Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The AIH Transcript for July 29, 2019

Hosts: Rosemary Barton and Angeline Tetteh-Wayoe

Prologue

ROSEMARY BARTON: Hello I'm Rosemary Barton.

ANGELINE TETTEH-WAYOE: Good evening. I'm Angeline Tetteh-Wayoe. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

ATW: Tonight...

RB: To an uncertain extent. There's more concern than ever about imminent talks between military and civilian leaders in Sudan after militia members opened fire on young protesters killing five people -- four of them teenagers.

ATW: A run for their money. The Supreme Court ruled it was cruel and unusual punishment to force offenders to pay a mandatory victim surcharge -- and now, one lawyer wants the Ontario government to pay them back.

RB: The call of "Into the Wild." A woman dies in Alaska trying to get to the bus where Christopher McCandless died -- and our guest says the dangers aren't stopping people from following in his ill-fated footsteps.

ATW: Chalk it up to experience. Five female news anchors sue a New York TV station for gender and age discrimination -- saying they're being pushed off the air.

RB: Acid indigestion. Half a century after the first Woodstock, seems like no one's high on the idea of a 50th anniversary version -- and after musicians and investors have dropped out it seems like "Woodstock 50's" name is mud.

ATW: And a blow by blow account. A Netflix reality-show about Canadian glass-blowers has binge watchers glassy-eyed -- and one contestant tells us why she thinks it's such a smashing success. As It Happens. The Monday Edition. Radio that hopes she'll make one thing perfectly clear.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Why another death on trail to 'Magic Bus' from Into The Wild won't stop adventurers

Sudan Folo

Guest: Fadia

ATW: Tomorrow in Sudan, military and civilian leaders will resume talks. It's been two weeks since both sides agreed to a power sharing deal in the hopes of ending a month’s long political crisis. But today there was more bloodshed -- this time in the central Sudan town of El-Obeid. Witnesses say members of the Rapid Support Forces fired into a crowd of teenagers who were marching in a peaceful protest. Five people were killed. The youngest of them just 14-years-old. Fadia is a protester in Khartoum who has been following the events in El-Obeid closely. We're protecting her identity for her safety.

RB: Fadia how worried are you about these attacks that were carried out today particularly against these teenage protesters?

FADIA: Very worried. I was actually crying when I saw all these videos and I think it's going to expand. It's not going to really happen there in that state. I think it's going to happen in many other places. They're just young children...minors.

RB: You mentioned videos -- what were you able to see from the videos?

FADIA: The RSF militias with their uniforms and their pickup trucks holding "Dushkas" and shooting people through the Duskha. And the students -- all of them were students dressed in high school uniform -- were running everywhere around. And so many of them were shot at.

RB: What were the protests in El-Obeid about?

FADIA: Well it was just a normal protest that people just do almost everyday like here. People go outside and express things, express their anger towards -- for example on Saturday the result of the investigation of the massacre on June 3rd, people went out and went out in so many places like they're are just rejecting these results. So it's just a normal peaceful protest that happens every day everywhere. We have protest every day by the way.

RB: How confident are you that the soldiers -- the officers -- that were seen in the videos firing into the crowd were members of what you called the RSF -- or the Rapid Support Forces -- a paramilitary group?

FADIA: Well I'm very confident. I'm very confident. Even if they're not the RSF, they're just simply the TMC -- the transitional military council. It's just very obvious because they are the ones who are in charge to keep people safe and to keep safety in the country. So it's their job. I mean how come they don't know about some militias moving around. If we suppose that they are unknown militia so RSF they're just the same. They are two faces for the same coin.

RB: Why would those groups target teenagers?

FADIA: Because teenagers were the people who are in the streets. And I think because when our revolution has started back in 2018 -- last December -- there were young children, they were students who were just from schools and started to protest. So they are the one who will light this thing up.

RB: There is though some sort of power sharing deal that was signed between the military and civilian leaders. There is a new round of talks that's supposed to happen tomorrow. Why would militia members jeopardize that process?

FADIA: Maybe because they don't want it in the first place. That's why they have to do things like this every time to buzz the negotiations -- not to be on track. We're dealing with militias. Military would never let go power because they came by a military coup. So they know if they give it they give this rule to civilians. They know it's their dead end.

RB: So you don't think this deal which is supposed to divide up the power in an equal way between civilian leaders and the military -- you don't think that's going to amount to anything? I mean do you think it will work?

FADIA: No I don't think so. I'm just being quite honest about it. Because if they really want to settle things they wouldn't really attack people, they wouldn't do this against young children and do this just attack people every day everywhere. And it was part of the political agreement -- to stop any kind of attacks and violations in the country by any militaries and to keep peace and safety. But they did not really commit to that.

RB: This is an attack in a smaller town in Sudan -- it's not in Khartoum where that dreadful massacre happened as you talked about earlier. So what would the RSF be trying to send as a message by carrying out an attack like this?

FADIA: I think they're trying to tell us that the deal is not going to happen and like hey we can use our Dushkas, we can kill more people -- just like we did in the 3rd of June and now we're doing it in the 29th of July and we're going to do it at every end of month or start of month. We will do massacres everywhere. I mean I guess this is their message: You can't mess with us. We have weapons. You have nothing. You are unarmed citizens.

RB: And yet you've just come home from protests in Khartoum.

FADIA: Yes. I've been protesting all day long. I'm dead tired.

RB: So why do you do it when you know that there is this threat?

FADIA: All I know is I have to fight till the last breath or I'll never make a change happen. I know any effort that I do and everyone else does here is going to make a change in some kind of way. So we just have to do it. I just want to send a message. Let's say for some Arabian countries it's please stay away from Sudan, leave it alone, we know how to handle ourselves, we know how to manage our country. Let us do our thing against the TMC.

RB: Okay Fadia thanks for talking to us tonight. And please stay safe.

FADIA: I will. Thanks a lot.

ATW: Fadia is a protestor in Khartoum, Sudan. We're protecting her identity for her safety.

[Music]

Into the Wild

Guest: Eva Holland

ATW: Like many others before her, she was following in the footsteps of the ill-fated adventurer Christopher McCandless. And now a 24-year-old Belarussian tourist has died on that journey. She was trying to cross a river on her way to the so-called "Magic Bus" which still sits in a national park north of Anchorage. That bus is where Mr. McCandless died in 1992 while living in the Alaskan wilderness. His life and death were made famous by the Jon Krakauer book "Into The Wild" -- and later the movie of the same name. Eva Holland has written about Into The Wild pilgrims. We reached her in Whitehorse, Yukon.

RB: Eva Holland what can you tell us about how this young woman, Veranika Nikanava, ended up drowning?

EVA HOLLAND: It sounds like she and her husband -- they were newlyweds -- were trying to hike to the bus. And the river crossing is about at the halfway point of the trail. It's a fairly dangerous crossing -- it's a fast and cold river. There is sometimes a rope strung across the river left by hikers to help other hikers and there was a rope in this case. But when she lost her footing she also lost her grip on the rope and was swept downstream. And when her husband found her, she had already died.

RB: You have followed other hikers on their way to the "Magic Bus" and went to this river. You have to be pretty experienced to get across it? What would you say?

EH: I don't even know if it's a question of experience when it's running high. It's almost a matter of there's no safe way to cross it on foot. When a fast moving river is waist deep or close to it upper thighs as this one is it's just a fundamentally unsafe maneuver to try to cross it on foot.

RB: But other people have crossed and been okay?

EH: Yes hundreds have crossed safely. I would say dozens have been injured or had near misses. And then there have been two fatalities that we know of.

RB: So why are people so drawn to this site? Why do they go there?

EH: That's something I've never entirely understood. I understand the appeal of the story of Chris McCandless. I think people really admire his sort of spirit of rebellion and freedom and getting away from it all and sort of the expectations and demands of traditional society. But the thing that I've never understood is just continuing to go to the bus. I think there are sort of better ways to find that spirit of freedom.

RB: Maybe you can -- for people that don't know Christopher McCandless -- just remind them who he is. I mean probably most people have a sense of him from the movie but just tell them who he is.

EH: Sure thing. Chris McCandless was a young man from Georgia who left his home to go traveling across North America. He had all sorts of adventures over the course of a couple of years which are documented in the book and movie "Into The Wild." And he eventually made his way north to Alaska intending to live off the land for as long as he could. He hitchhiked to the Denali National Park area and then hiked in and made his home in the bus for I think three or four months before he died of starvation.

RB: So is it that people are -- I don't know -- trying to recreate as you said that sense of freedom? Are they unaware of the danger when they head out there?

EH: I think there are two groups of hikers that head out there. They're kind of the diehard fans who are inspired very strongly by McCandless' story -- they tend to be fairly knowledgeable there are you know web forums that discuss how to cross the river, how to get to the bus and that kind of thing. And I think there are others who are just sort of in the area and curious and decide to go check out the bus perhaps more spontaneously. And I'm not sure that either group is more or less at risk because the crossing is just dangerous. But I think that some people it's more of a lark and some people it's a bit more meaningful.

RB: Have you been to the bus? Have you seen it?

EH: I have not. I've only been as far as the river. I went to the river to see it for myself when I was reporting on this whole pilgrimage phenomenon a few years ago. And I watched a group of hikers cross that we're headed to the bus and three of them were swept downstream and one of them almost drowned.

RB: While you were there?

EH: While I was there.

RB: Wow. And did that make them reconsider?

EH: They didn't go to the bus -- no. They came home after they got safe and warm and dry.

RB: What do locals -- people in the area -- think of this notion that people want to venture out to see this abandoned bus where a man died?

EH: I think they find it fairly frustrating. Some people are very hostile and angry about the whole phenomenon. Some people in Alaska are very angry about Chris McCandless more generally and others are just sort of concerned and hope that they won't keep having to rescue these young people.

RB: There's been talk of moving the bus. I saw some quotes of a guy wanted to just burn it down. Do you think that this latest death may cause those talks to continue or start again?

EH: I think it will renew the discussion. But I think if nothing has been done in the 23 years since the book came out I don't think that anything will change at this point. The bus is increasingly dilapidated as my understanding. I don't even know if it would sort of survive a removal attempt. So I think that probably what will end up happening is they just wait for it to disintegrate on its own.

RB: You interviewed Christopher McCandless' parents and they had this to say about the people thinking of making this trek. I'll quote from your reporting. "If they are going to go out and fulfill their own dream, they have to remember that their family, their loved ones, are part of their journey. They have to include them. They have to stay in touch. Don't abandon them."

EH: Yes. Hope people will take that to heart. I think it is important to keep our loved ones in the loop about our adventures and to keep their concerns in mind. And of course these two deaths have been tragedies for the families.

RB: It's been more than a quarter century I guess, right, since since he died. There's been a book -- a movie. Why do you think his story is just not fading from people's consciousness? And do you think it will when they see again another person lost their life because of this pull towards him?

EH: I think his story resonates really strongly with people and that's a hard thing to discourage. But my hope would be at the very least that they might consider finding a different adventure than this particular very dangerous river crossing on route to this old bus. I think that there's probably a better way to honor what they admire in the story than to sort of follow this path.

RB: Do you think it will continue? These people trying to venture out to this bus?

EH: Yeah I think it will. And sometimes I worry that another death will actually make it worse.

RB: What do you mean?

EH: Well people like to feel like they're taking a risk sometimes I think. And sometimes this kind of thing can draw people in rather than push them away.

RB: Okay Eva Holland thanks for this, I appreciate it.

EH: Thank you.

ATW: Eva Holland writes about travel and outdoor adventure. She was in Whitehorse. You can find more on this story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Blown Away

Guest: Leah Kudel

ATW: "American Idol" did it for singers. "Hell's Kitchen" did it for chefs. But now an unlikely new Netflix show is making reality TV stars out of Canadian glass-blowers. It's called appropriately, "Blown Away." And you'd expect it to be at best a niche viewing experience for die hard glass nerds. Instead the show has blown up with Esquire calling it the "must-watch reality series of the summer." Here's part of the show's trailer.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Good morning glass-blowers! Is everyone ready to play with fire?

[Group says Yeah]

[Dramatic Music]

VOICE 1: We've built North America's biggest hot shop where 10 exceptional artists push themselves to creative extremes.

VOICE 2: I want to see things that are going to amaze me.

VOICE 3: I'm definitely pushing my limits right now.

[Glass breaking sound]

VOICE 4: Okay. Can everyone get out of my way please?

VOICE 1: You're going to have to continue to earn your place here. We need to be "Blown Away."

ATW: That's a trailer for the hit new reality TV show "Blown Away." Leah Kudel is a contestant on the show -- she's from Edmonton -- but is spending the summer blowing glass in Whitehorse, Yukon. That's where we reached her.

RB: [Laughs] So you listened to that trailer Leah and I don't know! You think like this is a high stakes drama. How do episodes actually work?

LEAH KUDEL: So in each episode there is a different challenge. You're given a challenge and then you pick your assistant out of a hat -- you've never met them before -- and then you pick your working station and you get to work.

RB: And the challenges range from what to what?

LK: So every week there's a guest judge. And the challenges would range anywhere from like they'll be a chef on so it'll be something to do with food -- or dancers so something to do with movement.

RB: And how did you get invited onto this like crazy blockbuster Netflix show?

LK: [Laughs] Oh I actually got an email asking if I wanted to apply. And I first looked at the email and showed one of my friends and I was like, "Do you think this is fake?"

RB: It just seemed made up? Too good to be true?

LK: Yeah. Yeah I mean the email just seemed like one of those scam emails like "would you like to play for the first reality glass boom in television?" Like it just sounded kind of funny.

RB: [Laughs] So give me a sense of what it was like? I mean it's high pressure any way glass blowing I would imagine. So what was it like to have that pressure while you're doing a TV show?

LK: I think the biggest thing was just the knowledge that everyone in my field is going to see this show because everyone's curious you know. So I tried really hard to be really authentic and make sure that my work was my work. You know that it didn't look like glass that somebody else had made. You know it wasn't kind of redundant of things that everybody's seen.

RB: But also just the art itself -- there's so much stakes attached, it's so high pressure --what is the hardest thing about glass blowing? I would say everything! But you tell me. [Laughter]

LK: Everything isn't right about it. I mean it can break at any moment you know if you don't heat it enough or if the heat gets a little bit off it can just crack. You know so you're like kind of adjusting to like environmental variables and variables of people around you. And you know we're like gather hot lava and then you're weaving through other people and the camera crew and you know it's kind of like an obstacle course.

RB: It has become an unexpected hit. Everyone was talking about it here this morning. People just get sucked into it. Why do you think that's happened?

LK: I think it's just glass blowing itself it's just so fascinating to watch. You know just this idea that you can like take a glob of lava and turn it into something with tools in your hands. You know I think that in itself is so fascinating. So it's really cool to see how much interest people have on this like historical craft.

RB: And the danger too. I think there's probably something to that.

LK: Yeah I mean in a sense glass blowing just looks like this thing that like you'd never want to try almost you know because it's just so crazy.

RB: Oh I agree. So why did you try it in the first place? What got you started?

LK: [Laughter] I mean I just love fire. Like I remember being a little kid and we would just melt those old McDonald's straws. And you could like fling them and you could fling flames with them.

RB: Yeah I didn't do that. [Laughs]

LK: You know I just had like this fascination with fire.

RB: Wow.

LK: [Laughs] Glass blowing was like a really good art for me in that sense.

RB: Now this is a bit of a spoiler so hopefully you'll forgive us -- but you do not make it to the final. You are not the winner.

LK: No. [Laughs]

RB: And the piece that got you voted off the show was a challenge of making a wine glass and a decanter. You had a very particular concept. Can you describe it?

LK: [Laughter] Yeah I made a fanny pack decanter and cleavage cup. So basically it's a decanter that you can hook to your belt and stick on your body. So when you're at a dance club you can decant wine in your fanny pack and then your cup sits in your cleavage so your hands free and you can decant your wine while you're dancing. So the movement like aerates the wine.

RB: And what did the judges say when they saw what you produced?

LK: Oh I think I thoroughly offended the sommelier.

RB: [Laughter] Why?

LK: [Laughter continues] She was just not impressed. It was quite funny.

RB: Well I do think...

LK: They wouldn't even try the cleavage cup.

RB: Yeah I do think a cleavage cup -- I don't know if that's the right temperature for wine.

LK: [Laughs] Yeah I mean the whole thing was just fun. Because I feel like in a sense like decanter is in a way become this kind of like stuffy high-class thing and it makes wine almost unattainable sometimes you know. And I wanted to make something that people could relate to and just made it a little bit more fun -- made it for like more fun for younger people to want to decant wine...

RB: In their cleavage. [Laughter]

LK: I mean if you're dancing and you don't want to have a glass in your hand all the time.

RB: Do you feel like a celebrity? Are you getting recognized on the streets of Whitehorse?

LK: Thankfully I'm not being recognized on the streets. I feel like if that starts to happen I might have to dress better.

RB: [Laughter] You could wear the cleavage cup.

LK: [Laughs] No. But I've been getting lots and lots of messages from people so that is really encouraging.

RB: That's cool.

LK: Which is really nice to see actually.

RB: Okay Leah I wouldn't do it but I was glad to watch you and the others do it. It's pretty cool.

LK: Oh you should give it a try. It's so much fun. [Laughs]

RB: I will take it under consideration. Good to chat with you.

LK: You too.

ATW: Leah Kudel is a contestant on the surprise-hit Netflix glass-blowing reality TV show, "Blown Away." We reached her in Whitehorse, Yukon.

[Music]

Woodstock 50

SOUNDCLIP

[Music: Sha Na Na]

ATW: That's Sha Na Na, singing "Get a Job" at 7:30 a.m. on Day 3 of Woodstock in 1969. See, everybody remembers the legendary performances by Jimi Hendrix and Joe Cocker. But what about Sha Na Na or the psychedelic jazz-rock band Quill? The fact is the Woodstock lineup was kind of iffy. But of course that festival was a once in a lifetime experience that was about more than music or even drugs. You'd think that Michael Lang of all people would know that. He was the co-founder of the original Woodstock. Nevertheless in March, he announced an anniversary event called Woodstock 50. He acknowledged that Woodstock 99 had been a disaster but said quote "With this one we're going back to our roots and our original intent." Unfortunately seems like everyone involved with Woodstock 50 took the brown acid because the whole journey has become a bad trip. Venue after venue canceled. Artists weren't getting paid. Investors pulled out. Then last week a big announcement: Woodstock 50 would take place in Maryland -- 560 kilometres from the originally announced site in New York. By that point fed-up artists including The Black Keys, Jay-Z, and John Fogerty had already canceled. And now the festival has released all the artists from their contracts. So we don't know who's playing anymore. We also don't know if anyone will be paying. There are reports that Woodstock 50 will be free. But that people will be asked to donate to the cause of their choice. Memo to Michael Lang: looks like Sha Na Na might be available. But really you might want to cut your losses because this time around you're not stardust, you're not golden -- and you have no idea how to get yourself back to the garden.

[Music]

Part 2: These 5 New York news anchors are suing over age and gender discrimination

Victim Surcharges

Guest: Michael Spratt

ATW: They were fined as part of their sentences. And now an Ontario defense lawyer is going to court to try to force the provincial government to refund people who were convicted and ordered to pay "mandatory victims surcharges." Last year the Supreme Court of Canada threw out the mandatory fines -- describing them as "cruel and unusual punishment." Now Michael Spratt has filed an application to try to get those fines repaid and to cancel all of the surcharges even the ones that were never paid. He filed the action on behalf of three clients. We reached Michael Spratt in Ottawa.

RB: Michael Spratt could you tell us who these three men are who have been ordered to pay these mandatory victims surcharges -- the man you're representing?

MICHAEL SPRATT: Well these are all individuals who between 2013 and 2018 were found guilty of criminal offenses and/or imposed a mandatory victim fine surcharge. This is a fine on top of any other sentence they received. And what the Supreme Court found was unconstitutional is that the courts didn't have any discretion at all regardless of the offender's personal circumstances to vary the amount of those fines. So these individuals are students who found themselves in lots of debt. An Indigenous offender who struggles with addiction and homelessness. And another offender who is also unfortunately at the margins of society and suffers from stigmas of homelessness and extreme poverty.

RB: So why do you think they should be paid back?

MS: Well one of the individuals was able to pay off the fine but two of the other individuals who I represent have not been able to pay off that fine and they're unlikely ever going to be in a position to pay off the fine. We don't want to have unconstitutional fines hanging over people's heads. And the Supreme Court made it quite clear in its decision when it struck down these mandatory fines that there is an ongoing harm caused even when a fine remains uncollected.

RB: But while the Supreme Court did strike it down it didn't say -- or correct me if I'm wrong -- I don't think it addressed the issue of repayment or expunging the fines. Why would that be?

MS: Well it wasn't an issue directly before the Supreme Court. It was briefly argued and they did touch on it at the end of the decision. They said that they didn't have quite enough information -- they didn't hear quite enough argument about it. But they did suggest that applicants could look to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in future proceedings as a recourse. And so all I really did was take the Supreme Court up on their invitation.

RB: So take us back and remind us why the Supreme Court called those fines "cruel and unusual punishment?"

MS: These fines can interfere with an individual's ability to apply for a pardon. Even if they've turned their life around completely, people can be denied driver's license or volunteer opportunities or even housing because they have these sort of outstanding and unpayable fines.

RB: And what kind of range of fines are we talking about? How much money are we talking about?

MS: Well the mandatory fine was set at a minimum of 100 dollars for even the least serious offense. And 200 dollars for the most serious offense -- or 30 percent of any fine imposed. Which doesn't seem like a lot of money, but these amounts can actually be quite meaningful for people living in poverty and they can be cumulative. So one of the individuals who I represent has 4,000 dollars of outstanding fines. And one criminal act sort of shoplifting you know one can of beer can amount to a bunch of different charges especially if you're already subject to court conditions and probation. So these fines can add up quite quickly. And in Ontario right now we're looking at millions of dollars of these fines that have been paid and are still outstanding.

RB: But ostensibly because the Supreme Court quashed the mandatory nature of the fines if these people -- these people you represent -- never pay them, what will happen? I mean will anyone bother to enforce it?

MS: Well that was one of the arguments initially that was brought to the Supreme Court when the whole constitutionality of these fines was being looked at in the first place and the argument was well we don't have debtors prisons in Canada you're not going to go to jail and these fines can be outstanding and no one really cares...except they do. The evidence is that these fines are being passed off to collection agencies who would keep on contacting these individuals. But I think one of the most striking things is when I sit down with my clients who want to pay these fines but can't because they're impoverished or they're homeless is that these fines make them feel less and to a person what they've told me is that this is a constant reminder that they are different from the rest of society. And I think that that is one of the most devastating impacts.

RB: So how much money would have to be repaid by the Ontario government where I believe one third of all these fines comes from?

MS: Well the CBC did some reporting at the time that the victim fine surcharge was struck down. And we're looking at probably around 10 million dollars to be repaid. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's really the unpaid amounts that have the most damaging impact. And there we could be looking at you know between 50 and 100 million dollars in Ontario of unpaid fines. And I mean to be clear, fines that probably will never be paid.

RB: The surcharge was initially created to try and create a sense of accountability for crimes to try and pay back into a fund for victims. Do you believe in the notion of the surcharge? Do you think it does make sense when people can pay?

MS: I think it definitely can make sense. One of the things that we need to do better in the criminal justice system is engage victims and provide support. You know being a victim and coming to court has the burdens of taking time off work and there is associated counseling and there's lots of good reasons to support victims. But in terms of squeezing a little bit more from individuals who have shoplifted from the LCBO because of an addiction or breached curfew, I don't think that that really increased accountability for the offenders. I think what it did is create a sense of hopelessness which can lead to really a vicious cycle of offense and re-offense.

RB: How hard do you think this is going to be?

MS: Well I'd like to be a glass half full type of person. I think that there is room here to come to an agreement with the government. I think that that is the most cost effective solution. And I think it is the solution that really works for the people and for all the people. Even Doug Ford and the Conservatives who may disagree with me on a lot of social justice and policy issues, I think that even they might be able to see the benefit of having an efficient and realistic approach to finding some solutions here before we need to go to a full-on hearing.

RB: Michael Spratt thank you. Appreciate it.

MS: No problem anytime.

ATW: Michael Spratt is a defense lawyer. He was an Ottawa.

[Music]

Dale Russell

ATW: It's only been a few days since her son was shot. But Dale Russell says she's already prepared to forgive his killer. Yesterday, the Halifax woman spoke with the CBC about her son, Triston Reece. The 19-year-old was killed on Friday. Police are investigating his death as a homicide. Dale Russell says that whatever the circumstances, she invites whoever pulled the trigger to knock on her door.

SOUNDCLIP

DALE RUSSELL: Of course with something this horrific and tragic there are going to be people that are angry and that are hurt. His friends may think that you know oh we want to retaliate. I don't want that. I don't want another mother to go through the pain that I'm going to go through for the rest of my life because I will never ever ever be the same after this. So I want his friends that know Triston and love Triston and really know his work ethic, I want them to take that and honor his memory because his death can't be in vain. And to the person that took my son I would just want you to tell me why. Because if you could take a child like Triston off of this earth, you are dead inside. So you need to find Jesus and catch yourself and repent and confess and go do your time. I don't want your life taken from you. I want you to live a very long and healthy life with the fact that you took a great man off the face of this earth for whatever reason it is. I would just like to know why. I challenge you because how you did it, you're a coward and you're weak. IAnd I've already forgiven you because I serve a God that doesn't want me to carry any hate in my heart for what you did to me. I'm not going to give you my power. So I have already forgiven you. You can knock on my door at any time and I would like you to explain to me why you did this.

ATW: That was Dale Russell speaking with the CBC's Mairin Prentiss on Friday. Ms. Russell's son Triston Reece was killed. Police are investigating his death as the first homicide in Halifax this year.

[Music]

TV Gender Lawsuit

Guest: Vivian Lee

ATW: They have a collective 100 years of experience at New York One. But they say their network is casting them aside in favor of younger talent. Now, five female New York City news anchors between the ages of 40 and 61 are suing their employer for what they call a pattern of discrimination. Their suit was filed last month. And Charter Communications -- which owns New York One -- has since been defending its record of hiring and promoting on-air talent. One of the plaintiffs is Canadian born Vivian Lee. She says that she and her colleagues have received lots of messages of solidarity but there have also been some tense moments in the weeks since they went public. We reached Vivian Lee in New York City.

RB: Vivian Lee your lawsuit alleges a systematic effort to force you and your fellow plaintiffs off the air. How has the network tried to do that? Give us a sense.

VIVIAN LEE: Well I guess it began shortly after Charter Communications took over from Time Warner Cable and our newsroom started to go through some incremental but steady changes. There were dozens of people who were let go and then the programming started to change. There were new anchor slots that were created in the form of a new segment that would run every hour. And after it was apparent to us that our younger colleagues were being given these slots exclusively, a few of us actually approached upper management and complained. And then if we fast forward a little bit in time, my main concern while all of this was happening was what would happen when I asked to come back full-time because I had asked to be put on a part-time schedule when I had my first child. And after having my second child I decided I'm ready to go back full-time -- I kind of need to. And they seemed pretty receptive to it at least in what they said to me. But then when the actual contract talks began they said no. And then shortly after that there were a couple of freelancers who were hired instead.

RB: Can I ask you a question that maybe you're not supposed to ask women but I'm a woman so I'll ask you, how old are you Vivian Lee?

VL: I'm 44.

RB: 44. And when you ran into these problems at New York One did you immediately say to your managers I think this is because of my age?

VL: I did. I said that I thought because we were older we were not being considered for these positions. We all had our own conversations and in each of our conversations there were indications especially with Roma Torre that when she raised those issues she was actually given a list of descriptions of why these younger staff should be valued. And I was even told that younger staff had to be cultivated and brought up.

RB: I'm also a TV host and just a year younger than you. Isn't that part of sort of what a newsroom is that you are asked to mentor younger women? Is that part unusual?

VL: Not at all. In fact in our newsroom there had always been this system of people starting in their 20s with minimal training. They would go out with me on the 5 breaking news shift which was considered one of the hardest and most high profile reporting shifts. They would come to me for advice. And we just saw it as paying it forward. What we had problems with was not being considered for primetime Monday to Friday roles. For example I've been on the weekends for years and had been asking to come off the weekends and was told that I couldn't. But then I would see these younger female colleagues getting these positions.

RB: So what do you say then to people in your own newsroom like Angi Gonzalez for instance who told reporters that she resents the implication that someone like her is inexperienced or unqualified?

VL: I don't take any issue with her or anyone else having opportunities, chasing opportunities. Our complaint doesn't disparage their abilities. And what we're trying to do is not only fight for our own rights but ultimately we're helping them as well and others who are coming up behind us and those who are currently with us as we continue to work day in and day out while this case goes forward.

RB: So I mean that's hard to fathom that you're walking around the newsroom at the same time as you have this suit against your bosses. So why did you and your colleagues decide that you had to go that far -- that you had to go to the next level?

VL: We have all in our own ways received if not outright warnings from fellow colleagues over the years past but even strong signals that as women there was an expiration date. And there have been umpteen examples of people who launched legal challenges after they were let go. And I think what was clear to us was it had never quite been done before that people stood up for their rights while they were still receiving a paycheck from the boss that they were challenging it.

RB: In response to your lawsuit -- as I'm sure you know -- Charter Communications has said that more than half of New York One's on-air talent is female, and that more than half is over 40. Don't those numbers sort of take away a little bit from what you're arguing?

VL: Not at all. It's not how many you have but what they're doing that will signal to society that the value that is placed on male versus female participation is measured differently.

RB: So the more famous TV names that people might be familiar with the Lesley Stahls, the Andrea Mitchells, the Diane Sawyer -- those are just anomalies for you.

VL: Yes.

RB: So how do you fight that broader issue then that underlies it -- the language you used was women have an expiration date -- how do you fight that?

VL: I think men are also a huge part of the conversation. My male colleagues have said this is something that we've all seen. It's unspoken but understood. And I think the five of us just launching this in federal court has given the conversation a lot more of a platform. And we know from people who have told us even within our own office that they feel what we're doing is the right thing.

RB: Again, because I'm also on TV I feel like I can say that TV -- it can be a fickle business. Why is it not possible that NY1 just doesn't want the five of you on air anymore just because that's the way TV business works: sometimes you're up, sometimes you're down?

VL: Well I think a lot of businesses will couch their business decisions and statements like that that they can run the business as they see fit to sell their product. You just can't continue to do that while breaking the law. And I know that this conversation has happened in Hollywood. I know it happens in theater. It happens in a lot of fields where you have people going out there and performing. It's not like we can do this with our eyes closed after having so many years. Our eyes are even more open and our ears are more open and I think our storytelling abilities are a lot more layered and nuanced and I think that's something that viewership does appreciate. I don't think they appreciate seeing a bevy of new faces on a regular basis. Maybe they do. But I've yet to see any study or stats to indicate that.

RB: Let me end on this, what is your desired outcome? How do you want this to end?

VL: Oh we've said it so many times that we all want our careers back. We want to keep working. We would love to continue to work at New York One but I think there has been a lot of cynicism out there that we're just in this for the money. None of this was motivated by that desire. It was clearly motivated by a desire to improve our conditions as they are until two leave behind a better working environment if we go.

RB: Vivian Lee thank you for your time I appreciate it.

VL: Thank you for having me.

ATW: We reached New York One's Vivian Lee in New York City. We also reached out to New York One owner Charter Communications for their response to the lawsuit that Ms. Lee and her colleagues have filed. In an emailed statement the company said quote, "We take these allegations seriously as we complete our thorough review. We have not found any merit to them." The statement also said that because Vivian Lee is a valued employee the company is quote, "working at finding new ways to accommodate her request for more hours but these opportunities can take time to open up." For more on this story visit our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Jacky Bonnemains

ATW: As Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris burned in April there was the devastating damage everyone could see. But there was also a hidden danger: hundreds of tons of lead in the building's roof melted and was released into the air. Now the environmental group Robin des Bois has filed a lawsuit saying that officials should have done more to warn about dangers posed by the release of the toxin. In June, Carol spoke to the head of Robin de Bois, Jacky Bonnemains -- who was sounding the alarm about lead levels in the city. Here's part of that interview from our archives.

SOUNDCLIP

JACKY BONNEMAINS: Unfortunately we were not surprised because while the cathedral was burning at least 300 tons of lead in the roof of the cathedral but also in the spire of the cathedral were [melted] and turned into particles, dust, soot, which were scattered around in the area and also in the Seine river.

CO: I know that your organization Robin de Bois -- you have been warning about this since the fire. Now it seems the health authorities in Paris are taking this very seriously. What are they advising that people in the area around Notre Dame Cathedral -- what are they telling them to do?

JB: Firstly we were all alone to call the inhabitants to clean the flats with the wet rags, to clean the windows, to wash the tapestries and the toys of the children. And now these warnings are more and more published by the authorities. But there is no -- for instances -- no poster in front of each building that could be affected by the dust. There is no visible information in French or in English. There is English people or the French people living in the area and they are not informed of the risk.

ATW: From June, that was Carol's interview with Jacky Bonnemains the head of the French environmental NGO, Robin des Bois. The group has now filed a lawsuit alleging that Paris did not do enough to warn residents of the risks posed by led released when Notre Dame Cathedral burned last April.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

July 29, 2019 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode