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 2017

The AIH Transcript for October 04, 2017

Hosts: Carol Off and Jeff Douglas

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

CAROL OFF: Hello I'm Carol off.

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

[Music: Theme]

JD: Tonight:

CO: Taking them to tusk. The Trump administration says Pacific walruses aren't threatened anymore, because they've adapted to dwindling sea ice in the north. But our guest says that decision will push the species closer to extinction.

JD: A different kind of marathon. A Las Vegas resident wounded in the leg during the massacre begins the slow recovery from her injuries, determined to return to her life as a runner.

CO: The play’s the thing where in she'll catch the conscience of the audience. An Ontario theater company has a new play, which shows how sexual assaults can be prevented — by getting the audience to prevent it.

JD: Uneasy chair. A new Conservative MP is tapped to head up the Status of Women Committee — despite the fact that she didn't ask for the job, and isn't exactly jumping at the chance to do it.

CO: Bringing down baby. For 16 years, ten giant babies have been stuck on a TV tower in Prague. Tonight, the sculptor who created them explains the process of taking down his infancy-ful installation, for an overdue cleaning.

JD: And… un font Terrible. This past weekend, the Papyrus font came in for comic criticism on Saturday Night Live. Tonight, the font’s creator explains why he feels it's just misunderstood. As It Happens, the Wednesday edition. Radio that guesses it takes all types.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Pacific walrus, sexual assault play, tower babies

Pacific walrus

Guest: Shay Wolfe

JD: To the layperson, it sounds like a good news story. Today, the Trump administration announced that it will not add the Pacific walrus to a List of Threatened Species. That is a reversal of an Obama administration decision, which found the species was in serious trouble because of the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice. The big mammals live in the seas between Alaska and Russia. To environmental groups, today's news is terrible. They say this announcement poses a potentially enormous threat to the Pacific walruses future. And they could end up challenging the reversal in court. Shaye Wolfe is the climate science director for the Centre for Biological Diversity. Nearly a decade ago, she authored a petition to list the Pacific walrus as threatened or endangered. We reached Ms. Wolfe in San Francisco.

CO: Ms. Wolfe, what do you think about this decision by U.S. Fish and Wildlife? What does it mean for the future of walruses?

SHAYE WOLFE: This is a disgraceful decision that puts walruses in danger. You know walruses are clearly threatened by sea ice loss from climate change. And the Trump administration, rather than helping the walrus, has denied them the critical protections, and that's going to push walruses closer to extinction.

CO: Their argument is the agency is saying that walruses have adapted to the loss of sea ice, and so that makes them not threatened. What do you say to that?

SW: That claim is baseless. The scientific evidence is very clear that walruses are already suffering from the harms from climate change. They need sea ice for survival, for giving birth, for resting, for nursing their young and they're losing that sea ice. It’s melting from beneath them, and that's causing serious consequences. We have seen in the past decade, as the ice has disappeared from their summer foraging grounds, that walruses have been forced to come to shore in large numbers. That's not where they normally want to be. They want to be out on the sea ice. And when they come to shore, they are vulnerable to being killed in stampedes or by predators and they also are stressed because they're not able to access their food. They are not adapting; they are suffering.

CO: And yet, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials this is their statement: they say that the Waller's demonstrates much more ability to change its behaviors than previously thought. Their ability to rest on shorelines before swimming to foraging areas makes the threat of less sea ice uncertain.

SW: There's just no basis for that claim. There's just no evidence to suggest that walruses are doing OK when they are being pushed on to land — when they lose their sea ice. There's many, many studies that have looked at the harmful consequences of sea ice loss to walruses, and this decision just does not match what the science is saying.

CO: The governor of Alaska and the senators from Alaska and in Washington they say they're pleased with the announcement. They say that this points to something that they maintain, which is that there is no reduction to walrus populations. Is that true? Has there not been a reduction of the numbers of walruses?

SW: It's very difficult to count walruses because they're out on the sea ice in areas that are hard to access with rough conditions. So all of the estimates of walrus numbers are approximate — they're imprecise. But a recent study that was by government scientists estimated that walruses today are at much lower levels than they were a few decades ago. And most of the evidence pointed to declines in walrus populations in 2015. So as of that year, it was most likely that walruses were declining.

CO: So if you're saying that what U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is saying and what we're hearing from Washington today. If you're saying that that's not based on science — that this is not based on scientific evidence — what is it based on? is it. Are you saying it's political?

SW: Yes, this is clearly a political decision. The Trump administration is anti-wildlife, anti-science; it has recklessly denied the scientific reality of climate change, which is the primary threat to the walrus. So by acknowledging that walruses are threatened by climate change and need protection, the Trump administration would have to acknowledge that climate change is a serious threat that we need to do something about. And they don't want to do that.

CO: But they're not denying that the sea ice is diminishing. They're just saying that the walruses are adapting to it.

SW: They're downplaying the threat from climate change. It's a misrepresentation of the scientific evidence that we have. They're downplaying and dismissing climate change threats and then claiming without basis that walruses are somehow going to adapt to devastating losses of sea ice that are just going to continue and get worse.

CO: I know you have been trying to — your organization — has been trying to get this walrus listed for some years on the endangered species list. And since the Trump administration took office, how has your work at the Centre for Biological Diversity changed?

SW: Yes. In a sense, the Trump administration has taken office. They have enacted this unprecedented stream of environmental attacks. They've rolled back key protections to fight climate change, to reduce our greenhouse gas pollution and fight climate change that endangers all of us. They've cut staff from our environmental protection agencies and cut the capacity of those agencies to do their job. And they've just engaged in this repeated reckless denial of climate change. So our efforts have focused on trying to fight those rollbacks. To try and make sure that those environmental protections stay in place that are so important for all of us.

CO: And you are going to pursue legal action against the federal government on behalf of the Pacific walrus?

SW: It's very likely that we will challenge this decision in court. We're looking at the decision now and it's very, very likely that we will challenge it. This decision cannot stand. It's not science-based and it's just not fair. It's not fair to the walrus, who has already been waiting much too long for protection. I mean waiting for over a decade for protection and now has to wait even longer. So we're going to you know challenge the decision and try and get endangered species act protections for the walrus because that will open up a toolbox — a safety net — that will help the walrus better survive.

CO: Alright, we'll be following the story. Ms. Wolfe, thank you.

SW: Thank you so much.

JD: Shaye Wolfe is the climate science director for the Centre for Biological Diversity. We reached her in San Francisco.

[Music: That one sad piano song]

Sex assault play

Guest: Joan Chandler

JD: Picture this: you’re a student at a party; you overhear a guy you know make an inappropriate comment about his date. Do you say something? Or do you pretend not to hear it and just go on with the party? That is the kind of decision that Joan Chandler wants her audiences to confront. Joan Chandler is the artistic director of the Ontario theatre company Sheatre. The company's traveling production “Far From The Heart”, depicts the events leading up to a sexual assault, and asks the audience to intervene. We reached John Chandler in Kemble, Ontario.

CO: Joan, can you tell us just how our audience members of your play involved in the events on the stage?

JOAN CHANDLER: “Far From The Heart” is a forum theater play, and that means that it has two parts. The first part of the show is a problem play, in which a lot of things go wrong. And there's a lot of problems. And then in the second part, which lasts about an hour, we go back and we revisit moments in the play where choices can be made. And we ask the audience any time you feel uncomfortable, any time you have an idea of how you might change this so that things turn out better, shout out “stop”, and we'll stop it. And when they do that, then they are invited to come up on the stage, replace a character, or add new characters, in order to change the situation for the better.

CO: Can you describe maybe a scene in which the audience steps in to change the situation?

JC: Sure. In the middle of the play, Felicity is changing her identity a little bit. She's wearing a beautiful new dress, and she comes to the party. She takes off her coat and her boyfriend is appalled by her change in identity. The change that she presents is too sexual for him and he tries, with anger, to cover her up and control her physically and emotionally. It's a very difficult scene, the girl is hurt and the audience can stop it at any point during that and come up and change things.

CO: So they change the outcome of that particular scene. Then, progress that through to the next one if you would?

JC: So the next scene, we go back to the original problem play and present the next problem in it. And then they problem solve that by intervening. The next scene, Warren leaves the party, he's kicked out, and in the next scene, Felicity and Rachel and Adam proceed to use alcohol. And Felicity binge drinks in order to overcome the emotion that she's feeling. And then in the next scene, her friend abandons her and goes off to another party — leaving her with Adam. Adam then in the next scene, he invites her to go downstairs to the bedroom to get away from the crowd because she's tired and upset. And once they’re down there, one thing leads to another and Adam ends up raping her. So there are an awful lot of decision points where we can change things.

CO: Just walk us through some of the ways that the young people actually get up on stage. Do they do they actually prevent that rape from happening?

JC: Yes they do. So for example, in the final scene — the most difficult one — some people will stop it upstairs when he says hey, do you want to come down? And they say no, I don't want to. Some people will stop it outside the door and say I don't want to go in your bedroom. But our actors are really trained to keep the situation as real as possible, and to make them very convincing and manipulative. All the things that he might say or could say are difficult to overcome. So what's really happening is that the kids are teaching each other. You know when we began this it was an idea to open conversations about things kids want to talk about: dating, violence, sexual assault, rape. We don't want to talk about that; it's all taboo. But not only do they talk about it. Now, what they're doing is they're teaching each other what to do. And that's pretty rare because kids don't generally get to practice this kind of scenario. It just sort of happens. And so here with “Far From The Heart”, they're showing each other how to handle these situations, how to deal with it and they're seeing how things can change by what you say and what you do.

CO: What's the age of most of the audience members?

JC: It ranges from 12 to about 19. And, occasionally, we do shows for adults as well.

CO: Why not just present the play and maybe have a discussion afterward? I mean what's the value of having them jump in and all the action and also the conclusion of it?

JC: Well, you know, a lecture is one thing. But to actually get up there and do something that's a very different thing. Something very different happens. And light bulbs go off and learning clicks and in a very visceral way. It's an experience. It's no longer just a discussion.

CO: Do you actually see that “aha!” moment?

JC: Oh yeah, we see that all the time. Because we're dealing with such sensitive subjects, we have people from community services in case somebody gets triggered during the show they can talk with them. But also immediately after this show, they do a half-hour debrief to help the kids to talk more and ask questions and talk amongst each other. And people do get it and they and they do have realizations. And we know that because of the feedback that we get and we know that because some kids do go on and connect with the counselors and the people who come into the school and they get further counseling and help.

CO: How did this play “Far From The Heart” come to be? Where did you get the idea?

JC: I've been volunteering in violence against women sector for decades. And working with youth and women and community using theater and I put the two things together. When I realized that here on the Bruce Peninsula, kids were really so shy about talking about this that they didn't even want to go and get help if it happened to them. So it came as an idea because I understood something had to change.

CO: Well, Joan, it's really fascinating and I can see how it would have an effect on a lot of young people. I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

JC: Thank you so much, Carol.

JD: Joan Chandler is the artistic director of the she and her theatre company Sheatre. We reached her in Kemble, Ontario, that is near Owen Sound. Her play “Far From The Heart” will be in Espanola, Ontario tomorrow, and in Sudbury Friday.

[Music: Ambient]

Tower babies

Guest: David Cerny

JD: There is something missing from the Prague skyline tonight. Towering above the city is a Soviet-era television tower. It is a brutalist classic. But for the past two decades, the tower’s ugliness has been tempered by monstrous cuteness... in the form of a group of crawling giant babies. The babies are not real. They are the work of the Czech artist David Cerny. He's hauling them down for some repairs. We reached David Cherny in Prague.

CO: David, what kind of shape are your 12 foot babies?

DAVID CERNY: Well, after 18 years and in rather difficult weather conditions, snd since the weather is actually going in a bit extremes since they were installed, the surface paint is basically peeled off. So we have to repaint them, we have to check the inside frame — the metal construction, which actually is attached to the tower, and a couple other maintenance. So we’ll probably change the way they're actually anchored to the tower.

CO: And we should tell people this tower — Zizkov Tower — the TV tower is called the “second ugliest building in the world.” And so what made the baby so popular when you had them installed there? Why are people so attached to having those babies crawling up the tower?

DC: Well, of course, that is the question. You know it might be because it is the ugliest building in the world, and the babies make it better. Or the babies actually make the tower the ugliest thing in the world. And you never know!

CO: Well, what do you think?

DC: I have no clue to be honest.

CO: Well, they're very amusing. But it's also this building — Zizkov Tower — has quite a history. People hate it for many reasons, some of them political. Can you tell us how people feel about this tower and why?

DC: Well, the tower was the first moment the Bolsheviks in the 80s begin to working on this project because they needed to have a high tower in the middle of the city to actually be able to spy people and to disrupt the broadcasting from Radio Free Europe and Voice of America and other radio stations. So that was the main purpose. But a project of course you know it was going on during the end of the communism. And the way the communists actually picked the place where to build it was very unhappy because they picked the middle of the city where was the Jewish cemetery. So they completely ruined the old Jewish cemetery. And during this time, they were digging out skeletons. So that’s one of the reasons. And also in that time, it is really like sticking out from the historical part of the city. So it was quite hated also because of that. But since then, people have sort of got used to it. Of course, I know the architect, and I think that he was pretty pleased that I actually came up with the idea to attach the babies on it because it somehow made it more acceptable, I would say.

CO: More human. And why babies? What was the reason for that?

DC: Well, thats 20 years ago. And my memory I would say you know reached something like five years.

CO: OK. So it seemed like a good idea at the time.

DC: That was a pretty good idea at that time.

CO: Obviously people still think it’s a good idea. Because after the babies — these 10 giant babies are repaired — they're going to be back crawling up the tower again, right?

DC: Yeah. We go through the inspection — quite deep inspection — all the weldings have to be inspected with spectrograms or whatever. And then, they will be back on a spring, completely repainted and reconstructed. There is even a way that we might remake all of them completely. So I would have 10 spare babies to send to the United States.

CO: And just in time because they sure need 10 giant babies in the United States right now.

DC: Well, it's a question of course. But I`m negotiating with somebody in the States who might be interested about it.

CO: Just before we let you go, I have to ask you that last time we spoke. And people who don't know your work, if they've been to Prague and just about any time you see something that's funny or mocking or just delightful it's probably yours. But one of your works we talked about last time you floated on a barge a giant purple middle finger that was pointing at Prague Castle, which is the seat of the president. You floated it down on the barge. It is the middle finger still pointing to the president's office?

DC: Unfortunately not, but I think that he deserves it all the time since he actually joined the office. Now, we’re going to elections — presidential elections — after five years. And I was thinking how can I overtake that? And it's difficult because I would have to make that finger something like 5 times bigger. And this would be the only answer to what he did within those five years because he put this country into something like what Trump is doing now.

CO: Well, we will be watching both the election and how you respond to it, and what you have to say about it. And as always, David, it's good to talk to you. Thanks.

DC: OK, thank you.

CO: Bye.

DC: Bye.

JD: David Cerny is a Czech artist. We reached him in Prague. We have more on that story, including some photographs of both David Cerny's middle finger — that is his work of art — and his weather-beaten tower babies on our website: www.cbc.ca/aih. And in case you were wondering what is number one on the ugliest building in the world list? Look no further than Baltimore's Morris A. Mechanic Theatre, which probably explains why it was demolished two years ago.

[Music: Indie rock]

Granola love

JD: Sometimes, health and safety inspectors come by to ensure that the As It Happens studio is physically speaking, a healthy work environment. And when they do, I explain that the main thing for us here is respect for you — the listener — and they don't get that. And they're also weirdly, weirdly hung up on other things here in the studio. Like the open, expired jars of mayonnaise, or the congealed cheese fondue from a 2013 party, the raccoons. And when the inspectors get mad, like I have to ask them why do you hate respect? It's like those robots from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration — the FDA — coming down on the Nashoba Brook Bakery in West Concord, Massachusetts. Nashoba makes granola, it sells it in its cafe and in nearby stores. It is a labour of love. In fact, love is listed as an actual ingredient on its granola. Delightful, but the FDA is not delighted. After inspecting Nashoba’s facilities, it sent a warning letter which reads, quote, “Love is not a common or usual name of an ingredient, and is considered to be an intervening material because it is not part of the common or usual name of the ingredient.” Well, to which Nashoba CEO John Gates says, quote, “Situations like that where the government is telling you you can't list ‘love’ as an ingredient because it might be deceptive, just feels so silly.” Unquote. Well, you're preaching to the choir here Mr. Gates. But get this, the FDA bureaucrats say that the love part was not even one of their top concerns. No, they say the actual top concerns were unsanitary conditions, sprinkler heads “caked with apparent debris”, missing portions of floor and ceiling and dead flies “near or on food” — among other violations. Well, guess what, nanny state? Love is a messy business… as is baking. And judging by the CEO's response, love also means never having to say you're sorry.

Part 2: Las Vegas: survivor, font creator

Las Vegas: survivor

Guest: Christina Gruber

JD: Donald Trump arrived in Las Vegas today to meet with first responders and victims of Sunday's deadly attack. At the city's University Medical Center, he told some of those who had been wounded, quote, “The only message I can say is that we are with you 100 per cent.” More than 50 people were killed, five hundred injured, after a gunman opened fire from a hotel during a country music festival. It is the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. Christina Gruber is a survivor of the attack. We reached her at home in Las Vegas.

CO: Christina, how are you?

CHRISTINA GRUBER: I'm doing OK. Thank you.

CO: How much pain are you in?

CG: Well, obviously, I’m not in a significant amount of pain physically. I do have some pain when I do certain movements.

CO: And what are the doctors saying about how you were wounded?

CG: They believe perhaps someone had gotten hit with a bullet, and due to the force and speed of the bullet, it may have exploded or whatnot, and the shrapnel broke up and got me basically.

CO: You didn't get directly hit by a bullet; you got the shrapnel from another person?

CG: I did. And the shrapnel is actually still in my leg. They did not remove it. They felt it would possibly doing more harm than good trying to remove it at that time. They did suggest perhaps it was bothering me still to go speak to an orthopedic surgeon, to see if I could get it removed down the road. I'm actually going to see one tomorrow anyway because I'm a runner, so I need to get back to doing what I do.

CO: Oh dear, yeah. You need that leg.

CG: Yeah, I need that leg.

CO: I'm sorry to ask you this, I know it's just awful to relive this, but can you tell us where you were when the shooting began?

CG: I was pretty much center stage. I was close, but not that close. We had heard some popping sounds. Most of us — as you heard in other interviews — thought it was fireworks that went wrong. And then we heard them again, and we saw people falling and people started running. At that point, we all realized it was a far more serious situation. I hid for cover under a table at one point. My friend shielded me. We decided to get out and run. At the moment that I had gotten hit, is when I remember losing my friend. It turns out that my friend had helped someone that had gotten shot behind me.

CO: To help a stranger.

CG: Yes, there were many of my friends that helped strangers. Strangers helped me.

CO: You needed to rely on strangers. Tell us how you got to hospital?

CG: When I had found some safety behind a structure, there were some concert goers that were either paramedics, or nurses and firefighters. They just basically kept me calm, carried me out to the main road where some complete strangers drove me to the hospital. There was a man in the front seat who had been shot in the foot. Who was actually trying to calm me down because I had been so hysterical. He had also been injured, but he was keeping me calm.

CO: What was on your mind at that point?

CG: My kids. I just wanted to get home to my kids. And I was worried about my kids. I didn’t want to not see them again. I wanted to get home to my kids.

CO: How old are they?

CG: They are 13 and seven.

CO: So you weren't thinking about yourself. You're thinking about them.

CG: Of course.

CO: How are they coping?

CG: I think my seven-year-old son I think he's too young to really understand. My daughter is 13, you know? They live with their dad half-time and with me half-time, so he brought them over the next morning. And they just both hugged me and were crying. And my daughter was very sad, but was also just scheduled a therapy session. I wanted to make sure that she spoke to someone because she is older, and can understand a lot more. My son's school actually provided counseling to him and any of the other students that needed it.

CO: You said you are a runner; do you think is going to be difficult to run?

CG: I am determined to get on the road again. Running, for me, is a way I’ve always coped with things. It’s what I want to do most right now, and I can't. If I have anything to do with it I'm going to be racing next month again. I'm not letting the coward take me down like this or break me.

CO: Good for you. Can I just ask you one political question, and you can not answer it, or respond as you wish. There are a lot of U.S. politicians who are saying this is not the time to talk about gun control, and that to do that is just to politicize a tragedy. What do you say?

CG: I agree. I think it’s too soon to discuss that right now. I will tell you I own a gun, I enjoy shooting. Am I going to be able to go to the range any time soon and listen to any rifles being shot? Probably not in the near future — if ever again. But you know the problem isn’t people owning guns. It’s the people who own the gun. Well, you know and they say guns aren't what can kill people, it’s people that kill people. But you know what they're saying about the suspect and the amount of weapons he had, the types of weapons he had and the modifications that were mad to these guns; I don't know what can be done to control that? There should be some sort of control. Am I against guns? Absolutely not, but do I believe that there should be some sort of control over something? Absolutely.

CO: Well, Christine, I wish you a speedy recovery. I know you're going to be out there running. I can hear the determination in you. And thanks for speaking with us.

CG: Absolutely, I appreciate it. Thank you.

CO: Take care. Bye bye.

CG: Bye.

JD: Christina Gruber was among the hundreds of people injured when a gunman opened fire during a music festival in Las Vegas on the weekend. She is recovering at home in Las Vegas. That is where we reached her. The state of Nevada is known for having some of the most relaxed gun laws in the U.S.. Most gun owners there will not change their minds after the Las Vegas attack. But at least one gun owner did. Dennis Speirs had just exited a gun store in Las Vegas when the BBC's Laura Bicker caught up with him. Here's what he told her.

SOUNDCLIP

DENNIS SPEIRS: I just went in here to sell all my guns.

LAURA BICKER: Why?

DS: Why? Because they’re a gun collection; I want to go ahead and get rid of them. And I don't need them anymore.

LB: Why don’t you need them anymore?

DS: I just I don't want to deal with the hurt that comes from them anymore.

LB: It's really affected you, hasn't it?

DS: Yeah, it has affected me. Too many lives are lost. It's hard for me to talk about when it's called gun control, because my family is still selling guns because that's their living. My grandfather started a store in 1913, or 1910, somewhere in there. And you know you're asking me to say it's time to talk about gun control. They fought for the right.

JD: Las Vegas resident Dennis Speirs, telling the BBC's Laura Bicker why he sold all his guns after the shooting.

[Music: Somber guitar]

Theresa May

“Really sphincter-tightening.” That’s how a senior Tory described the sensation to a political editor with Channel 4 News. The comment was in reference to a speech that British Prime Minister Theresa May made earlier today at the Conservative Party conference in the UK. It was meant to quell concerns within the party. And even if it did dispel any such concerns, it created others. At one point, a prankster came up to the podium and handed Ms. May a P45. That is a form employees receive when they are sacked. And then there was the issue of Ms. May's recurring cough

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Theresa May coughs frequently while giving a speech]

THERESA MAY: Why… why we will… excuse me… we will never hesitate to act where businesses aren't operating as they should. let this party celebrate the wealth-creators, the risk-takers, the innovators and entrepreneurs.

[Sound: And there was much rejoicing]

TM: Thank you.

JD: That is sore-sounding. At one point, Ms. May was given a cough drop by Chancellor Philip Hammond. And then this happened.

SOUNDCLIP

TM: All its diversity, compassion and strength that was shared around the globe.

JD: That sounded pretty normal, but behind Ms. May, there was a slogan on the wall, which read: “Building a country that works for everyone.” As she was speaking there, it turned into: “Building a country that works or everyone.” As she was speaking there, it turned to “Building a country that works or everyone.” As the “f” fell off the wall. On top of all this, Ms. May has been criticized for her choice of accessories: a bracelet with Frida Kahlo on it. As many pointed out on social media, the renowned Mexican painter was also a member of the Communist Party.

[Music: Light rock]

Font creator

Guest: Chris Costello

JD: Name a font that everyone loves to hate. I'm willing to bet that you just said, “Comic Sans”. And you're right, it is in many ways the worst. But there is another typeface out there that really, really gets under some people's skin. That font is “Papayas”. It was created in the early 80s, but it saw resurgence in the last decade when it was used as the font on promotional materials for the James Cameron movie “Avatar”. And then, this past weekend, it was targeted in a sketch on the season premiere of “Saturday Night Live”. In the video spoof, Ryan Gosling plays a man tormented by his dislike of the font and the person who just slapped it on the Avatar poster.

SOUNDCLIP

RYAN GOSLING: He just got away with it. This man — this profession graphic designer. Was is laziness? Was it cruelty?

JD: Chris Costello is the creator of the papayas font. We reached Mr. Costello in Boston.

CO: So Chris, what was it like to have your font on “Saturday Night Live”?

CHRIS COSTELLO: I thought it was a blast. It was hilarious and unexpected.

CO: You didn't know that was coming? No one told you?

CC: No, I had no idea because I didn't watch the show that night. But I did get up in the morning and my phone was lit up with messages from friends who said did you see the “Saturday Night Live” skit? So my wife and I took a look at it and it was unbelievable. I mean I totally get it. As a designer myself, it was hilarious. I totally got the joke and it was just great to see.

CO: But you heard Ryan Gosling in that clip, and he's going after the “Avatar” poster designer— this graphic designer, lazy and cruel. Did that hurt just a bit?

CC: Well, it wasn't actually directed toward me. It was directed toward the designer of the logo itself, who didn't really design the logo apparently, he just used my font. A simple dropdown menu click on a font choice and that was it. It's available to anybody who chooses to select it. Not just graphic designers, but anybody who owns a computer, because it is on pretty much every computer in the world.

CO: You created this in the early 1980s, right?

CC: Yeah. I’d just got out of college, and I was kind of seeking God. I was studying the Bible and the inspiration came from actually the Bible and biblical times scriptures. It was kind of scribbling typography scriptures. I was thinking about the Middle East, ancient Egypt, Israel and just by doing this I feel this descript kind of came together. I ended up creating an entire alphabet that had this very hieroglyphic look to it. I sent it off to 10 different font distributors — kind of companies that market typefaces. The font was rejected by all but one company, who saw potential in it.

CO: How much money did you make from it?

CC: At that time, it was like 1982, I made $750, which adjusted for inflation is probably about $2,500 today.

CO: You made those years ago. And you describe it’s got a hieroglyphic — ancient — look to it. And something you see on the Dead Sea Scrolls or something. This is very much inspired by what you were going through. How surprised were you when you turn up on “Avatar” posters?

CC: Well, by that time, I think “Avatar” came out in 2009 I believe. I actually saw the movie and they ran the subtitles of the alien language subtitles translated into English and they also did Papyrus. I mean it was kind of cool that a big blockbuster movie was using my font. But on the other side, I thought it didn't seem like a very creative approach to a logo for a movie of that level.

CO: Well now, they’re stuck with it because, of course, they are making sequels and they're using the same thing. But it's more than that, as the “Saturday Night Live” sketch shows, that Papyrus is on Shakira merchandise, it's in hookah bars and packages of off-brand teas. Are you seeing it everywhere too?

CC: Yeah, yeah. I mean it was kind of funny. We took our family down to Newport, Rhode Island. And just walking around the town, you can see you know gift shops will have it, restaurant menus, cards shops, yoga shops, meditation spas and you just see it a lot everywhere. A lot of signage.

CO: Why do you think they made such a joke of it? Why are they suggesting that people are so angry about Papyrus?

CC: Well, any anybody can use it. And anybody can overuse it and misuse and abuse it. And when it turns up on practically everything from church newsletters yellow page ads is not well crafted, it’s not well designed, it's just placed there. As a designer, I get it as well. That’s not the way it was supposed to be used. It's like a broken record. It's not that the font is bad. I believe it's a bad design. I actually like the design it and I put a lot into it.

CO: People get so passionate about fonts, don't they? About Comic Sans, for instance. People get angry about these things. I mean how could there be an SNL sketch about a font if people were so passionate about it? They don't just take it for granted. Why is that? Why do people get so worked up?

CC; I think designers are artists — there's a lot of emotion. The same way with Comic Sans, it's just that font was designed for comic strip bubbles — quote bubbles. But again, that's also available on every computer in the world, and people will use it for anything because they like the font. They’re not even concerned about the appropriate use of it. I think just visually, Papyrus is just in your face all the time. That can drive a designer crazy. It does to me too. I mean I feel like you know I can't really use it anymore. I mean it's my baby. I designed it, but there's a lot of inappropriate uses. It can really grate against you.

CO: I'm sure we're going to get lots of response to this. I'm glad you talked to us about it. And it was very funny skit.

CC: Oh, it’s my pleasure. And yes, it was hilarious. I was glad to be a part of this whole viral thing.

CO: Thanks Chris. Bye bye.

CC: Take care.

JD: Chris Costello is the graphic designer who created the Papyrus font. We reached him in Boston.

Part 3: Status of Women, World Trade Center birds, Cameroon protests

Status of Women

Guest: Sheila Malcolmson

JD: She didn't ask for the job, but it would seem that Conservative MP Karen Vecchio has no choice but to take it. Yesterday, Ms. Vecchio was nominated to be the chair of the Status of Women committee that she sits on. You will recall last week, her Conservative colleague Rachel Harder was nominated for that position. The Liberals and the NDP on the committee claim that Ms. Harder held anti-abortion views and was not suitable for the role. The Liberals even walked out of the meeting in protest of Ms. Harder’s nomination. And so yesterday, the Liberals used their majority to nominate Karen Vecchio as chair. NDP MP Sheila Malcolmson sits on the committee. She also voted in favor of Ms. Vecchio’s nomination. We read Sheila Malcolmson in Ottawa.

CO: Ms. Malcolmson, clearly your colleague Karen Vecchio doesn't want the job of chair of this committee. So why force her to sit as the chair?

SHEILA MALCOLMSON: The appointment of Rachel Harder as our spokeswoman for the Status of Women committee was impossible. Andrew Scheer could not have picked a more controversial — more inappropriate — person to be on the Status of Women committee of all committees. I voted Rachel Harder down, and in the end, when Karen Vecchio was nominated, I voted for her. I thought it was unfortunate and kind of heavy-handed of the Liberals to nominate her against her will. I would have hoped that instead what we were urging on the NDP side was that the Conservatives put someone in the spot that really is more reasonable and more able to speak to women's equality from a reproductive justice point of view.

CO: OK, so just describe the reaction on the part of Karen Vecchio when she was voted into this job that she didn't want. So how do you know that she didn't want it? How did she respond?

SM: She said, when the Liberals nominated her, that she refused the nomination. The clerk of the committee said the rules of order say the nomination can only be withdrawn by unanimous consent and she didn't get it. So then there was an election and she was elected chair. I kind of expected her to take the chair and then say I resign, which is her ability to do. But I just talked with her a minute ago, she says she's going to make it work the same way that Marilyn Gladu, the Conservative former chair of Status of Women committee, was a good chair for us and a good spokesperson and she was able to represent her work evenly. Even though we're in different political parties, I think we're going to work well with Karen Vecchio as well.

CO: And so this is just a development of the past few minutes. Because in the committee meeting, once she was voted in for a job she didn't want, Karen Vecchio she just adjourned the meeting, right?

SM: What I was expecting her to do if she really didn't want to do the job was to resign immediately. Instead, she said I need to get organized. I wasn't prepared to chair, and so we're going to adjourn and I'll talk to the committee staff.

CO: Karen Vecchio was defending the choice of Rachel Harder, and she's gone further. Both of them are saying the Liberal members of the Status of Women committee have a choice. They can stand up for female business operators, who are affected by Justin Trudeau’s tax hike. Or they can make it harder for them to succeed. And they claim that all this going on the committee is a smokescreen for what they're really trying to do. What do you say to that?

SM: Well, the Liberals have certainly got a lot of problems lining up their feminist rhetoric with their failure to bring in a single piece of legislation that helps women. And so on the NDP side, we've been advocating strongly ever since I was elected that the Trudeau government bring in pay equity legislation. That he bring in universal affordable child care. And we're ready to get back to work on Thursday — now that this impasse that both the Conservatives and the Liberals created is behind us.

CO: Do you think that what happened on the committee and the rejection of Rachel Harder was orchestrated by Justin Trudeau, as the Conservatives are claiming?

SM: Not at all. I called the alarm on this last Monday. At that time, the Liberals were saying there's nothing we can do about it. The Conservatives get to control the nomination. I was urging at committee, and my motion was that we have a vote on it. And that, unfortunately, was kind of knocked off the rails for a week because of the Liberals walking out of the meeting. But they didn't look that organized, so I don't have any sense that the PMO orchestrated this.

CO: Karen Vecchio is saying that the whole thing was an orchestration by the Liberals — by Justin Trudeau — and it said the actions demonstrate the intolerance of the Liberal Party of Canada, which claims to value diversity. But you voted against the appointment as well. So really where can you point the finger? Where can anyone point the finger at the Liberals as being this? Because you shared the view of the Liberals about the appointment of Rachel Harder?

SM: This is definitely the NDP that led the charge. But we used the proper rules of order within committee. I'm not really sure that the Liberals honored them in the same way. And Rachel Harder could be the chair really of any other committee on the Hill and I would not have any problem with that. The committee on women's equality, we could not tolerate a woman who is opposed to a woman's right to choose. That’s a fundamental human right.

CO: Why do you think the Conservatives, why do you think that they wanted Rachel Harder to be heading this committee? Do you think there was some agenda there?

SM: You know all I can do is fill in the blanks and say for Andrew Scheer — the leader of the Conservative Party — to put the most provocative appointee in place. To put her in the shadow cabinet position and then to put her in the position of chair, I think was provocative and I think he is sending Canadian women a message with that appointment.

CO: And what's the message?

SM: That his agenda is indeed to keep the long-standing abortion controversy open. And that he's signaling his own view that he does not support a woman's right to choose.

CO: And so you think he's trying to bring that into the back door, since he's said he's not going to bring it through the front door?

SM: Well, it was pretty front door for the last couple of weeks here on the Hill. We've had a lot of focus — a lot of attention — and people from all over the country thanking me and the members of the women's movement for forcing the issue.

CO: Do you think that Andrew Scheer was getting messages from his constituency that they supported the stand he was taking with Rachel Harder?

SM: I'd be surprised if they aren't fundraising based on it really. I imagine yes that he would be getting supportive messages from his part of the Conservative base. And I hope that we are not seeing a reactivation of part of the Conservative Party that’s really very tough on women's equality.

CO: Ms. Malcolmson, I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

SM: Thanks Carol.

JD: NDP Member of Parliament Sheila Malcolmson sits on the Standing Committee for the Status of Women. We reached her in Ottawa earlier today.

[Music: Rock]

Trade Center birds

Guest: Andrew Farnsworth

JD: “A Tribute in the Light” is an annual art installation in New York City in remembrance of the 9/11 attacks. The lights are turned on at dusk on September 11^th. And they shine until dawn the next day. Well, a group of ornithologists has been studying the effect that this installation has on birds. The results are detailed in a study that was published online this week. Andrew Farnsworth is the senior author of the study. We reached him in Zurich.

CO: Mr. Farnsworth, first of all, just tell us about this installation “Tribute in Light”? Can you just describe it for those who haven't seen it?

ANDREW FARNSWORTH: So there are 80 very powerful light bulbs that are arranged into two 44 bulb squares if you will. That approximate what the Twin Towers used to look like, and these lights points straight up, and they're on top of a parking garage in southern Manhattan. On a clear night, they're visible for well… we don't know, maybe 90 or 100 kilometers away. It's a very, very striking installation.

CO: And how did you come to be studying the effect that these beams of light were having on birds?

AF: I live in Manhattan. I've been a birder my whole life, and I've been interested in migration my whole life. And when the organizers of the “Tribute in Light” started planning for it in late 2001 and early 2002, I happened to be working for the National Audubon Society, and there was quite a lot of discussion among birders and migration ecologists in New York City and around the region about how these bright lights might affect birds. So it was a combination of being in the right place at the right time, having interest and knowing enough about the field to contribute some knowledge. Remember, at that point, even though we’ve known for a long time that these lights — bright lights — affect bird migration. We didn't have any real science to back up any decision making or thinking. So the early discussions were really sort of about building a consensus of what might be a good idea that nobody wanted to see more dead things down at the site, you know? Dead birds in a place that was somber and emotionally powerful and spiritual and you know a personal installation and memorial. Nobody wanted to see anything further in terms of you know dead birds on the ground.

CO: Can you just describe what you have observed about the birds? And we should remind people this is just on for one night: dusk on September the 11th. And they shine until dawn the next day. So what have you observed as to how the birds respond to these lights?

AF: When the lights are on, and when there are birds migrating, it's a striking, striking scene. Envision if you will as if you're looking up into a snow globe with snowflakes flying all around and trying to count those snowflakes. What these birds are doing is that they're seeing the beams from either some distance away or perhaps quite close. And they're coming toward the beams, they're circling in them, they're basically attracted and then disoriented. With that circling, they're slowing their migration speeds, they're aggregating in large numbers and they're also vocalizing a lot more. So birds that are migrating at night have these specific signals — these vocal signals — that they use that are species-specific. And they start calling a lot more and it relates to this notion of disorientation that they're experiencing. So all of these things are happening at once as the lights are on, and if we get to a point where there are more than a thousand birds in the beam and we're seeing dangerous light behaviour with birds very close to buildings or colliding with buildings we requested the light to be shut off for 20 minutes. And as soon as those lights go off, the changes in behaviour are dramatic. The calling that I was describing to you diminishes to virtually nothing very quickly — within a minute or two of the lights going off. And we know from our radar data that birds returned basically to the direction that they typically moved during the fall and migration, which was sort of off to the southwest. And birds disperse from the area where the lights were. It's very, very fast, very dramatic change in behavior that happens between lights on/lights off.

CO: And have you ever heard anything from relatives of the 9/11 victims? How they feel about what you've learned and what you're saying about the effect of this memorial on birds? Because I know that memorial is looking for some way to tribute. With such a hugely important gesture and so many people had input into that. What's been their reaction to the knowledge that this is affecting the birds?

AF: That's a really good question. So every year that I am there I meet someone new and I hear these heart-wrenching stories. A lot of the people have family or friends that were there, or maybe they were there and were first responders. Or they're sick and wanting to see this memorial for the first or last time. And usually when I interact with people, they're wanting to tell their story. They'll ask some questions about the birds. But very quickly I'll talk about what their experiences were. It's a very much human and personal thing, and it doesn't seem that the fact that we're being opportunistic and trying to study something that's happening at this is really unique and striking place. It doesn't seem to bother people. But by the same token, we've also been very careful to recognize what the spirit and intent of this tribute is. And that it's about people. And it's not about the birds. We're very happy that organizers have been willing to communicate with us and have a very open discourse and build a consensus and respect that they don't want to see a lot of dead birds there potentially. But in terms of the actual families, the people that are there to pay tribute, I really have not heard anything negative per se from them about it. There certainly have been times, in particular early on, when people were very confused about well why are the lights going off? People didn't realize that oh, well, we're turning lights out to save birds. It was often some more fearful. Well, is something wrong with the tribute? Was there some kind of an incident? That sort of thing. That was the only originally kind of non-positive response that I heard was what's going on?

CO: Well, it's very interesting the study and what you concluded from it, Mr. Farnsworth. And I thank you for speaking with us today.

AF: Thank you. Thank you for having me. Thank you for the interest.

CO: Bye bye.

AF: Bye bye.

JD: Andrew Farnsworth is an ornithologist at Cornell University. He is the senior author of a paper that was published online on Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. We reached Mr. Farnsworth in Zurich.

[Music: Ambient]

From Our Archives: Shag Harbour UFO

JD: 50 years ago, a mysterious visitation put the small Nova Scotia village of Shag Harbour on the map. And it became Canada's best documented UFO sighting. On October the 4th of 1967, about 1 a.m., people reported seeing flashing lights — strange flashing lights — in the skies off Shag Harbour. Witnesses included: RCMP officers, fishermen, airline pilots and a young Chris Styles. And Chris Styles was so influenced by what he saw in that he took up researching UFO. And in October of 2003, Mr. Styles spoke with As It Happens, while he was attending a UFO symposium in Halifax. Here is part of his conversation with Mary Lou Finlay. This is from our archives.

SOUNDCLIP

CHRIS STYLES: All over the province in Nova Scotia, particularly from the metro area down to the southwestern tip, people were reporting UFO sightings from many of the communities. Maholm Bay and Lunenburg off the coast — riggers that were fishing. And, of course, in Shag Harbour and that case came to eclipse the others. With Shag Harbour what people saw was an object that was at least 60 feet in one dimension. It had four light spaced 15 feet across that flashed sequentially. It tilted to an angle and hit the water surface, producing the sound of an explosion and a bright flash. It left a trail of foam on the water a half-mile long and 80 feet wide. And there was an extensive underwater search conducted by the Navy.

MARY LOU FINLAY: So were there any photographs?

CS: No. It happened near midnight on a Wednesday night in a fishing village with no moon that night. And nobody was running around with a camera. After the occurrence you see, several people called the nearby RCMP detachment. Interestingly enough, nobody reported a UFO. People simply called in to say they thought an aircraft crashed in the harbour where they'd seen lights. Concerns were for survivors.

MLF: Yeah. And in the 37 years since, no one's ever explained what these things might be?

CS: No. In fact, there's a document that went to the defense minister two days later. And in that memorandum to him it says quite clearly a preliminary investigation has been conducted by the D&D and the Rescue Coordination Centre in Halifax. This sighting was not produced by a flare, float, meteorite, conventional aircraft. In fact, it is no known object.

MLF: So would you love to know? Or do you prefer to have the mystery?

CS: To me, I'm one of these fellows that it doesn't matter if the answer as to whether we're alone or not comes from whispers from the stars, or whether it's from the UFO data, or a micro-fossil of a Martian meteorite, or whatever. Everything will change, like the late celebrity-astronomer Carl Sagan used to say. And I think that's the important thing: are we alone? And if we are, you know how much more precious life is here. And if not, it'll define our position in the universe. Either way, I'm happy with the ambiguity. But yes, I'd love to know.

JD: From our archives, Mary Lou Finlay, in conversation with UFO researcher Chris Styles in October of 2003. It is 50 years ago this evening that a UFO was sighted in Shag Harbour, Nova Scotia.

[Music: Country]

Cameroon protests

Guest: Guest

JD: In Cameroon last weekend, English-speaking protesters gathered to call for independence. Snd for their vocal dissent, 17 people were killed. There sre two English-speaking regions in Cameroon Northwest and the Southwest. The protesters want to separate from the country's Francophone majority and create a new state called “Ambazonia”. We reached an activist living in the Southwest, who works for a local NGO. At his request, we have agreed to not use his name, because he fears arrest and detention. But we reached him in Buea, Cameroon.

CO: You are in the Southwest region of Cameroon. This is one of the two Anglophone regions, where the military has been heavily deployed following these protests. Can you describe what things are like there right now?

GUEST: After the heavy street protests last Sunday, places are relatively quiet. We do not have protesters again on the streets. But the region is heavily militarized. Arrests are still going on.

CO: And what can you see? What the presence of the military can you actually see on the streets?

GUEST: Basically, there are three categories of military: uniform officers have been deployed, the police and the army are all actively deployed. And they are currently on every street and every junction in the region.

CO: Can you tell us about the protests and what the protesters want? Can you tell us about the movement?

GUEST: The demands of the protesters dramatically change as they are asking now for a full federal system of government that would give them the power to manage the justice and education system.

CO: So it started as a demand for English language rights — for minority language rights to work in English. But now, the protesters are demanding something far larger. They unfurled flags of something they call “Abmazonia”, which would be what? Can you describe what they are now asking for? It's a separatist movement, isn't it?

GUEST: Yes. The Southern Cameroons’ gained their independence by joining the French Cameroon in 1961. At that time, the agreement was two states with equal status coming together in a federal system of government.

CO: And so the Anglophones who are leading this protest, what they want, if I understand it. They want an independent state called Ambazonia that would be English speaking?

GUEST: Yes, they want an independent state for Southern Cameroon and they're naming it Ambazonia.

CO: Security forces shot dead 17 people among those protesters on the weekend. Is there an expectation that there were more deaths or that the toll will rise?

GUEST: The toll is already rising because they are more corpses that have been identified in the bushes where the protesters were followed by the military and some of them killed. We are still getting very, very disturbing reports about a very large number of corpses found around the region. And so the number 17 is likely going to grow.

CO: Security forces are saying we won't use violence, unless there is a major cause. There are numerous risks even terrorist risks and we're acting appropriately. Does that match what you are seeing on the streets?

GUEST: No, I don't think so. Because none of the protesters were armed, and a lot of them had peace plants and branches and were saying no violence, no violence. And so we can also confirm that at one point when they were stopped, there was an exchange of stone throwing between them and the uniform officers when they returned tear gas. But, basically, we do not think that the force used by the protesters can justify why the military should have used excessive the force that they used.

CO: So the government has also shut down the Internet. They've closed businesses in the main cities where the protests happened. I understand there are military helicopters overhead. and that they've deployed the “rapid intervention brigade”, which is usually used to fight Islamists. So it's pretty heavy. How do you think the government will proceed from here? How do you think the security forces will deport themselves?

GUEST: We think that they urgently need to demilitarize these regions back to a level that is meant to keep security for normal day-to-day activities to return. But this is not the situation yet.

CO: Is there any chance of returning to mediation? Any way to sit down between protesters and the government? Or do you think it's gone too far at this point?

GUEST: It may have gone too far, but I think that it is not beyond the possibility for two parties to sit down and dialogue. No matter how dark it may seem today, it is still relatively brighter than tomorrow. A dialogue should not stop now. So we think it will save more lives and save the nation and all the parties will stand to win if dialogue should start now.

CO: Do you support the protest movement yourself?

GUEST: As an organization, we support human rights and we think we support the right for peaceful protest. We think that they have fundamental rights that needs to be respected. The questions that they are raising and the demands are genuine.

CO: We are not identifying you, nor the name of your organization, but you're not breaking any laws. You're not part of that separatist movement. You are part of a legal NGO. Why do you want your identity protected?

GUEST: It is because, presently, it's it seems like a breakdown in order. Because not all those who have been arrested, or killed, or molested and detained are guilty of any crimes. So anybody can be arrested even when you show that this is my identification and stuff. There is indiscriminate arrests and penetration, so it's not safe at all.

CO: We will leave it there and follow this story. I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

GUEST: Thank you very much.

JD: That was an activist living in Cameroon. He requested we not use his name because he fears arrest, but we reached him in Buea.

[Music: Sad piano]

Pesto is bad

JD: If you have a little bit of time and the ingredients, pesto is easy. Finally chop fresh basil, garlic, raw pine nuts, parmesan cheese and olive oil. Stir and enjoy delicious. hot or cold. There's nothing like it. Alternatively, you could just grab some pre-made pesto at your local grocery store. Simply find a jar that says “pesto” on it, purchase it, take it home and enjoy. There's nothing like that either. Oh wait, there is something like that. And that something is picking up a box of salt: table, kosher or course and pouring it directly into your mouth. That would be ridiculous of course. And yet, if you live in the U.K., researchers with the group Consensus Action on Salt and Health or “CASH” say that if you are eating prefab pesto, you are doing just that. Not literally. I mean if you are literally just pouring salt into your mouth don't do that either. They haven't done a study on it, but I have a very strong hunch that salt contains an unacceptable level of salt as well. The same is true of every single pesto brand in British supermarkets. OK. You know McDonald's hamburgers? They are salty. At least two brands of pesto had more salt per serving than a McDonald's hamburger. And according to a CASH spokesperson, quote, “None of the products we surveyed could be described as healthy.” Now needless to say, those jarred pesto results are jarring. And so when someone tells you that the stuff in the supermarket is just as healthy as the homemade stuff. Definitely maintain a healthy skepticism. Definitely don't take their remarks with a grain of salt.

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

October 4, 2017 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode