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

The AIH Transcript for May 25, 2018

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello, I'm Carol Off.

CHRIS HOWDEN: Good evening. I'm Chris Howden sitting in for Jeff Douglas. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

CH: Tonight…

CO: Roll the discredits. Today, disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein was arrested and charged with rape and sexual abuse. One of his accusers tells us about the feeling of seeing him in cuffs.

CH: A choice on choice. In today's referendum on abortion in Ireland our guest voted yes, because he strongly believes women shouldn't have to travel out of the country for the procedure like she did.

CO: Shock and after shock. Last night a bomb went off at a busy restaurant in Mississauga, Ontario injuring 15 people. Our guest was there to see the aftermath.

CH: A big burden for such tiny shoulders. After the straps on his three-year-old daughter’s sundress were deemed inappropriate for school, a Winnipeg father gives preschools dresscode a serious dressing down.

CO: Me and my chateau. Well, as a Canadian I'm not actually eligible to win the French castle owned by our guest. But if you live in the U.K. it could be yours for less than twenty bucks.

CH: And…She delivered and then she delivered. In the middle of her contractions, a Montreal woman also officiates the wedding of a patient down the hall in the same hospital who was also in labour. As It Happens: The Friday Edition. Radio that knows every wedding is a lot of work but this one was especially labour intensive.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Weinstein Charged, Restaurant Attack, Sun Dress Parent

Weinstein Charged

Guest: Sarah Anne Massie

CH: Early this morning Harvey Weinstein arrived at a Manhattan police station.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: Harvey, why’d you do it Harvey? Is this an admission of guilt? Harvey, what took you so long? Harvey!

CH: Must have felt just like the old days with cameras snapping and reporters calling his name — but Harvey Weinstein wasn't walking the red carpet. Today, after turning himself into police the disgraced Hollywood producer was perp-walked into a New York City court. He's been charged with rape sexual abuse and sexual misconduct for incidents involving two women. Dozens of women have come forward in the last eight months accusing Mr. Weinstein of sexual assault. Mr. Weinstein denies any non-consensual sex acts. His lawyer Ben Brafman spoke outside the courtroom today.

SOUNDCLIP

BEN BRAFMAN: Mr. Weinstein will enter a plea of not guilty. We intend to move very quickly to dismiss these charges. We believe that they are constitutionally flawed. We believe that they are not factually supported by the evidence and we believe that at the end of the process Mr. Weinstein will be exonerated. Someone inside asked me how Mr. Weinstein feels this morning and my response was as well as can be expected when you are accused of a crime that you vehemently deny having committed. So we are going through the process. Today is the first step. We knew that Mr. Weinstein was under investigation for more than seven months. He voluntarily surrendered this morning and we have met all of the bail conditions by agreement so that we would not have extended court proceedings.

CH: Harvey Weinstein's lawyer speaking outside a New York court earlier today. Sarah Anne Massie is an actor and writer. In 2008 she met with Mr. Weinstein at his home to interview for a nannying position. There Ms. Massie claims he sexually violated her, embracing her while pantless. Ms. Massie is part of a class action suit against Mr. Weinstein and his former film production company. We reached her in Los Angeles California.

CO: Sarah Anne, what was it like for you to see Harvey Weinstein in handcuffs during the perp walk today?

SARAH ANNE MASSIE: It was a very emotional experience. Obviously it's great to see him facing charges and having repercussions for his crimes. It's also difficult, it brings up a lot of emotions that have been brewing for the past decade. It was hard for me to watch him. It’s always hard for me to look at his face, it’s very triggering. And, you know, there was a moment where he was smiling and looking smug, which is another very difficult thing to process. But the fact that he has been taken in, that he is being charged and that there will be a criminal case is exceptionally validating for me and for all of his victims and all the victims of sexual assault who have gone so long without being heard and without being believed. CO: How would you describe his appearance? Because you mentioned that he came out in handcuffs later on, but he went in with some books, wearing a nice little vest. Describe how he looked when he arrived at the police station?

SAM: Well, I mean, it did not look like somebody who was ready to go to jail. And he’s not, you know, he's going be under essentially house arrest, sort of having the cushy version of what being a criminal is like, which is frustrating because he is a violent, abusive and repeated criminal and he should be treated like one.

CO: We’ll point out they still are allegations at this point, nothing's been proven. How did you come to meet Harvey Weinstein?

SAM: I was actually interviewing to be a nanny for his children.

CO: And what was he like when you met him?

SAM: That's a complicated question because when he opened the door he was only wearing underwear and a T-shirt. And so my initial impression of him was to be very uncomfortable and shocked. And the strange thing was that his demeanor throughout the first part of the interview was to act as though nothing strange was happening and behave as though this was completely normal. So it was a very unsettling presence to be around. He later showed huge sudden amounts of anger and rage towards his children when they walked into the room, screaming at them to leave, telling them they couldn't be there as long as I was there. So it was sort of a Jekyll and Hyde experience for me. And then obviously he became sexually aggressive to me, both in his line of questioning, and then actually physically sexually assaulting me. So it was just a very, like I said, a very troubling presence to be around.

CO: And why didn't you report it at the time? Do you remember why you didn't take that someplace, even to the people who sent you there?

SAM: I mean, I was terrified to tell anyone. I told my mother very shortly after. And then my father and I think I also told my best friend, but I was a very young woman living in New York trying to be an actress and trying to make a living. And I was afraid to tell the nannying agency because I felt they wouldn't send me out on job interviews anymore. I felt they would think I was difficult and couldn't deal with the quirks of their rich clientele or whatever the case may be. I absolutely did not want to tell anyone in the industry because I was certain that if Harvey found out that I had told anybody about what had happened my hopes of a career would be completely ruined. And I lived in fear for ten years. I pulled away from the industry. I stopped pursuing a career in film and television in any real way, I stopped looking for an agent. I was terrified of being in a room with a person like that ever again.

CO: When did you learn that there were not just a few, but so many women who had stories of some variation on what you've just described?

SAM: The first thing I knew about it was when the first two stories came out in early October. And I suddenly felt this deep sadness and the sense of relief because I was horrified to see that other women had been put through similar things to me by him, and then I was relieved to find out that I wasn't alone.

CO: And you also joined a class action suit against Harvey Weinstein for how he treated women. At the same time, in this criminal case that he's now charged with, there are only two women there. Do you expect to see more women, more charges against Harvey Weinstein, more were cases brought forward against him?

SAM: I certainly hope so. And, you know, I've been cooperating with all criminal investigations that have gone on. I know many people have been trying to build a case. And I'm hopeful and confident that this case that's been built will be a good first step in making sure that he serves jail time and pays for his crimes. For me, joining the class action was important because I realized that what it would hopefully do is set a precedent moving forward, because the class action isn't just about Harvey it's about people who propped him up and were complicit in his criminal activity and the facilitated it. And so what I'm hoping is that with this class action, companies and individuals will see that supporting and facilitating abusers will actually cost them something and that it's not worth it to protect these people.

CO: Are you at all worried about the possibility that Harvey Weinstein will be found not guilty?

SAM: Of course I am. I mean, of course I am. There is always a fear in the back of your head that he will somehow wriggle out of this. It's scary. I think that he will do everything in his playbook to try to have his name cleared. He is a manipulative, duplicitous formerly powerful man, who spent decades manipulating people into silence, forcing people to do things they didn't want to do. I think there's an element of him that's slightly delusional, living in his own world where he still thinks he's in power and still thinks he's untouchable. And my hope is that that is not true anymore. That isn't the case that, you know, we can all see the emperor has no clothes. We see what the truth of this person is now. And as much confidence and smugness as he has, it won't stand up in a court of law. It will not stand up with all of this evidence and all of these testimonies from dozens upon dozens upon dozens of women.

CO: We will be watching. Sarah Anne, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

SAM: Thank you very much.

CH: Sarah Anne Massie is an actor and writer. We reached her in Los Angeles.

[Music: Piano Ballad]

Restaurant Attack

Guest: Rafael Conceicao

CH: The two men walked into Bombay Bhel restaurant last night with their heads and faces covered carrying a bomb. The blast ripped through the Mississauga Indian restaurant injuring 15 people. The motives behind the attack are not known. And police have launched a massive search for the bombers. As victims were rushing out of the restaurant, Brazilian student Rafael Conceicao was rushing in to help. We reached him in Mississauga.

CO: Rafael, how are you feeling today about the dramatic situation at this restaurant last night?

RAFAEL CONCEICAO: Life has to go on, but it was really weird. I’ve never seen something like that in Canada.

CO: Where were you when the blast happened?

RC: I was coming from the supermarket and then I stopped close to Montana’s Barbecue just to pick up my friend. And then we heard we hear the explosion and then we ran to try to help someone.

CO: So very close to the restaurant. So you heard the blast and then what did you see?

RC: First of all, we heard glass breaking. And after we went outside we saw people running and people screaming. Many people bleeding.

CO: Was there anything you could do to help them?

RC: There was a girl close to us inside the restaurant that she used to be — I think she used to work with doctors or in the hospital or something — she asked for help and then she gave us some instructions like press his leg, press her eye.

CO: You were getting instructions for what to do for first aid?

RC: Yeah, but after five, ten minutes no more than that the cops and the firefighters arrived and they solved it. Nobody is really, really hurt.

CO: Did people tell you what they thought happened, that there had been an explosion inside the restaurant?

RC: Not everybody saw what happened but there was a couple of guys that saw two different people wearing black. One opened the door, one stayed outside and then they left the bomb. And then they ran away.

CO: They saw of the men come in and leave the IED as it's called, an improvised explosive device. They saw that but they weren't alarmed, they didn't react to that thinking that this was this was bad?

RC: I think not because was so fast. And of course there was there was a child's birthday. So I think people cared about his family and his child not about these guys. So nobody ran after these guys they just cared about his family.

CO: And then you mentioned the birthday party. This is a child's birthday party that was going on inside the restaurant. Did you talk to people who were part of that party?

RC: I just asked if anyone needed help. Because they are totally scared. They are trying to go away, they are trying to take those cars and run or asking for the ambulances, for the cops. They were scared.

CO: And how were the children reacting? I understand none of the children were injured but how were they reacting to all this?

RC: Well, when I reached the restaurant every father or mother that has a child were putting them inside their cars. We saw a children running to the cars

CO: Meanwhile you were more concerned with those who needed help, the injured people. And so where were they out on the sidewalk at this point or were you inside the restaurant trying to help with the first aid?

RC: People that are a little bit better, they ran out of the restaurant, but the people who stayed outside the restaurant were seriously injured. So we went inside the restaurant trying to help the people.

CO: What do you think of your instinct to go toward the explosion and go into the restaurant when other people were trying to get away?

RC: All my life when I see people in trouble I try to help. I always try to do my best to help people. I realize that at place people were needing help so I tried to do my best.

CO: How long have you lived in Mississauga?

RC: For six or seven months.

CO: And did you know the restaurant, the Bombay Bhel where this bombing happened?

RC: Yes, I am. I live very close to this restaurant. I’ve never been inside before, this was the first time.

CO: And what are you thinking today about the fact that this happened in your neighbourhood?

RC: Well, first of all, I think we need to wait for the investigation to understand what happened. And I think the life must go on. OK, it happens sometimes here in Canada, sometimes the United States. I trust in the cops that they are going to work on that.

CO: I'm glad you were there helping people and I'm glad you're safe. Thank you for speaking with us.

CH: We reached Rafael Conceicao in Mississauga.

[Music: 90’s Pop]

Manitoba Fires

Guest:

CH: After days of delays the Red Cross in Manitoba says evacuations from fly-in communities in central Manitoba are finally complete. An out of control wildfire continues to burn near Little Grand Rapids and Pauingassi First Nation, 250 kilometres north of Winnipeg near the Ontario border. There were big delays trying to get people out because the heavy smoke prevented planes from being able to land. More than 1,000 residents from both communities are now in Winnipeg staying at hotels. The CBC's Austin Grabish poke with two residents from Pauingassi First Nation who arrived in Winnipeg yesterday. Here's Maria Keeper followed by Cornelia Owen.

SOUNDCLIP

MARIA KEEPER: It's really smoky, you can hardly see anything or hardly breathe when you go outside. They're wearing masks already. It's tough to see across the islands, it's just white, full of smoke.

AUSTIN GRABISH: And how was it getting to Winnipeg? Did you think you would be able to get here? Did you have to wait a long time?

MK: We got up around four o'clock in the morning, we went to the dock around 7:00, waited for a plane that didn’t show and we went to the nursing station to wait for a chopper.

CARONELIA OWEN: I saw smoke coming our way from Little Grand Rapids and at night we would see fire from across the lake from Pauingassi. I was paranoid. I almost had a panic attack because it was scary, like I never seen a lot of fire like that happen. And I was so worried about my family. I thought we're all going to die. I didn't know, for some reason, I laugh because I was nervous, I guess, but I didn't find it funny though. From Pauingassi we took a chopper to Little Grand Rapids and in Little Grand Rapids we took the plane from there to Red Lake and we had to wait for other people to come in from Pauingassi and Little Grand Rapids.

AG: What was the plane ride like? That's a big, massive military plane.

CO: It was bumpy. That's my first time riding that plane because there's like, weird noises as if the plane’s going to crash.

CH: Cornelia Owen and before that Maria keeper, two residents of Pauingassi First Nation speaking with CBC Manitoba reporter Austin Grabish after they were evacuated yesterday due to wildfires.

Sun Dress Parent

Guest: Jamie Stonehouse

CH: Stories of girls being sent home or penalized for wearing seemingly ordinary clothes in the classroom, are by now, all too familiar. But it's not every day they involve kids who are three years old. Winnipeg parents Jamie and Sadie Stonehouse say that is exactly what happened to their daughter Lola, whose caregiver was told a sun dress Lola wore to preschool this week was inappropriate for the classroom. We reached Lola's dad, Jamie Stonehouse, in Winnipeg.

CO: Jamie, tell me about the dress that Lola was wearing on Wednesday?

JAMIE STONEHOUSE: It was a normal sun dress that you'd see in Walmart, you'd see pretty much almost any clothing store you can purchase children's clothing from. It was very covered up to pretty much her throat in the front and the back was a little bit open with criss cross straps on her shoulders, and apparently they were too thin, they were spaghetti straps.

CO: And how did you find out that they were an issue?

JS: Our daycare provider had mentioned it to us that when she went to go pick up our daughter at preschool that it was brought to her attention that her outfit was inappropriate for school.

CO: And did they describe what inappropriate is for a three-year-old.

JS: That's all we were told, we weren't given any specific details or anything other than her straps on her dress weren't two inches wide, therefore it was deemed inappropriate.

CO: So the straps must be two inches wide?

JS: Two inches wide, yes.

CO: And these were little thin straps?

JS: Yeah, they were I guess you call them spaghetti straps.

CO: Now there’s a little picture of Lola, it’s not big, it’s just from her back and she's pretty tiny, two inch straps would sure cover her wouldn't they?

JS: It pretty much be like her wearing a T-shirt for the most part.

CO: So what was your reaction when you found out that Lola might be sent home if she was wearing a dress like this?

JS: I was absolutely — I thought it was a joke at first and then once I kind of sat down and talked with my wife about it it kind of just sunk in a little bit and I was blown away and kind of floored on the reaction to be honest.

CO: Did they explain what, for a three-year-old, was wrong with the dress?

JS: All they said was with the straps. They didn't say anything else.

CO: But was it a lack of modesty? What could be a problem with it? I mean, just can you imagine what it is that would be inappropriate?

JS: From what we've been told is it’s the school board policy that there's no straps allowed because it's distractive to other students.

CO: Sorry, but this is it this is a preschool, right?

JS: Yes. The preschool is also located in a school. They told us that they have to follow the school board’s dress code policy. But apparently from what the school board says is that it's up to the discretion of the teachers to choose if it's deemed unnecessary. But the school board themselves doesn't have a dress code policy in effect is what we were told.

CO: It comes down to this particular — the teachers at the nursery school who made the decision, is that right?

JS: From what I understand, correct.

CO: How did Lola react to this?

JS: She wasn't really comprehensive of it until we had a good talk with her last night about it and she is a little distraught on why she can't wear those dresses to school anymore because she loves wearing them and she's been asking us to get more, to be honest. And so she's kind of upset when it comes to that aspect of it. But she's not — I don't think she's really gathered the whole concept of it all quite yet.

CO: I think your wife, her mom, was saying that she thought that Lola, this would affect her, how she sees herself, her self image.

JS: I totally agree with that too. And at a young age of three years old telling a little girl that she can't wear something is absolutely ridiculous. Like, I even remember to myself being a little boy and picking out what I wanted to wear and going to school looking goofy half the time. That’s the joys of being a kid. You can wear what you want to wear and express yourself and how you want to express yourself.

CO: Without being called inappropriate.

JS: Yeah. And I don't see why her dress was inappropriate by any means. And I don't think that dress on anyone, any girl of any age would be inappropriate. It's pretty much, I guess, what society has deemed inappropriate now.

CO: Why did you decide to go public about this?

JS: Actually, I was approached — a friend of mine who works in media, she approached me because she saw a Facebook status that me and my wife had put up about the situation and she couldn't believe it and she wanted to get the story out herself.

CO: And what has been the reaction since then? What have you heard from people since this story's gone public?

JS: We've gotten a lot of positive feedback, a lot of people have said that they support us and they totally agree with us. I was actually just at a gas station about an hour or two ago and I had people ask take pictures with me and things like that because they support our decision and they think that it's absolutely archaic considering what the dress code is.

CO: And what is your decision? How are you going to approach this going forward?

JS: Personally, I don't want to change anything. But I also don't want my daughter to have her education affected. So we will be complying with what the school has requested. But I don't personally 100 percent agree with it. And I don't think that it’s right. And I think that this is very much probably an old rule that there needs to be changed.

CO: So meanwhile Lola wears her sunglasses around the house?

JS: All the time. She's got actually, two of them on right now.

CO: It really is a cute little dress. Thanks, Jamie.

JS: No problem.

CH: Jamie Stonehouse is the father of Lola Stonehouse, whose preschool deemed the three-year-old’s sun dress inappropriate due to the inadequate width of its straps. Well, we contacted both the Little Years Nursery School and the Pembina Trails School Division, which runs the elementary school within which the nursery is housed. Little Years did not get back to us before showtime, but has told CTV News it was abiding by the Pembina Trails dress code policy. Pembina Trails told us it doesn't have a dress code and that the nursery school is an entirely independent tenant.

[Music: Acoustic Guitar]

Part 2: Ireland Abortion Vote, Hospital Wedding

Ireland Abortion Vote

Guest:

CH: Whatever the result, today was a historic day in Ireland. Across the country people headed to the polls to vote in a referendum on abortion. Abortion is currently illegal unless the mother's life is at risk. But a ‘yes’ result in the referendum would mean repealing an amendment in the constitution that bans most abortions, which would make way for new laws. Early exit polls indicate the ‘yes’ side is ahead but the ballots will be counted tomorrow. The country's leader, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar voted ‘yes’ and he spoke with reporters after he cast his vote.

SOUNDCLIP

TAOISEACH LEO VARADKAR: Not taking anything for granted, of course, but quietly confident, it’s been a good turnout so far across the country. I’m encouraging everyone to come out and vote. High turnout, I think, would be to the advantage of the ‘yes’ campaign and the upside of a good sunny day in Ireland is that people come out to vote. But the downside is that after work they might decide not to so hopefully a good turnout.

CH: In the days leading up to the vote the hashtag ‘hometovote’ has been going around Twitter. Irish people around the world, including those in Canada, travelled back to Ireland to cast their ballots. Reporters from the Irish Times and The Press Association spoke with people at the Dublin airport about the vote. Here are some of those conversations.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Certainly going to vote ‘no’. Of course we’re going o tote ‘no.’

REPORTER: Why? What are your reasons for that?

VOICE 1: My reason for it is because I think that in a civilized country to actually go to the polls to decide whether we should make it legal to kill an unborn child. I think it's incredible.

VOICE 2: I'm waiting for my daughter Stephanie and her husband Fionn, they're coming back home from Brussels to vote ‘yes.’ Stephanie is pregnant she's had a good pregnancy so far, but not everyone has been so lucky. When the campaign started I didn't think Ireland was ready for it. I'm really impressed at the way it has taken off and quite a move to see all the people getting stuck in and involved, but also moved to see people of my generation, who often quietly support their children, their nephews and nieces and friends.

VOICE 3: I’m voting ‘no.’ Because I think the unborn baby is entitled to life. I've looked into it a lot and I think the abortion procedures and the whole industry behind it is fairly frightening.

CH: People at the Dublin airport talking about Ireland's referendum on abortion. Siobhan Donohue voted yesterday. For her this vote is deeply personal. In 2011 when doctors told her her baby wouldn't survive, she had to travel to the UK for an abortion — like many other Irish women. Ms. Donohue, who was also the chairperson of a support group called Termination for Medical Reasons. We reached her by the town of Bray south of Dublin.

CO: Ms. Donohue, what has the mood been like in Ireland leading up to today's vote?

SIOBHAN DONOHUE: The mood has been — oh it's gone up and down, I guess. At times it has been quite tense. There's been a lot of mobilization on both sides and certainly has been a lot of attempts for both sides to get out, to get canvassing, to try and confirm which way people are voting because there has been a percentage of people as the polls have gone on saying that they're undecided. There were a number of prominent television debates over the last couple of weeks and certainly the atmosphere at those was tense and quite intense.

CO: But people are pretty passionate about the abortion issue?

SD: Yeah. I think it has been, I mean, it certainly has been a thing. I think the problem is that it has been something that — we've had this constitutional amendment there for 35 years, and then abortion has become a thing that people just don't talk about. And people are still having abortions, we know this that people are travelling. The figure is something around 3,200 people travelled in the last year for abortion services outside of Ireland. Approximately another 2,000 or thereabouts, might have taken abortion pills at home that they had illegally imported. So people are having abortions, it's just people hadn't been talking about them. What has happened in the course of this campaign is that people have started to have this conversation. People like myself have been recounting our stories, have been telling people of our experiences of having to travel and it seems to have given people permission to have the conversation, and that is something positive that has come from it.

CO: For your own experience, you're describing how numbers of people, thousands of them every year go out of Ireland in order to seek abortions mostly in the UK. What was your own experience?

SD: Yes, so my experience is I became one of those people. I discovered in 2011, on my third pregnancy, that my baby had a condition called anencephaly, where the top half of his head had never formed. And these babies don't live, they will either die during the pregnancy or at delivery, or if not, if they do survive delivery, will die shortly after birth. So as we came to terms with that information and how we would be able to cope or not cope as it turned out, as we went on we were faced with another 20 weeks of pregnancy possibly with this with this news, we made the difficult decision to travel to terminate the pregnancy because we became aware that there was no option to do that in Ireland. If you stayed in our end you would be forced to continue with the pregnancy. And it very quickly became apparent to me that that was going to be extremely distressing. I really felt it was a form of torture to have to just have this information, to know this baby was not going to survive, and I really felt I would be continuing with the pregnancy just to bury this baby. So I made the decision to travel and we went to Liverpool in the UK, we went to Liverpool Women's Hospital.

CO: Your baby was induced, right? That's what happened?

SD: So this is what they call it, they describe it as a compassionate induction of labour. So they give you some medication to take it you can start things off. You had to go away for a day or so to return back to the hospital. And then I was admitted for an induction of labour. I had to have previous inductions of labour for two normal pregnancies and it was almost the same procedure and that’s all it was.

CO: But if you had had that procedure done in Ireland, if it was possible, that's against the law that's, a criminal act in Ireland?

SD: It is absolutely, because if there's still a fetal heartbeat and you terminate a pregnancy, absolutely it's a criminal act. But if I had been able to do that at home it would have meant my parents could have been there with me. They could have got to meet their grandson and my two younger children, who were four and two at the time, they could have got to meet him. It just would have been — it would have made it that that the most difficult thing about that whole thing would be that our baby was about to die. But because we had to travel that was not the hardest thing to face. The hardest thing was feeling this sense that you had to leave your country, that you were nearly being treated like a criminal being told you want to do this you can't do it at home, you need to travel outside of your country. And then the indignity of shortly after giving birth, having to get back on the flight to come home. And also that we chose to have our baby cremated after the procedure. And that meant two or three weeks after we came home there was a ring on my doorbell and it was a courier delivering my baby's ashes and that's how my baby came home to us. And that's something you shouldn't have to deal with in that scenario.

CO: A number of people have mentioned over the course of this campaign that this is more than just a referendum on abortion, as large as that is for Ireland, that it carries a deeper meaning for Ireland in its culture. Would you agree with that?

SD: I would. I think it signals, I hope it signals, that the Ireland has grown up as a country, and over the last 35 years that it has changed substantially, and it now recognizes that it needs to deal, particularly with its women, in a more caring, compassionate, considerate way. Because obviously, this is mostly an issue that affects women and affecting women's health, because there is nothing in our Constitution that affects men's health in any kind of similar way. And I think it has opened a bigger debate about how we treat women in this country and how we try and move on from the kind of hold that the Catholic Church traditionally had things in this country. And it has certainly opened that conversation. You can see a lot of people have moved on, have been able to separate whatever religious beliefs that they have and look at this issue in terms of healthcare, in terms of compassionate care for people in difficult situations. And certainly I think that's been the case, and I think that's the thing that won't go away after this regardless of the result. I think that conversation should continue and I hope it does.

CO: We will be watching through the weekend to see what the results are. Ms. Donohue, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

SD: Thank you.

CH: That was Siobhan Donohue near Bray Ireland, south of Dublin.

[Music: Ambient Tones]

Jack Johnson Pardon

CH: He was the first black heavyweight boxing champion in the world. And this week, decades after his death, Jack Johnson was officially pardoned. In the early 1900s Mr. Johnson's relationships with white women caused outrage. He was eventually convicted, by an all-white jury, for travelling with a woman to another state for “immoral purposes.” U.S.President Donald Trump spoke of the conviction yesterday calling it a racially motivated injustice. As he sat in the Oval Office, he was flanked by actor Sylvester Stallone, who brought the boxers story to the president's attention. Linda Heywood was also there. She is Jack Johnson's great-great niece. Here's some of what she said about the pardon.

SOUNDCLIP

LINDA HEYWOOD: For so long my family was deeply ashamed that my uncle went to prison because of how he was treated. And they never really spoke of him. And I've said many times, I did not realize and know he was my uncle until I was 12 years old because of the shame that the family carried — and most of them took it to their graves. By this pardon being issued that would help to rewrite history and erase the shame and the humiliation that my family felt for my uncle, a great hero, being imprisoned unjustly. And so many people have come along with me on this journey, so many people I cannot really thank them all. The most important person that decided to do this is sitting here to my left President Trump, and I thank him. I thank Mauricio Sulaiman. I thank Miguel Torruco, who took a lot of effort to find me. And Mr. Sylvester Stallone, who boldly put it in his ear and when he tweeted my entire life changed, people wouldn’t leave me alone. Now it's going to be even more insane, but I'm fine with that but I appreciate you rewriting history.

CH: That was Linda Heywood speaking about the posthumous pardon of her relative, the late boxer Jack Johnson.

[Music: Ambient Tones]

Hospital Wedding

Guest: Sushma Dwivedi

CH: As if delivering a baby isn't enough of an accomplishment. Sushma Dwivedi upped the ante last week. The Montreal woman, who now lives in New York City, was in the hospital about to give birth. And while she was in labour — when most people are a little preoccupied with the excruciating contractions — she officiated a wedding for a patient down the hall who was also in labour. We reached Sushma Dwivedi in New York City.

CO: Sushma, at what point did you learn that there was a couple on the maternity ward who were looking to get hitched?

SUSHMA DWIVEDI: You know, Carol it was just about as I was getting my epidural. The supervising anesthesiologist was very kindly making pleasant conversation with me to distract me from the discomfort, you know anesthesiologist don't let's call it pain, it's just discomfort. She was letting me know what was going on. We were just chit chatting, and as I learned about their predicament they were unable to be able to find the hospital chaplain, I very conversationally just offered back that I had the ability to officiate weddings thanks to the Internet.

CO: You were middle of having a baby, you just had an epidural? Did they tell you ‘Thanks, but no thanks?’

SD: I mean, the doctor was like “Really, you would do that? You know you're in labour, too right?” And I said “Yeah, will I cause myself any harm because it looks like this is going to happen in the next in the next, you know, five minutes?” The answer to both those questions was “No, not at all.” In which case I said “Look, I don't know if this is weird, but I'm happy to do it if you can't track down whatever else is needed.” It really sounded like this family was in a bind.

CO: What was the story? What did you learn was the story about this couple?

SD: I believe they had been planning on getting married on Thursday and had had their license issued. And part of the New York State wedding license process is it has to be filled out by an officiant within 48 hours and then the poor woman's water broke. So the baby had unexpected plans of showing up on her own time, and so we both fatefully found ourselves in the hospital rooms away from each other.

CO: They wanted to be married before the baby came?

SD: They did indeed.

CO: What plans — because the hospital, the whole ward went into action, right to try and make this work?

SD: They really did. I have never seen such incredible patient care. It was as celebratory as it possibly could have been in an environment filled with love. Everybody got involved. A nurse wrote a poem. Somebody else braided the bride’s hair with baby's breath. Few people ran around different floors to go get floral arrangements so that she had flowers and a bouquet. They made a little bow tie for the fiance Casey. Essentially people in hats, those little stripey hats half newborn have. So it was as festive an environment as it could have been.

CO: That's lovely. But at the same time you were in labour, you just had an epidural. If I remember correctly you're kind of numb from the waist down, legs don't work at that point, right?

SD: Oh, yes exactly. And that was actually the only catch was that my legs were jelly by this point and so I could no longer move. And so it was a little bit of a Jabba the Hut moment where they took the automatic bed, propped that up so that I could sit and officiate. And they came to me in my room instead.

CO: Her water had broken. How far — was she close, was she dilated? What did they tell you?

SD: Remarkably, neither one of us were that close in the grand scheme of things. I delivered my son maybe five hours later at 5:15 in the morning. And I believe their daughter came along a little bit after that as well.

CO: I understand there was some music, there was wedding procession music that got played?

SD: Yes, indeed. We played some music. We had some laughs. We kept it as celebratory and festive as possible as best as one could, given that we're in the maternity ward of a hospital after midnight.

CO: Do you remember the poem?

SD: I couldn't recite it for you, but the nurse wrote it. I was really surprised that her writing skills, it was quite impressive in my humble opinion.

CO: I think this is it. Relish in this moment in your grip socks with no shoes. We're so happy to be a part of this day. We're all so happy for you.

SD: Isn't that lovely?

CO: That's lovely.

SD: I have to tell you, Carol, the room is totally abuzz with love, which is the nicest feeling to have before bringing life into the world.

CO: Tell me your final words. How did you finally pronounce them man and wife?

SD: I said “By the powers vested in me by the Internet, I'm happy to proclaim you husband wife.”

CO: And I understand the bride threw her bouquet?

SD: She did, and another nurse caught it. We’re going to have to keep track and see how she does.

CO: It was amusing but it was also really touching then.

SD: It felt like the right thing to do, my husband and I, in terms of like can we help another family out right before we have a kid? Yeah. Then I think we should. It's the right lesson to teach our kid before he makes his debut. And thankfully it was just a very spirited lovely 15 minutes.

CO: Instead of toasting you were on drugs, on an epidural. Were you a bit loopy?

SD: So high, Carol, so high. I was just trying to stay coherent and give them some kind of official ministerial voice as best as I could for a wedding ceremony so that I didn't sound like an idiot who is high on epidural drugs.

CO: Have you seen the couple since?

SD: I have not but we have been in touch. We've treated many an e-mail about Mom tips and also just commiserating over all that happened and all that is happening now.

CO: So not getting much sleep?

SD: No, I don't think anybody's sleeping. Probably not sleeping for a while.

CO: How is your son?

SD: Oh, just lovely. Thank you. We're all adjusting to becoming a family of four.

CO: And so happy for you, Sushma. I'm glad you were there for the couple.

SD: Thank you. It’s nice to do something nice for someone else, especially these days.

CO: Take care of yourself.

SD: You too, Carol. Thanks for having me on.

CO: Bye.

SD: Bye-bye.

CH: Sushma Dwivedi is from Montreal, but now lives in New York City. Hours before giving birth to her newborn son last week, Ms. Dwivedi officiated a wedding for a couple in the maternity ward who were also expecting imminently. To see some video of the hospital wedding ceremony go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

[Music: Ukelele]

Part 3: Chateau Raffle Sale, Saudi Activist Arrested, Children's Book Study

Chateau Raffle Sale

Guest: Ruth Phillips

CH: It's worth more than $2 million Canadian. But if you're lucky you might be able to snag it for just ten pounds. A 17th century French chateau is up for grabs as part of a competition run by its current owner Ruth Phillips. 500,000 tickets are available at ten pounds a pop — that's about 17 bucks. Plus the answers to two skill testing questions. Ms. Phillips has pledged that all the profits generated by the competition will go towards a community interest company she runs, which creates affordable and eco-friendly housing solutions into a Cornish charity supporting the homeless. We reached Ruth Phillips in Truro, Cornwall.

CO: Ruth, can you first of all just describe the French chateau?

RUTH PHILLIPS: Well, it was built in 1670 and it has 12-and-a-half hectares of land, which is about 30 acres, and it's right in the middle of as pristine countryside as you can get in France, very much unspoiled, the area. And the chateau has nine bedrooms and three reception rooms. It's got two barns and a cottage and a swimming pool.

CO: Why are you getting rid of this?

RP: I mean, it was the sort of dream, you know, 13 years ago. And then I was going to turn into an eco-village because I realized that, of course, running the chateau on my own there was kind of not much fun. I'm separated from my husband and, I mean, I had a lot fun while I was there. But longer term — my kids are back in England now, and so I decided to move back because also it's a lot of work running it on my own.

CO: You're not just selling it, you're raffling it off for ten pounds a ticket?

RP: I had it on the market last year and then, basically, because my dream has been to develop this eco-village concept and this affordable housing, ecological housing, that really is my passion. And I thought well this would enable me to raise funds.

CO: And the tickets are ten pounds each?

RP: Ten pounds each. And basically the prize is the chateau, if we sell enough tickets.

CO: So what do you do with the money that you are raising?

RP: Well, five per cent of the ticket sales will go to a local charity here in Cormwall, which supports homeless people. All the profits, 100 per cent of the profits, will go to the eco-village development community interest company. So basically the goal of that company is to create affordable housing which is simple easy to build that can be self-built or it can be built by a builder. The houses themselves will be designed in France. So it’s a Dutch architect that lives near the chateua and he's come up with this beautiful design which fits in with the style of the architecture of the chateau. But also it would fit well with any kind of architecture, you know, the old architecture in England as opposed to a lot of these tiny homes and the sort of kitsch or self-built homes which are kind of like boxes. This is a beautifully designed little house and it can be off grid. And so the running cost will be very low. So basically people will be able to, if they want to build it themselves and they don't have any skill, they’ll be able to get the kit and put it together in less than a week.

CO: And so and how much money have you raised so far?

RP: Well, I don't want to disclose yet what we're getting. So a bit further down the line we'll be having a fund-ometer on the website. But the number of tickets sold before we take away the chateau is 350,000.

CO: How did the chateau come to be in your possession?

RP: Well, we bought it — my husband and I bought it 13 years ago. We came across it for sale and we kind of fell in love with it. It's really spectacular. It's in the most fantastic location. It's just totally quiet and peaceful, it’s surrounded by forests.

CO: And quite a history, though, I mean, what have you learned about chateau and some of the people, some of the things that have gone on there?

RP: It was built in 1670, so it has a long history. And we bought it from the original owners of the chateau, the original family. And the family crest and things like the cutlery and stuff that we found some cutlery hidden in one of the walls, silver cutlery. So the family crest has got a lot of Templar symbology.

CO: You also have a sense that you've heard or been told that the house may have sheltered Jewish families during the Second World War, is that right?

RP: Yeah this lady visited and said that she was there during the war with her parents and her family. And that she was hidden in the chateau by the baron and baroness. And then in the attic there is a hidden space which is below the floor of the attic and above the ceiling of the bedroom below. And then after she sent a photo of the whole family outside the front of the chateau with all their stuff piled on a truck.

CO: And we will post that on our website as well. And just finally before I let you go, how sad is it to leave this place?

RP: Well no, I'm not sad because I don't believe in being too attached to things. I believe in really working for a cause and so that's really my passion, things are not really my passion. I do love that place because it's really, really beautiful and it's the beauty of the place that I love and that's what I'll miss.

CO: Well, Ruth thanks for telling us about it.

CH: Ruth Phillips is raffling off her French chateau to raise money for charity and for an organisation that builds affordable eco-homes. We reached her in Truro, Cornwall, England. Canadians, sadly, cannot participate in Ms. Phillips’ competition, which is only open to people in England, Scotland and Wales. Nevertheless, you can see a picture of that chateau on the As It Happens website.

[Music: Whimsical Piano]

House of Commons

CH: The House of Commons is usually a pretty quiet place on Fridays. MPs often just skip it altogether, especially if they have to make long flights home to their ridings. But the temperatures are rising. The government is flexing its considerable legislative muscle to push bills through before the summer break. And Opposition MPs are in no mood to be pushed around. So when House Speaker Geoff Regan decided he had heard enough of an NDP MPs point of order, well things kind of blew up.

SOUNDCLIP

HOUSE SPEAKER GEOFF REGAN: It appears to me very clear that the member is engaging the same point of order that's already been dealt with. I will examine the arguments that have been made and will come back to the house in due course. Orders of the day have already been called.

DANIEL BLAIKIE: Point of order! Point of order! Point of order! Point of order!

[BANGING ON DESK]

CH: That was NDP MP Daniel Blaikie banging on his desk and bellowing point of order at the speaker of the House of Commons this morning — and he wasn't done. Mr. Blaikie went on to turn those three words into a sort of mantra of frustration, slowly belting out a ‘point of order’ fully 40 times. As he left the house a little later, Mr. Blaikie was asked to explain why.

SOUNDCLIP

DB: Well, because members have a right to raise points of order and it's the Speaker's job to hear them. So if the speaker will not hear a legitimate point of order, my only recourse is to continue to try to get his attention. You know, we have the main estimates before committees right now and I'm contending that this mechanism, the central vote of the Treasury Board for all the new budget initiatives, it’s worth over $7 billion, actually breaks the rules of the house and doesn't provide parliamentarians with the information that they have a right to under the standing orders and that and the traditions of the house.

CH: Well, that was NDP MP Daniel Blaikie's explanation of all the yelling in the House of Commons this morning. It differs somewhat from Liberal house leader Bardish Chagger’s take.

SOUNDCLIP

BARDISH CHAGGER: What did we see today? Yelling and utter disrespect of the speaker. We have seen many things take place in this house and I've spoken to members that have been here a lot longer than I ever will be here, that have said they've never seen that kind of disrespect of the speaker. So it’s important that we debate issues and have a dialogue, especially when it comes to substance there's going to be differences of opinion, it's a good thing, but I've never seen or heard of that kind of disrespect to the speaker.

REPORTER: How would you describe the mood now?

BC: This is part of the reality of this place, is that we do have conversations and we are able to work together to get work done, but there is also the tactics, the games that are played in this place and unfortunately it's the games and tactics that get more attention than the substance. And if we keep rewarding them, that's what's going to continue happening. What I know is that we've had a few months working really well in this place, we’ve had a lot of work done by being able to understand how many speakers each party has, how much time is needed. What is not being provided now, all the sudden, because it is that time of year, we are coming to the summer adjournment, that there is not a desire to want to work together and we're resorting to, unfortunately, where this place comes to almost every summer.

CH: That was liberal House leader Bardish Chagger outside the House of Commons today.

[Music: Banjo]

Saudi Activist Arrested

Guest: Kristin Diwan

CH: Saudi Arabia is gearing up to lift its longstanding ban on women's right to drive in just a few weeks. But it is also intensifying its crackdown on human rights activists. At least 11 activists connected to campaigns for lifting the ban on women's driving were arrested last week — as many as seven are still in detention. And today the Kingdom took its crackdown on dissent a step further. It has arrested the country's most prominent human rights campaigner Mohammed al-Bejadi. Kristin Diwan is a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf states Institute in Washington. For the last several years she has been conducting research on, and working closely with, activists in Saudi Arabia. We reached her in Washington D.C.

CO: Ms. Diwan, first of all, can you tell us who is Mohammed al-Bejadi?

KRISTIN DIWAN: Mohammed al-Bejadi is a very well-known human rights activist within Saudi Arabia. He was the founder of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association, which is one of the most important civil groups created in the kingdom. It was closed down in 2013 and he was actually — he and his co-founder are actually sentenced to 10 years jail at that time.

CO: What's he been charged with now?

KD: We really don't know. There's just reports that he's been picked up and there's no indication yet of any charges. The only statements we have within the kingdom so far are for the arrest of seven people. That statement was put out on May 18 and is linked to what we think are a lot of women and men that were connected with women's rights activism.

CO: OK so just talk about the women who were arrested and who they are and why they were taken?

KD: So we know there's kind of been a running list of people that were arrested starting in May 18 and continuing, I guess, with the arrest of Mr. Mohammed al-Bejadi today. We know for sure because the Presidency of State Security, which is a security organ connected directly to the royal court, put out a statement saying that they had arrested seven people, but other kind of independent organizations have listed up to 11 people that had been arrested and some of those people had been released. Almost all of them are connected with women's rights activism within the kingdom, mostly connected with the struggle to allow women to drive in the kingdom, as well as to the guardianship system there.

CO: And so is that a separate issue or do you see some connection between the arrest of Mohammed al-Bejadi and others with these women?

KD: We really don't know. It's a number of different women from different generations. We had women that were arrested that were from the very first driving demonstrations that took place in 1990, as well as women that have been active since 2011.

CO: Have the women been charged?

KD: They haven't been charged. The statement that came out on May 18, which did not name them, from State Security said that there had been a circle of people that had been broken up for ‘transgressing their religious and national foundations of the state, for undertaking suspicious contacts with foreign organizations and recruiting people working for the state in a sensitive position.’ A number of government kind of like newspapers have been accused a lot of these women for treason and have been kind of criticizing them for their activism.

CO: What’s confusing about this is that we understand that Saudi Arabia is just weeks away from allowing women to drive. What do you make of the timing of these women being arrested?

KD: Yeah, I know it is very surprising in a way. We know that back in September when they made the decision to end the driving ban they, at that time, contacted a lot of the women activists and asked them to remain quiet. And in fact the sad thing is that many of these women had kind of ended their activism or were not speaking at the request of the government. At that time many people thought that basically the government wanted to make sure that it was seen that they were the ones that were driving reform, that they weren't doing it in response to any demands from citizens or from these activists and that the government can be kind of coerced or pushed into taking action. But of course these arrests are seemingly a lot more serious than even that.

CO: So the image again that Mohammed bin Salman is putting out as being this reformer, allowing women the right to drive, opening cinemas, the religious police are supposed to be diminished. Is it really happening or are these just symbols, is this for show and it's sort of business as usual in the background? What do you make of it?

KD: Yeah, it's really confusing. I mean, I think a number of things are going on in the kingdom right now. And there's no question that the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has been undertaking some really dramatic changes, both politically in centralizing power underneath his own authority, also trying to undertake greater economic reforms to diversify the economy in the kingdom. And definitely there has been some opening on the social level. However, with all of these reforms none of them have been in the political field. And for sure we've seen across this whole time a real crackdown on activists, both from the left and from the right. We know that back in September as well before the initial statement about women driving, there was a really broad round of arrests that took in a number of clerics and intellectuals and some other just sort of even economists and a poet. Most of them were coming from a more Islamic direction but from really broad different ideologies all the way from hard liners to much more a kind of liberal or more open people.

CO: Because people are being accused or some of the people being arrested or accused of having contacts with foreign entities and being with enemies from overseas, it's always difficult to find people in Saudi Arabia that will talk to the outside media to tell us what's going on. Do you think we should find it even more difficult to find those voices now?

KD: Yeah, I'm afraid so, and it could very well be that these arrests are very much directed that way. We know that the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is quite interested in the media and in controlling the image of Saudi Arabia and in controlling the messaging that goes on within his own state. And I fear that these women that were trying to, at times some of them perhaps reaching out to international organizations like U.N. committees that work on women's rights and these sorts of things to try to strengthen and to improve the position of women and very vulnerable people within the kingdom, I'm afraid that those sorts of international outreach are really going to be discouraged and contact with the media will be much more difficult.

CO: Ms. Diwan, I appreciate speaking with you thank you.

KD: Thank you.

CH: That was Kristin Diwan, senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington.

Bison Attack

CO: Craig Neilson is an experienced runner. When he and his wife went camping last weekend he really had to turn on the gas because he was being chased by a bison. Mr. Nielsen was an Elk Island National Park, east of Edmonton in Alberta, when he encountered the large horned creature while jogging. He told CBC Edmonton about the experience.

SOUNDCLIP

CRAIG NEILSON: Right after I exited that trailhead I see this bison, just a solo guy by himself, and wasn't trying to get close to him or wasn't trying to take pictures or anything just this happened to see him and definitely didn't think he would attack me. He looked up at me and then he started to charge at me. I got to run away from this guy. I've got to try to get somewhere to get safety. So I saw that further down in the ditch there's some trees growing, a cluster of trees that are tightly — their growth is tight together. And so if I got to them I would be able to be safe from this bison. And so I turned to run towards those trees. But as I turned to run I slip on the grass and I fall to the ground — about the worst thing you can do in this situation. And as I'm trying to get my footing to get back up and keep running I keep slipping and can't get my footing and I can see underneath my arm as I look behind me I can see him coming up on me and I basically watch him hit me from behind. And so he hit me right on my butt with his horns and his head and he lifted me up and forward. Luckily, he lifted me and pushed me towards the trees that I was trying to get to. So I ended up being only one to two meters away from the trees. I was able to luckily get to those trees, scurried to those trees and get up in them. I knew my leg hurt, like, from my butt all the way down my leg it was like my left leg was just numb with pain. But as I got away far enough I fell down to my knees and I was just started to check what kind of damage I had. And so as I went to feel back and I pulled my hand away it was just covered in all this blood. And so then I went to feel again to look for where the blood was coming from, and I could feel this hole in my compression shorts and I could feel this flap of skin with all this blood rushing out. At that point I was like ‘Oh, man this is serious.’ Right after he hit me, he kind of stayed in that area right there for a little bit and a passing car came by and they stopped to take pictures of them. I wasn't very visible from the road. After yelling and waving my arms I was able to get their attention and once they realized that it was serious they instantly said ‘We're going to get help, we're going to the front gate,” and they raced off shortly after that the ambulance showed up.

CH: That was Craig Nielson talking to CBC Edmonton. Mr. Nielson needed six stitches to close the gash on his buttock. He's out of hospital now and healing at home in Edmonton.

[Music: Acoustic Guitar]

Children's Book Study

Guest: John Hutton

CH: Bedtime stories have been a nightly ritual since the first cave people grunted tales of magic mammoths to their sleepy children on their terrible beds of rocks. But with a whole slew of new electronic devices available reading to kids is slowly becoming something of a lost art. Researchers recently decided it was time to find out just what goes on in children's brains when they watch animated stories on a screen. So they used FMRI machines to measure how children respond to both old school and new school storytelling. Dr. John Hutton was the lead researcher on the study. He's a pediatrician and clinical researcher at the Cincinnati Children's Hospital. We reached him in Cincinnati.

CO: Dr. Hutton, what were you hoping to learn from this study?

DOCTOR JOHN HUTTON: So our hope is really to take a first look at are there fundamental differences in how preschool age children, which are right in that very rapid state of brain development, process stories present in different formats. We were looking at what we call traditional formats, illustrated and audio versus animated format. The concern was raised because more and more devices are coming out, you know, handheld tablets and other things, that have stories embedded and ways to download things from YouTube or different ebooks that have a lot of animated content in them. And we know those are very appealing to parents who perceive that these are going to be more educational or interactive and we wanted to really get a sense of is that really true. Are, on a brain level, are kids really processing these the same way?

CO: How did you do it? How did you study these children?

JH: What we did is we brought a group of about 27 kids that were in the preschool age range — three to five years old — they were all pre-kindergarten, they were not yet reading. We recruited them from a large population of families at our academic medical centre. They came in and they had MRI done where we presented them in the scanner about a five minute story strictly audio, followed by a rest, then a five minute story that had illustrated pictures accompanying it, followed by a rest and then a fully animated story for five minutes.

CO: What were the sources of the stories that you were sharing with the kids?

JH: We used stories all by an author, a Canadian author actually, named Robert Munsch. He actually had posted all of his stories on his website and had actually narrated all of them. And that was really great for us because we could download the audio version and use that, and then we download the version for the illustrated and we had a company that was scanned images from his books and then a lot of his books were turned into cartoons in the 90s and we used an animated version of one of his books. So all of his formats were available and we wanted to have the same author — that helped us control for the type of story that the child was seeing.

CO: And I have to tell you that Robert Munsch is very well known here, as you can imagine — a lot of kids grew up with that. So what did you what did you learn from them? What were the differences in the way they took in those three kinds of storytelling?

JH: Well the big difference, we looked at five brain networks that we thought in advance would be likely to be significantly influenced by the format of the story. We looked at a visual processing network basically this seeing part of the brain. We looked at a visual imagery network, which is sort of the imagining part of the brain. We looked at a network called the default mode network, which is involved with sort of internal reflection and what something means to somebody. And then we looked at language network and the cerebellar network, which is involved with learning. And we compared how these networks were engaged during the different story types and that the differences were what we call the ‘Goldilocks effect’ where in audio format it seemed like the language network was having to work a little bit harder to keep up with the story and to really figure out what was going on and there wasn't as much a moment of the visual networks. We call that ‘a little too cold’ because likely because kids at that age don't have access to as many images, like, they haven't seen as many things out in the world and probably at that at that stage or if they hear Robert Munsch describe something they may be wondering ‘What is that?’ And they may have to work a little bit harder to sort of figure it out. In the illustrated condition, which we described as ‘just right’ there was a really nice balanced integration of the visual networks and the default mode network and the language networks — they all seemed to be cooperating a lot more. There was more connections between them, and the language network had to work less hard because it had help from the visual system to try to understand what was going on in the story. And we just got that is ‘just right,’ which is probably one of the reasons that picture books are so appealing that age. You have a picture that gives a child something to start with and then they bring their imagination and they play and can could bring the story to life in their mind. And then in the animated format it was like everything kind of came apart. The networks — there were anywhere from about 20 to 82 per cent decrease in the connections between the different brain networks where really the visual network was doing its thing that language network was doing its thing but they weren't really integrated. And we called that ‘too hot.’

CO: That's really dramatic differences. I mean, parents who are listening to this are thinking well, because there are assumptions that you can give those tablets to the kids and there are some interesting cartoons and animations on there and the kids are engaged in it, and that it can be a substitute for putting them on the knee and telling them the story, that doesn't seem to be the case.

JH: Yeah. I think it's a little bit of a cautionary tale that at that age kids are really — the brain networks develop gradually, and in order to reinforce the connections they need practice. And it's sort of like lifting weights or exercising the more the networks are stimulated to talk to one another the more those connections grow stronger. And at that age we think it's really important for kids to have the opportunity to be given enough help, as much help as they need, but then saw the opportunity to practice applying their own imagination, reflecting what a story means to them. And then later on as they become better readers they may they may be better able to use those networks to see pictures in their mind's eye when the book doesn't have pictures anymore, and then to think about what the story means and really reflect on it. And possibly kids that have too much exposure to the animated content when they're young could underdeveloped those networks and as a consequence not be as engaged during stories later on and they become somewhat addicted to just having the content fed to them.

CO: Just fascinating. Dr. Hutton, thank you.

JD: Thank you. It's been a pleasure.

CO: Bye.

CH: That was Dr. John Hutton. He's a researcher and pediatrician at the Cincinnati Children's Hospital. We reached him in Cincinnati. And for more on this story go to our website: www.cbc.ca/aih.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

May 25, 2018 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode