud siren-like ringtone.

SOUNDCLIP

ASHLEY BELL: My name is Ashley Bell. So, I have two kids. I have a seven-year-old and I have a 13-year-old. I chose this particular method because when it came to things like Apple AirTags, she could remove the necklace, she could remove the bracelet, and I would think she's in location A or B that she said she was. But she could easily have taken them off. My 13-year-old's more independent. She's wanting to go out for a walk. She's wanting to go see friends. I completely trust my child. I think open communication with them is the best way to do it in this world, in this society alone. We never know what's going to happen. And I like knowing that in the event of an emergency, I can go and help.

MG: It is becoming more normal than ever to always know exactly where your child is and often exactly what they are doing. Devorah Heitner is the author of the book Growing Up in Public: Coming of Age in a Digital World. And she also holds workshops with parents on raising kids in this digital age. Devora, good morning.

DEVORAH HEITNER: Hello.

MG: Those stories sound familiar?

DEVORAH HEITNER: They do. And parents are understandably anxious in a society where we're sometimes bombarded with news about terrible things happening to kids. And the fact that this technology exists can make us feel like we need to get it, otherwise we're bad parents. But I have real concerns about what this can lead to.

MG: I want to talk about those concerns in a moment. You wrote in The Atlantic that, 'Casual surveillance has become a given of modern parenting.' What is that-- and we heard some examples there-- but what does that casual surveillance look like?

DEVORAH HEITNER: It means you can pull your kid up on find my phone or tracking them in various other ways, and it can become habitual for parents even if they say, I'm only going to use it in an emergency. A lot of times people will just get curious like, has their bus to soccer arrived yet? I'm just going to check. Right? So, we don't necessarily wait for an emergency when the source of information is there and it's information we get used to having and then it starts to feel anxious if we don't have it. If our kid turns off the device or if we feel like they've outgrown it, we might feel like, well, they've outgrown Life360, they're off at university, but I'll still track them. And at what point, if you're paying for a family plan into your child's 20s, at what point does it become really inappropriate to be tracking them?

MG: This isn't just young kids that are being tracked either. I mean, you have, in that Atlantic piece, the story of a father who's tracking his kid who's at college. And what-- if she's not in class or he doesn't think that she's in class, he tries to figure out where she is.

DEVORAH HEITNER: Exactly. And that's very concerning. Right? Because at what point does she have the autonomy to make decisions about attending or missing class? For all he knows, class was cancelled or rescheduled or moved to a different location. And should he that on top of it? I certainly don't think my parents knew my day to day schedule at university. You know, they couldn't have told you what day my classes met. They just knew I was there to go to school. Right? And I think it's really important that young people take on that autonomy. And if we go back to younger kids, the thing I worry about the most is parents not teaching their kids skills that they need in an emergency. How to choose a safe and helpful adult to ask for help, how to ask for directions. Right, if we think, I'm tracking them, so I'll always be there for them, we're also depriving them of the opportunity to learn how to self advocate or navigate some of the more common situations. Like, what if your kid gets on the wrong bus after school one day and ends up in an unfamiliar place? You know, hopefully they have some skills to navigate that.

MG: Why do you think parents are doing this? Again, in those clips that we played, the parents made the case that, well, if something were to happen, I want to be confident in the knowledge that I could step in to help. That I could be there, I could figure out where my kid is. And if there's an issue, I can be of some assistance. When you speak with parents, what do they tell you about why they are surveilling their kids?

DEVORAH HEITNER: There's a sense that kids are imperilled, both in terms of mental health and physical danger. And sometimes we magnify the things we think we can control. And thankfully, certain things like, you know, kidnapping are very, very unusual. I would be much more concerned about who is your kid talking to when they play Roblox? And can you teach them some skills to be safe in their online interactions. And also teach them, frankly, if they have a device not to be looking at it all the time and pay attention to their surroundings. And it's really also important for young people not to distrust everyone. We don't want to create a situation where our kids go out in the world and think everyone is a danger to us.

MG: What do you think the parents are frightened of? I mean, part of this is that idea of stranger danger, what they used to call it. What do they really, what are they really scared of, do you think?

DEVORAH HEITNER: Well, we were teenagers. So, the mother who was worried, you know, wanting the driving reports. I mean, you know, my friends did all the things. They were like, let's experiment with driving without the lights on. You know, let's see what happens if we drive on the wrong side of the road. I mean, teenagers are dumb and do dumb dangerous things. The fact is, though, if you get really focused on tracking them, they may get more focused on slipping the tracking and leaving their phone somewhere and going, you know, going to the forbidden place without it. If we're depending on tech to monitor our kids, we're really undermining our relationship and getting them focused on being dishonest with us.

MG: And being a parent is a stressful thing-- he says, from some experience. But also, the surgeon general in the United States put out this advisory about the high stress levels on-- the poor mental health of parents. That this really does impact them. Do you think that monitoring your child would actually alleviate some of that anxiety that you might feel?

DEVORAH HEITNER: If you're monitoring as part of mentoring, it can be a step in the process of teaching your kid how to text, you know, early on when they're first learning that and saying, hey, let's look at this together. I think covertly monitoring our kids is always painting yourself into the corner. Then what do you do with that information? Say you find out your kid isn't going to class and she didn't know you were monitoring her. How do you bring that up? Right? So, much better to have the proactive conversations about things like drugs and alchohol. About smoking and vaping. About sex. All the tough things that parents are like, Oh yeah, I don't want to talk to my kids about it.

MG: You wrote that, 'Monitoring our kids gives us a false sense of security and leaves them poorly prepared for their future without us.' What is-- in the worst case scenario, and again, I'm not taking any shots at the people who do this and say that it helps them. But in the worst case scenario, what does this do to the parent-child relationship? If you aren't having those tough conversations and instead you are just keeping an eye on them from a distance?

DEVORAH HEITNER: It can take away the opportunity for our kids to let us know something when they're ready. If they're struggling with something, if there's something they want to tell us about their identity, but they're not ready yet, and we find out from spying, from reading their messages. I just want to say that I have tremendous empathy for why parents are so scared when kids are emerging in the world, as well.

MG: Because it's hard.

DEVORAH HEITNER: And but-- it also, when we are anxious, we're conveying that anxiety to them. So, the better we are at handling our anxiety, the more we're communicating to them, Hey, I have faith in you. I trust that you're okay. When you monitor your kid, you know, past any kind of reasonable amount, it's also communicating to them that you think there's something wrong with them. That you think they can't handle life.

MG: How do you-- and we're going to talk in just a moment about the perspective of teens and kids in a moment. But how do you understand how teens feel about this?

DEVORAH HEITNER: Teens are very frustrated by the easy monitoring. They're especially frustrated by things like parents monitoring their grades. A lot of schools will send grade updates through a portal that parents can access. And then parents are haranguing kids even through the school day, you know, texting their kids about-- during the school day about tests. Kids really don't like that. They really don't want you to read their texts. I have heard mixed responses on the geo tracking. I have to be really transparent. I, as you can tell, I'm not a fan of it. I have talked to some kids who say, well, I don't mind it because I monitor my parents right back. And if they passed my favourite coffee place, I can tell them to get me a latte or, you know, I can ask for a doughnut. But again, I would really think about why you're doing it. If it's truly optional, like if you make it a condition of driving, then that's not really optional. So, I did also talk to many kids who are frustrated by the geo tracking and felt like it communicated to them that their parents didn't trust them. So, I want to be clear not all teenagers are on board with this, but it seemed like the least intrusive to some kids compared with reading texts, for example, or constantly checking grades.

MG: If parents feel like, well, this is the world that we're in, but I'm kind of uncomfortable with that world and I want to figure out how to stop monitoring my child and give them a bit more independence, what advice would you give those parents?

DEVORAH HEITNER: I think you can have the conversation with your kid and say, look, I was monitoring this because, you know, I was nervous about location or, you know, there was that one time where you got lost at the mall and it really freaked me out. But ever since then, since you, you know, took that self-defence class or since we practice some strategies, you know, for getting help if you and I get separated and you don't know how to find me, you know, you can communicate that. And then you can say, and this is our backup system, right? This is our way that you can communicate to me if you need help.

MG: And that's about mutual trust in some ways. And actually talking, actually having a conversation.

DEVORAH HEITNER: Yes, absolutely. And recognizing no matter what, you cannot keep your kids safe all the time. And they will make choices. Whether or not you're tracking them, there will be times where they mess up. But it's better for them sometimes to realize that on their own. Kids need to feel like they're doing some things independently and they have some autonomy. We don't want our kids to feel like they need to go to the dark web or have a burner phone or, you know, have to go so far out of their way. And it's important to give kids the chance to see what happens if they're late or see what happens if, you know, they make a decision we don't agree with. Some of that is part of growing up. And it's really tough. It's tough to let our kids absorb risk. But absorbing small risks now has huge payoff for their sense of, hey, I can be okay in the world. I actually did get myself out of that situation.

MG: Devorah, thank you very much for this. There's a ton to think of it.

DEVORAH HEITNER: Thank you.

MG: Deborah Heitner is the author of Growing Up in Public: Coming of Age in a Digital World. Tas Rahman is a 20-year-old student at Brown University in Rhode Island. His parents have monitored his location since he was in middle school using the 'Find My' feature on the iPhone. And they continued to keep tabs on him while he was at university until recently when he had enough. He was out for dinner with some friends when his parents started texting him.

SOUNDCLIP

TAS RAHMAN: I started getting this bombard of text messages. It was like ridiculous things. Like, "It's getting late." Like, "Why aren't you going home?" Like, "You don't want to throw away your future because you get attacked late at night." And to me, this felt a little ridiculous. And I was also embarrassed, and I was like, with my friends from high school and my parents are like texting me like, go home, it's late. And so, then I decided then and there that if this tool that we've had in place since, you know, I was like in seventh grade was being used in a way to like, I guess, control my whereabouts, then it's not something that I wanted to participate in any longer.

MG: And so, he stopped sharing his location with his parents. He says he understands why parents monitor their kids, but his relationship with his parents is actually better without it.

SOUNDCLIP

TAS RAHMAN: It's used to control, and I think that's a thing that parents have a lot of trouble letting go of. Especially in the cultural background that I come from, because, you know, it's very much hard to let go of your children. I've never given them a reason to not trust my judgement. And at the end of the day, I am hundreds of miles away from them. And I think this is one of the first situations in their life where they truly don't have control. And so for me, the solution has been just calling my mom more.

MG: Valerie Steeves is a professor in the Department of Criminology at the University of Ottawa and Co-leads The Equality Project, which looks at surveillance online and how it affects children and teens. She is in Ottawa. Valerie, hello to you.

VALERIE STEEVES: Morning.

MG: What goes through your mind when you hear Tas's story? He says that in many ways, that monitoring that his parents were involved in was about control.

VALERIE STEEVES: Yeah, I think that's a common tale. So, I've spent the last 20 years talking to kids about their experience with technology. And so, much of that conversation has to do with surveillance. What really struck me about his comments was that he let them do it for so long. I think it's far more common that when you watch people, they hide. And so, most of the teens that we talk to who are under that level of surveillance are actively sharing ideas around the table if we're in a focus group situation, of, you know, giving their best bets of how to get away from it. How to trick the system so it thinks you're someplace else.

MG: What is the system? I mean, we heard a little bit of that from Devorah in terms of how parents are monitoring their kids. What have you heard about how this unfolds?

VALERIE STEEVES: Well, I think it's important to remember that this is really based in a corporate commercial online environment that's designed to capture data. And in order to sell that environment, then people have to be comfortable with this level of surveillance. And so, even if you go back to the late 90s, when media scholars first became concerned with the ways that children were being monitored by corporations and manipulated by corporations, they raised all sorts of questions about privacy and about how the surveillance would impact a child's development. And legislators responded mainly by saying, look, you know, we'll just give you some kind of data protection control over your data. Maybe there needs to be parental consent. So, the system from very early on has really been built to be sticky, especially with kids. So, they'll drop lots of data so that data can be pulled into algorithmic nudges and sales pitches. And part of selling that whole system to parents has been telling them it's their job. If something's going to happen to your kid, then you can use surveillance, too.

MG: What do the kids and teens that you've talked to tell you about how this impacts them? I mean, we just heard that story of control in some ways. What do you hear?

VALERIE STEEVES: Yeah, I mean, we hear words about control. We hear words about spying. I'd say that the main message they have is that if parents rely on these types of strategies to help their kids grow up, it erodes the very trust that's required for their child to be able to come to the parent when they do have problems. Parents are in a particularly difficult situation, and there is this ethos out there that suggests that if we put kids under surveillance and tattle on them, that somehow we'll be able to protect them. Whereas the kids are telling us that that very approach is what's eroding the trust that allows them to bring us their problems so we can help them solve them when they need our help.

MG: It's just a different time now, though. And I wonder whether what we saw recently, META, which is the company that runs Facebook and Instagram and what have you, announced these rules for teens using Instagram with increased parental control. So, parents can actually see who their kids are interacting with and who they're sending, you know, ostensibly, private messages to. And that's a lot different than what Devorah was saying. Sneaking out to another town maybe to watch The Rocky Horror Picture Show. What do you think of that? I mean, META has been criticised and social media companies have been criticised for a long time for the damage that social media does to kids. Is this a good step allowing those parents to have a look in to say, okay, I see what you're doing now and if there's a problem, I'm aware of it?

VALERIE STEEVES: Well, I think two things. First, I think that that takes our attention away from the fact that the system is set up to allow for corporate surveillance and individualized and puts a pressure on parents to protect their kids from, say, the kinds of extreme conversations that algorithms are throwing up because they're sticky and they attract more attention. But I think as well that there's, you know, over the past 20 years, and it is as true today as it was back then, there's a gap between the things that adults are concerned about what kids do in these environments and what kids are concerned about. So, if adults are concerned about stranger danger, adults are concerned about cyber bullying, when we sit down with teens, they tell us these are the problem-- these are things we don't have problems with. If a stranger approaches me and I'm in a networked environment, I block them. If somebody says something to me that's really mean, I get a screen capture so I can take it to my teacher and go, 'See, I told you. This person is, you know, treating me badly.' So, what kids complain about is really, being placed in an environment where civil discourse has eroded to the extent that so much of what they see in the online environment is misogynistic or homophobic or hateful. And when they talk about their concerns about those types of problems, they pin it on adults. What's wrong with adults? Why are you guys talking like this in this environment? Why are you putting me under surveillance when actually you should be looking at your own behaviour because it's your behaviour that's the problem?

MG: So, how do you go about protecting your kids, if not by monitoring their online behaviour? Again, there are a lot of parents who just do that. And it didn't require META to do that. They just, the deal is if you have this phone and you have this account, I have access to the account and to the phone.

VALERIE STEEVES: So, I've raised five of my own kids and I think we all share that empathy for the position that parents are in. What I can tell you as a researcher is that the evidence is very clear that monitoring actually is counterproductive. The more you place kids under surveillance, the more they're likely to do something that you would consider antisocial. So, the first thing to understand is that it doesn't work. And if you think back to all of those comments that you started with among the parents is, I do it for my ease of mind. I do it for my peace of mind. I'm using this technology to purchase a certain comfort level. But in actual fact, it doesn't work that way. Like, it's not going to make your child any safer. It's going to create an environment where it's more difficult for them to navigate because you are no longer one of the resources that they can turn to, to help them when they do run into trouble. So, I think that young people tell us over and over again that this spying doesn't work for them. It's counterproductive. It tells them that they're not trusted. But it also tells them they can't trust the adults that they are surrounded by. So, they're left on their own to deal with the problems that do concern them, like the degradation of public discourse.

MG: What advice then, and this is the question that I asked Devorah at the end of our conversation with her, and I'll ask you. What advice would you give parents who are struggling, they're struggling to figure out a way to make their way through this. To keep their kids safe online, but also give them that choice and agency and build up a sense of mutual trust. What would you say to those parents?

VALERIE STEEVES: Well, research backs this up. The single most important thing you can do is make dinner with your kids and eat with them. Spend time with them. Have-- it's, we've kind of got this belief out there now that it's quality time over quantity time. Whereas everything we know about parenting is it's the opposite. You know, you just have to be around. So, if at 2:00 in the morning, they come into your room and they say, Hey, I need to talk to you about something, you're available for them. So, it's just that common everyday living with kids that creates those kinds of opportunities for conversation. You know, even if you look at how we've overprogrammed kids and we've got them into all these sports things. I have so many friends who tell me they don't eat dinner with their kids because they're driving them someplace. And that disrupts those moments where you're just hanging around talking about what happened in the day and creating a space where if a child does have a problem, they can bring it up.

MG: That they feel comfortable with you and you feel comfortable in trusting them, in some ways.

VALERIE STEEVES: Well, it seems to me that all human relationships ultimately are based on trust. And it's very clear when we speak to kids that when we use these forms of surveillance, we're telling them they're not trusted, they're not trustworthy. And in turn, we're not trusted and we're not trustworthy. So, it erodes the human conditions that we need to have healthy parent-child relationships. I don't know why we got to the point in our society where we thought we could replace hanging out together and talking and eating and sharing life together with watching a dot on a monitored screen go over a boundary and say, now you're in trouble because you went to, like, in Ottawa, it's if you cross the river and go over to Hull because you can drink longer over there.

MG: Valerie, thank you very much for this.

VALERIE STEEVES: You're welcome.

MG: Valerie Steeves is a professor in the Department of Criminology at the University of Ottawa. What do you make of this? Parenting is hard and parents are trying to do the best and want to do the best for their kids. Given that, do you monitor your children? Maybe you have intentionally decided not to. Are you a teen or young adult whose parents track you or used to track you? What do you make of this idea of so-called surveillance parenting and the tools that are available to make it really easy? You can email us: thecurrent@cbc.ca. Coming up after your regional update-- Gisele Pelicot has become a powerful symbol for victims of what many see as France's persistent rape culture.

SOUNDCLIP

BRITTNEY WALKER: It's horrible what her husband did to her. So, she needs to have this process. She needs to have this trial, and she needs to hear her husband, first of all. But then she also wanted this trial to be public so that the society can learn something from it.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Coming up, what one activist hopes will come from a mass rape trial that is rocking France and making headlines around the world. That's in 90 seconds. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current. Stay with us.

[Music: Fades up]

Will Gisèle Pelicot's rape case spark change in France?

Guests: Anne-Cécile Mailfert

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current. A warning about this next story: it contains details about sexual violence and may be disturbing.

[Sounds: Crowd cheering]

MG: That crowd in Paris is chanting for Gisèle Pelicot, the woman at the centre of a mass rape trial that is rocking France. Her ex-husband, Dominique Pelicot, is on trial, accused of raping and drugging his then wife and recruiting dozens of other men to sexually assault her while she was unconscious. Dominique Pelicot has confessed to raping Gisèle repeatedly. Fifty other men are also accused of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault. Gisèle Pelicot has become a powerful symbol for victims of sexual abuse and galvanised a nationwide movement calling for change to what many see as France's persistent rape culture. Anne-Cécile Mailfert is the president of Fondation des Femmes. It's a women's rights advocacy group in France. And joins us now. Hello.

ANNE-CÉCILE MAILFERT: Hello.

MG: This trial, as I say, has gripped France and the details are awful and horrifying. Why do you think it has had such an impact in your country?

ANNE-CÉCILE MAILFERT: It has such an impact because first of all, there are, it's a very, very serious... there are very serious crimes. It's horrible. It's something extraordinary. So, we have had a lot of media coverage, but also because there are more than 50 men. And so, it looks like it's kind of, it could be any any men, actually, because, you know, you can find a journalist, a fireman, they're all accused of having raped Gisèle Pelicot. But also because Gisèle Pelicot looks like, you know, a normal French woman. She's 70, she's retired. She's had children. She's in a-- she's really like, a normal lady, you know. So, any lady in France can actually identify with her. So, it has become kind of a trial. And yeah, the trial on men's sexuality-- or the trial on the rape culture in France. It has become very symbolic. And also, of course, because, as you said, Pelicot refused the closed trial. We can all see and hear the way that those men are defending themselves and the way they are justifying their actions and their crimes.

MG: Those men, as you said, include a local counsellor, a nurse, a journalist, a former police officer, a prison guard, a firefighter and a civil servant. No one said anything. What does that tell you?

ANNE-CÉCILE MAILFERT: Well, none of them said anything. But also, if you realize that Gisèle Pelicot's husband has been offering his wife for more than ten years on different websites where he was open that you could actually go there and see that he was offering his wife. And also that there was more than 80 men actually on the videos. And some of them went there and then went back because they didn't want to do that, but yet they didn't say anything. Like, none of them actually reported that horrible crime to the police. What that says is that there is kind of a complicity when it comes to male violence. And this is why also we are using this case to sensitise men in our country saying that don't be in solidarity with aggressors, don't be complicit of aggressions, because if you do that, women are left alone. And it's much harder for us to save ourselves. So, we are asking men to actually break the boys club and to denounce their friends when they do bad actions.

MG: Gisèle Pelicot, as you said, wanted the world to know her name. This could have remained behind closed doors. She opted to have a public trial to have her name made public. We heard a little bit at the beginning of our conversation, the sound of her walking out of court this week, and she was greeted with applause by onlookers. Tell me more about what it is about her that so many women identify with.

ANNE-CÉCILE MAILFERT: Well, she's become kind of a, you know, sort of a real figure because she's a real symbol of resilience, a symbol of courage. Because you can also see the way she, you know, she behaves like she's very, with lots of dignity. Of course, there is like, I mean, there's no good or bad victims. Okay. So, I mean, we all do how we can with when we have to survive sexual violence. But the way she's handling it is making her very strong in front of all these men that are trying to fight. And so, it looks like the shame is not her. Like, they are ashamed. She has nothing to fear and she has nothing to be ashamed for. And they have to fear the justice now and they have to be ashamed. And actually, it's kind of a way of, you know, changing the perspective on rape and saying that women don't have to be ashamed. And it's really her way of, you know, being, yeah, very straight, with lots of dignity. And so, she's, also said thank you to all the people who demonstrate in France. So, there is kind of a dialogue that is being installed between her saying that thank you so much for the courage you're giving me and the people and women in France saying, thank you, Gisèle. You're helping all of us to make sure that the rape culture changes in France.

MG: The mayor of the town in southern France where this abuse took place has downplayed the severity of this case. Saying that while it was serious, in his words, "No one was killed." What does that response tell you?

ANNE-CÉCILE MAILFERT: Sorry. I'm just, I'm laughing because this is so French in a way. You know, it's like, it looks like it hasn't changed for decades. It's the same type of men who are, you know, still in power. And they are minimizing the perpetrator's responsibility, saying like, nobody died. Okay. Well, she was raped by more than 80 men. Like, why do you say that? Nobody died. She's also like, you know, he also said, 'She's going to survive. She's going to be fine.' And so, this is exactly what I was talking about when I said rape culture. It's the way that we question the victim's credibility, the way we minimize the perpetrator's responsibility and the way also we can say that, oh, it might have just been a game. So, all these arguments reflects rape culture. And this mayor of Mazan is the typical defendant of the rape culture. And we are fighting against this type of ideas because it's terrible.

MG: So, there are changes to the legal and the justice system that people are calling for. But when you say that that mayor's response was so French, broadly, I mean, what's the conversation that you would like to see come out of this that would change, beyond the legal system, that broader cultural attitude?

ANNE-CÉCILE MAILFERT: Well, we need things to change. We need men to change their ways of considering women. Like, they, we need to change so many things. This is why we are asking for a comprehensive law. Of course, the law is not everything. But the problem in France also is that you have all these people saying those horrible things. But also we have an impunity, you know, in our system. And this impunity also reinforces all those ideas that it's not that serious. It's okay. Like, nobody died. So, because you have to know that in France there is more than 94 per cent of the cases of rape that are closed without prosecution. So, there is no trial for 94 per cent of the rape cases that police know about. And in some cases, there is not even any investigations, even if they know who the name, the telephone, they don't even call the guy. They don't even take his phone. So, we are living in that system where impunity actually is a way of protecting also that rape culture. So, we need to change the law. We need to change the practices, also. We need to change the way investigators investigate. The way judges judge. The way the defence lawyers defend their clients. And we need also, of course, to change that culture. And to change that culture, there are things that we can do at school for children because it starts, it all starts there. But we still have to deal with men that are grown up. So, we also have to change representations and change the discourse. And I think she's helping Gisèle, is helping us a lot to make progress and make sure that people, in particular men, understand how difficult it is for women, how serious it is, how criminal it is to rape a woman.

MG: Anne-Cécile Mailfert, thank you very much for speaking with us this morning.

ANNE-CÉCILE MAILFERT: Thank you.

MG: Anne-Cécile Mailfert is president of Fondation des Femmes. It's a women's rights advocacy group. And she was in Paris.

[Music: Instrumental]

Lebanon in mourning, on brink of war

Guests: Jane Arraf

MG: This is The Current on CBC Radio. My name is Matt Galloway.

[Sounds: Crashing, crowds shouting]

MG: It's the sound of chaos in Beirut. Dozens of people were killed, thousands wounded as pagers, walkie talkies and other devices exploded across the country this week. The militant group Hezbollah blames Israel for the attacks, something the Israeli government has not confirmed. Tensions continued yesterday with the Israeli defence forces conducting strikes against several Hezbollah sites. Hezbollah, meanwhile, launched rocket attacks into northern Israel. More than 100 rockets launched just this morning. Jane Arraf is an international correspondent with National Public Radio. She's in Beirut. Jane, hello.

JANE ARRAF: Hi, Matt.

MG: You have been reporting on this for the last several days. What are you hearing and seeing in Beirut?

JANE ARRAF: Well, it's really a different sort of landscape after this week's attacks. You know, Lebanon is obviously used to wars, conflicts. They've been running for a very long time. But this was a very new kind of attack. As you mentioned, it was devices exploding. First there were pagers exploding, handheld pagers where Hezbollah members, who also include office workers and medics, received messages. Those detonated all in the space of an hour, thousands of them. And then the following day, there were walkie talkies, hand-held radios that also exploded. As you mentioned, dozens of people killed and thousands wounded. So, it really has been deeply unsettling for people here.

MG: Tell me more about that, that unsettlement. I mean, how are people feeling, as you understand it, not just in the city, but more broadly across Lebanon right now?

JANE ARRAF: Yeah, it's really hard to describe because just imagine that everything you kind of assumed about going through your day to day life had been upended. And by that I mean taxi drivers who are hesitant because they don't know if someone they're going to pick up has a pager on them. The thought that someone next to you in the supermarket could have something that could explode. I mean, again, the intended target for this was clearly Hezbollah fighters. But the actual victims were people all over. They included children. At least two children died. They included medics. And because these were synchronised attacks and they went off pretty much everywhere, it was almost impossible to do anything about them. So, what everyone's thinking now is, could this happen again and what's next?

MG: The leader-- and that's the big question, what's next? The leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, spoke yesterday on television. What was his message?

JANE ARRAF: He essentially said that, yes, this is a big blow, probably unprecedented in Hezbollah security. But he said it's not going to change the course of whatever comes. And by that, he means it's not going to stop Hezbollah from fighting Israel across the border. He said the only thing that can stop that is an end to the war in Gaza, which is the reason that Hezbollah has been fighting Israel to support Hamas and the Palestinians in Gaza. He also said revenge was coming, but he wouldn't say where or when. So, we're not any wiser about that aspect of it. But clearly they need to plan something that would have, if not the wait, at least the unpredictable nature of the attack that this did. I was listening to him speak while I was at a hospital where a lot of the wounded came. People had hands blown off, fingers blown off. A lot of the people were blinded because as they reached for their pagers, they exploded as they held them up to their faces to read the messages. And so, something like 30 per cent of the patients who are coming in with blast wounds had been blinded in both eyes. It's been a very dramatic and devastating attack. And their main message, Nasrallah's main message is: keep the faith. We will wreak vengeance, but I'm not going to say how or when.

MG: How are ordinary people, if I can put it that way, in Lebanon, looking at Hezbollah in light of what's happened? This is an organization that the Canadian government and many others have designated a terrorist organization. But they have significant support in Lebanon. How are people looking at Hezbollah now?

JANE ARRAF: Yeah, great question. You know, I think we just need a tiny bit of background here, which is that Hezbollah is, as you mentioned, designated a terrorist organization. But it is Hezbollah as well here, that fought Israel when Israel invaded Lebanon more than once. They're much stronger than the Lebanese army. You know, if you go back to history, Lebanon was basically carved out of an area and intentionally designed to be weak, according to most historians. So, Hezbollah emerged to fight Israel, and that is its main role right now. So, even people who do not identify with Hezbollah, which is has a Shia Muslim based ideology, many of them are grateful that Hezbollah is here. Without them, they believe that Israel would overrun Lebanon again. That isn't to say there isn't a lot of opposition. This is, as you know, a very complicated, diverse society. It's multiethnic, multi-religious, and that's also the way it was set up. For the faithful, I have to say, because this is important and I think we overlook this. You know, at one of the funerals, we went to the funerals for four people who were killed in the initial attacks, and they included a boy and a medic. And I turned around and I started talking to one of the mourners. He was in 11th grade, 16 years old, incredibly articulate. And he said, you know, this isn't like a battlefield. This isn't war. You expect casualties in war, but this was terrorism. And he said, I don't understand why others don't see this as terrorism. And then he went on to say, and this was the really important part, I think, that we need to understand. He said, what most people don't realize is that for us, death is not a wall, it's a door. And by that he means this isn't necessarily going to stop the faithful. You know, Hezbollah fighters and their supporters. In fact, it could encourage them to fight more.

MG: That goes back to that question of what happens next. I mean, Hassan Nasrallah said that --and you've mentioned this-- Hezbollah will continue launching missiles and drones into Israel until the war with Hamas has ended. Something like 60,000 people in northern Israel have been displaced because of these attacks. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has said that he is vowing to get those people back into their homes in northern Israel. There is a fear that despite a history of conflict, that these attacks are kind of edging the region closer and closer to an all out war. How are people-- I mean, you've kind of hinted at this-- but how are people in Lebanon reckoning with that? That it's not, you know, individualized conflicts, but something that could engulf the entire region?

JANE ARRAF: Yeah, I think there are a couple of issues there. One is the issue of displaced and Nasrallah addressed that as well. He said the whole point of Israel going to war would be to return citizens to the north of Israel. But he said this is going to have the opposite effect. If Israel launches all out war and Hezbollah obviously will retaliate, then he said that will delay, that would prevent people from coming back to the border areas, which make sense. And on this side of the border, on the Lebanese side, there are just as many civilians who have been displaced. They're not-- on the Israeli side, they're put up in hotels by the government. They're given stipends. None of that exists on the Lebanese side. So, there's displacement and death on both sides of the border. As to all out war, no, nobody wants war. Clearly, nobody wants war. And if there were the choice, they would say, no, we don't want war, but they also don't want to be invaded. And they're really, you know, the past couple of weeks, the past two months, what we've seen is incremental escalations. Nothing that is de-escalating the situation. And in light of the past attacks over this week, that seems to be escalating even further.

MG: So, if we end by just going back to where we started, which is where people are at right now in Beirut, where do people go from here, do you think?

JANE ARRAF: The Lebanese are, for better or worse, incredibly resilient. I mean, this is a city which was blown up when the port exploded just a few years ago. It's still rebuilding. It's in the midst of an economic crisis. It's in the midst of a political crisis. It's always in a crisis. And yet people are resilient. But what it's really affecting is the desire of the many, many Lebanese abroad to come back for good. It's really affecting the economy because tourists aren't coming, expatriate Lebanese aren't coming, and it's affecting the ability to count on the future. And that's essentially what war does.

MG: Jane, thank you very much for this.

JANE ARRAF: Thank you, Matt.

MG: Jane Arraf is an international correspondent with National Public Radio and she was in Beirut. This is The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen App. My name is Matt Galloway. Did you buy anything today? Maybe picked up a coffee to kickstart the morning. Did you leave a tip? And if so, was leaving a tip of your own accord? Or did you feel like maybe you were guilted into it? Maybe you were guilted into paying a bit more for the tip than you intended? Earlier this week, we were speaking about tipping culture in Canada. Quebec government is trying to rein in what it calls excessive tipping. We asked you whether tipping has reached a tipping point. The Current's senior producer, Karin Marley, is here to share some of your mail. Karin, good morning.

KARIN MARLEY: Good morning. First of all, how many puns can you make with tipping?

MG: Many, many. Don't ask me to count.

KARIN MARLEY: I'll get right to this email, then, from Tracey P. Lauriault, who writes: "I was in Europe this summer and go often. In many countries there is no tipping. Also, being a waiter there is a profession and it is done very well 98 per cent of the time. The prices for dining are often lower and the quality almost always better than here and consistently so. We go to some places year after year to see family in Sweden and to Italy for work. We see the same waiting stuff year after year, as well. Some as teenagers, busing, who then grow into other positions as adults in the same establishment. People stay in their towns and they love their work. They're well-paid, and of course, like anyone, they have benefits and paid holidays."

MG: James Burr writes: "There should be no tipping in any industry in Canada. Market forces should be the determinant of wages for workers in every industry. Supply and demand will determine what workers are paid. For the example of restaurant servers, they should all be paid a living wage by their employers. Restaurants can then choose to raise prices to provide this living wage and enter the competitive market for customers. If they charge too much, no customers. If their prices are competitive, then they will be in the market to have customers. Tipping has totally lost its relevance in the 21st century."

KARIN MARLEY: So, this letter is from a bookkeeper in Kelowna, B.C.: "I have a client who operates a fast food franchise. This owner keeps 100 per cent of the tip money submitted by card payment. I see that these funds are acknowledged as income and therefore taxed. This client openly tells me that none of the tip money is shared with the staff. Now, when making a card payment at a restaurant, I quietly inquire if the staff get the tips. Sadly, it's perhaps not so much tip creep as tip greed."

MG: Frances Smith writes: "What I find very frustrating is the practice of tip out that restaurants instituted on the waitstaff to have one to several percent of their total sales deducted for their shift." And I should just say that when you do this, a tip out, it means that those moneys that are collected are then shared and redistributed with support staff. People like bussers and cooks, dishwashers, food runners, etc.. Frances writes: "This tip out practice presumes that the waitstaff have received a tip for service. If the waitstaff has not received a tip, the deduction still occurs, so in effect, the waiter is paying management to work. Too many businesses justify paying low wages rather than paying the non-wait staff a reasonable one by relying on customers giving a tip regardless of what service has been supplied or if it was satisfactory."

KARIN MARLEY: So, Angela writes: "It's customary for my family to tip ten per cent of the amount before tax. I was very much taken aback once at a restaurant, which set their tipping percentages on the credit card machine to allow only three choices: 18 per cent, 23 per cent, and 28 per cent, which seemed exorbitant to me. I used to live in Japan, where tipping doesn't exist. During my first visit to Japan, I offered a tip to the taxi driver, who was very nice but refused. I applaud the Japanese custom of no tipping, since they believe that doing a good job is normal or is an intrinsic part of the job. Their wages are not that high, but good service is prevalent everywhere."

MG: The first time we went to England we were at a pub a man slid a pint across at the pub and I paid and left extra money as a tip. He snuck the money back. I put the money back. He snuck the money back. And I couldn't figure it out until I realized there's no tipping at this pub. This is from Ade Hughs, who says: "I now only tip in restaurants, coffee shops, providing the service is acceptable. Two of my favourite tipping experiences: I was at a Saanich dog grooming business and they wanted me to put the tip and pay before seeing what they had done to my dog. And I bought a bottle bottle of wine which I chose on my own. When I went to pay the prompt on the machine asked for a tip. I almost burst out laughing. And no, I did not leave one."

KARIN MARLEY: Finally, Janet Taylor writes: "I feel caught between adding to my payment and recognition of the service and subsidising the wages paid to the server. What amount do I pay? Do I put cash on the table, or do I just press a button since that's efficient? I was in Iceland this summer. They have a culture of no tipping, so the price listed on the menu plus the sales tax is your total. No more calculation needed. This is also applied to Hopp their equivalent of Uber. It made us comfortable dealing with those that gave us service. Across the experience, the service was excellent and all those who helped us were welcoming and so very pleasant."

MG: Thank you for all of your letters. Karin, thank you very much.

KARIN MARLEY: You're welcome.

MG: Karin Marley, senior producer here on The Current. If there's anything that you want to comment on, do get in touch. We read all of your mail. And as we say, some of it ends up right here on the radio. You can email us: thecurrent@cbc.ca. That is The Current for this Friday the 20th of September. Q is up next on CBC Radio One. We began today's program with a conversation with undecided voters in the United States, people who have yet to make up their mind in advance of the election on the 5th of November. We're going to finish today with a song by The Undecideds. This is Forgiven. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. Have a great weekend, and we'll see on Monday.

[Music: 'Forgiven' by The Undecideds]

Friday September 20, 2024 Full Transcript

Social Sharing