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 2021

The AIH Transcript for April 5, 2021

Hosts: Carol Off and Samira Mohyeddin

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello. I'm Carol Off.

SAMIRA MOHYEDDIN: Good evening. I'm Samira Mohyeddin, sitting in for Chris Howden. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

SM: Tonight:

CO: Trained eye. The chief of the Minneapolis police, takes the stand at the murder trial of Derek Chauvin. Our guest says his testimony is likely to have a strong impact on the jury.

SM: Going down with the warship. Health experts in India are pleading with government officials to cancel a Hindu festival that normally attracts millions, but this year could infect many more.

CO: Battle royale. Reports out of Jordan say the royal family has buried the hatchet. But after a weekend involving arrests and rumours of a coup, a journalist in Amman says there are still a lot of unanswered questions.

SM: Poor copies. A new project uses A.I. to create new songs in the style of Nirvana, The Doors, Amy Winehouse, and Jimi Hendrix to show how irreplaceable the late artists really are.

CO: Game over. A Wheel of Fortune contestant loses after accidentally adding the word "and" to an otherwise perfect answer. Fans say the rule needs to go no if ands or buts.

SM: And new kids on the block. French police are on the trail of an elusive gang of international Lego looters who have set their sights on the increasingly valuable sets. As It Happens. The Monday Edition. Radio that expects the law to come down on them like a ton of bricks.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Chauvin Trial: Police Chief

Chauvin Trial: Police Chief

Guest: Leslie Redmond

SM: It's unusual for a former police officer to be put on trial for murder. It's even rarer for a police chief to testify against him. Today, Minneapolis's chief of police took the witness stand in the trial of Derek Chauvin, the former officer accused in the killing of George Floyd. The prosecution is arguing that when Mr. Chauvin pinned his knee on the neck of a handcuffed Mr. Floyd for more than nine minutes, he committed murder. Mr. Chauvin's lawyer says he was following his training. This afternoon Chief Medaria Arradondo said Derek Chauvin disregarded his police rules on the use of force and the sanctity of life when he pinned down George Floyd by the neck.

MEDARIA ARRADONDO: [SOUNDCLIP: Once there was no longer any resistance and clearly when Mr. Floyd was no longer responsive and even motionless to continue to apply that level of force to a person proned out, handcuffed behind their back, that in no way, shape or form is anything that is by policy is not part of our training, and it is certainly not part of our ethics or our values.]

SM: Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo speaking earlier today at the trial of former officer Derek Chauvin. Leslie Redmond is a lawyer and civil rights activist in Minneapolis, and that's where we reached her.

CO: Leslie, first of all, what impact does it have to have the chief of police say in court that Derek Chauvin violated the police forces training, ethics, and values?

LESLIE REDMOND: I think that this is a game changer. I think that it is very important that the most senior representative of the police department will come forward and make it known that this is not what the Minneapolis police department is standing for, nor will they stand for these type of actions. And that Officer Chauvin was completely off doing what he wanted to do and intentionally decided to go well beyond and outside the lines of the policies and procedures of the Minneapolis police department, and matters.

CO: One of the things the chief said a number of times, he spoke about quite a bit, was the governing principle of sanctity of life. That's what he says should be behind everything that the police officers in Minneapolis do. The fact that he made that so clear, what impact does that have?

LR: I think it's very important and it is very consistent with what Chief Arradondo always talks about, right, is the importance of humanity and human life. And when we all watched that video, which we know now was nine minutes long, even longer than we originally thought, when we watched that video of Officer Chauvin's knee on the neck of George Floyd as he laid there lifeless -- that's the exact opposite, right? There was no consideration. There was no value for George Floyd's life and his humanity and protecting that humanity. And so I think it's very important.

CO: We heard last week in the trial that another very senior officer in the force, Lieutenant Richard Zimmerman, and he said there was no reason for Officer Chauvin to kneel on Mr. Floyd's neck at all, especially since he was handcuffed and prone. So what did the chief add to that? What was the additional value of having the chief of police testify on the very same subject?

LR: Well, one, I just think his position -- and the chief, he's very well known, I think he has a lot of credibility, a lot of respect. I think for him to reiterate and emphasise that not only did Officer Chauvin go outside of the lines of the policies, but he actually violated by not rendering service and actually helping George Floyd, right. I think that that brought something different in the perspective of the duty to really protect and serve and to value and to protect human life, which was the exact opposite of what Officer Chauvin did. And the jury is not going to be able to ignore what Chief Arradondo said. I think that it's very clear, crystal clear, that Officer Chauvin, not only was ethically and morally wrong, but he was legally and outside of the policy and the procedure of the police department, who better to articulate that than the chief of police.

CO: And it's so interesting what you said, because it's not just that he violated the policy by how George Floyd was treated and kneeling on his neck and how he was restrained, but also that once they knew that his pulse was failing or had stopped, they failed to use what the chief says they have in the way of training in first aid and in medicine.

LR: 100 percent. And I think even at one point he talked about, like when you have people there on the scene saying, "Check his pulse," even people who are in the crowd saying, "Hey, you know, I can help" -- and you're not allowing them to, you're just in complete violation, you're not in any kind of a line. And for me, what it really does is depict Officer Chauvin as who he really is. And this is just a very bad situation. And I think Chief Arradondo's testimony really helps get it through to that.

CO: The statements that the chief made in court did not go as far as he has made after the death of George Floyd when he declared -- he said this was murder, it wasn't a lack of training, he fired all the officers who were involved with that attempted arrest. And the prosecution didn't lure that out of him or he just didn't go there. What do you make of that? Do you think that the jury might see...

LR: No, I think that intentional. I think it was fine. Chief Arradondo is very intelligent and I think he knows exactly what he was doing and he was being very intentional with the words that he knew or with the words that he used. And if you noticed, the defence was already trying to really get him tripped up and trying to pull certain things out. And I think that it would have been a bad slippery slope had he dived into that. So I think he did it exactly right.

CO: Where do you think that the defence will now take this? Because what they are claiming is that these officers were just following their training, that they were also dealing with somebody who had drugs in his system, they didn't know at the time. But what do you think the defence will do?

LR: I think that -- and I know right after Chief Arradondo, they will bring in another police officer. So I think they'll probably try to put her in some of those same corners that they did with Chief Arradondo. But the reality of it is that the testimony was just very damning to the defence and trying to paint a picture that's really not there. And so Attorney Nelson is very skilled and experienced. So I'm sure that he'll continue trying to create and bring out theories that just is not going to stick. But, yeah, I just think that this testimony was very important.

CO: And how confident are you that the jury will be convinced by what they heard from the chief?

LR: I think that when you take into consideration everything that they've already heard from the witnesses that were on the scene, from Lieutenant Zimmerman, and then kind of Chief Arradondo is like the icing on the cake. I think that that is going to bring a lot of confirmation. And when they get back in that room, deliberate in there, people will be able to say, "Did you hear what the chief of police said?" You know what I mean? I think that that's going to matter and hold weight, at least I'm hoping it will that they'll be able to really remember what Chief Arradondo said.

CO: All right. We will be following the developments in this trial. And I appreciate speaking with you, Leslie. Thank you.

LR: Thank you so much.

SM: Leslie Redmond is a lawyer and activist. She was in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

[Music: Calm Music]

Jordan Prince Arrested

Guest: Daoud Kuttab

SM: There are reports in Jordan tonight that King Abdullah and his half-brother have patch things up, but that may not put the matter to bed after a very public feud this weekend. The Middle Eastern country and its royal family are seldom in the spotlight. So to learn that authorities had accused the former crown prince of essentially plotting a coup with foreign help was surprising. Even more surprising were the arrests of several key figures, including Prince Hamzah bin Hussein himself. Daoud Kuttab is a journalist with Al-Monitor in Amman, Jordan. We reached him there tonight.

CO: Daoud, you are reporting new details tonight of a, "family agreement" in Jordan. What can you tell us about that?

DAOUD KUTTAB: Well, it seems that His Majesty the King Abdullah, delegated his uncle, Prince Hassan, to deal with this issue of Prince Hamzah. And there was a family meeting in which Prince Hassan issued a statement basically saying, Hashemites are people who believe in justice and mercy. And it ends with Prince Hamzah pledging support to his majesty the king and the crown prince. And basically, in my humble point of view, this is the end of the bigger tension that we've had. And there will be a few small things to wrap up. But basically, the crisis is over, in my opinion.

CO: It was quite a dust up, though, for some hours there. Just so people understand a bit more about Prince Hamzah, the man at the centre of this. Without getting too much into the Hashemite family tree, who is Prince Hamzah and what did he do that seemed to be so threatening to the king?

DK: Prince Hamzah is the son of King Hussein and Queen Noor, the American engineer who the king met after his wife died in a helicopter accident. And he was the crown prince of King Abdullah for the first four years. And then King Abdullah removed the crown prince from him and gave it to his son, his eldest son, Prince Hussein. And lately, Prince Hamzah has been making the rounds like, you know, most princes do -- meet people and so on. But it seems that his activities have angered some people, either in the palace or in the government or in the intelligence service. And that's why this whole crisis began when the chief of the army, by the way, the audio of that meeting has now been leaked to many people in which he came to tell him, 'you're not allowed to leave the house, you're not allowed to use the phone, and you're not allowed to meet with people.' And the prince asked him, did I say anything wrong? He said, no, you didn't say anything wrong, but people use your meetings to ferment sedition against the country and so on.

CO: Is there truth to that?

DK: Look, obviously in politics, people take advantage of certain things. And his positions and his statements and his discussions might be used by people who are in opposition to the king. But opposition is not a sin. Opposing a particular policy, saying there is corruption or incompetence in government is something that most leaders are accustomed to. So it's not that he made anything that is treasonous or anything like that. He wants the best for the country and he feels that there is a lot of mistakes being done.

CO: Why is that so threatening right now to the king that he should be talking about that, that he should be pointing out that people are unhappy, that they don't like the direction that Jordan is going in right now -- what threat does that pose to King Abdullah?

DK: You know, I'm not sure that it causes threats to the king. I think it has to do more with the crown prince. And the crown prince is young, I mean, he's still inexperienced. And Prince Hamzah, who used to be the crown prince, is seen as much more mature and much more knowledgeable. And so in the royal family, the king and the queen, they feel that they need to find a way to cement the position of the current crown prince. And for some reason or another, they feel that this is a threat. And so in the reconciliation letter that I spoke to at the beginning of this discussion, Hamzah pledges allegiance to the king and to the crown prince. So it's not a coincidence that they added that last point.

CO: This comes a long way from not many hours ago where the video that Prince Hamzah issued through his lawyer, BBC broadcasted it. Let's just play a little bit of that and get you to respond to what you're telling us, what you're reporting tonight compared to what we heard this morning.

PRINCE HAMZAH BIN HUSSEIN: [SOUNDCLIP: I am not the person responsible for the breakdown in governance, for the corruption, and for the incompetence that has been prevalent in our governing structure for the last 15 to 20 years and has been getting worse by the year. I'm not responsible for the lack of faith that people have in their institutions. They are responsible.]

CO: It's a strong statement and it's a caring one about the people of Jordan. How did that go over publicly in Jordan?

DK: It made him very popular. It was trending and people were hashtagging their beloved prince and so on. And it's I think one of the reasons why this whole crisis has ended very quickly, because both sides realised that it's not good for them for this crisis to continue. And so they had reached this accommodation.

CO: But if Prince Hamzah and the crown prince and King Abdullah have all kissed and made up and everything is fine, do you think it's likely that Prince Hamzah will now crawl under a rock and be quiet? Or do you think that he is going to continue to make statements and make the associations that we heard in that BBC video this morning?

DK: I would guess he would be a bit more careful with the words he uses. But I think for the sake of the country, they need to find a better way of dealing with these issues. The public is not happy and they would love to have a prince that they can kind of stand behind. But he doesn't want to be that opposition leader. But some of their issues are now in the public domain. And hopefully the king and the ruling powers will be more cognisant to their needs. And what was said in whispers is now being said in public. You know, we had 24 hours of total silence by the government in the public media. And while people were listening and finding out what's happening in their own country by tuning into external media, that's not a good omen for a country to have to get their news from foreign media. And so I think they need to loosen up a little bit on that freedom of expression, allowing more democratic processes to take place now.

CO: Daoud we'll leave it there. And I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

DK: You're most welcome.

SM: Daoud Kuttab is a journalist with Al-Monitor in Amman, Jordan. That's where we reached him.

[Music: Calm Music]

Songs by Dead Musicians

Guest: Sean O’Connor

SM: So many great musicians died far too young, leaving the world wondering what they might have done next. Think about Kurt Cobain, Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, or Amy Winehouse -- if only there was a way to know what they might have done next. Well, maybe there is. Take a listen to this.

[SOUNDCLIP: (AMY WINEHOUSE STYLE SONG PLAYS) Well, you know, I got no idea. I got nothing to say. It's all wrong. I like to get on going.]

SM: That's a brand new song written in the style of Amy Winehouse. And it was created with the help of artificial intelligence to mimic her style. It's part of a new project called The Lost Tapes of the 27 Club, created to raise awareness of musicians' mental health issues by the non-profit organisation Over The Bridge. Sean O'Connor is one of the creators of the project. We reached him in Vancouver.

CO: Sean we were just listening to this Amy Winehouse cut or in the style of Amy Winehouse. How close do you think you got to nailing that style?

SEAN O'CONNOR: That one in particular feels pretty close. I think a lot of it had to do with the vocalist who just did such a good job -- it was one human -- they did such a good job at sort of nailing the cadence. But it's definitely surprised and tricked a few people we've shared it with.

CO: Let's just talk about the process that you used for this. What did you do in order to get artificial intelligence to actually write the song?

SEAN O'CONNOR: So we used artificial intelligence platform called Magenta that was developed by engineers at Google. And it's specifically designed to analyse music and specifically MIDI files, which are like digital sheet music that analyses. It was not putting in an mp3, it was putting in the actual score and then getting something out. And what we did is we started by taking 30 songs from an artist's back catalogue, putting them into this Magenta tool, and it would output something for us that sounded pretty terrible and it was sort of not usable. And so through a lot of trial and error, we decided to go a bit deeper on what we put in at once so we would isolate just the vocal melody and put through 30 vocal melodies and we get out something that sounded a lot cleaner. And we'd listen to it and we'd pull out parts that we like and we'll pull out this line for the chorus and this line of melody for the verse and start piecing together the songs that way.

CO: And that's for the instrumentation. And what about the actual writing of the song?

SEAN O'CONNOR: So the lyrics we used a different artificial intelligence platform. It's called artificial neural network. So basically an artificial brain where you put words in and it tries to complete the sentence or you put in lyrics and it starts writing more lines into the lyrics. And what we got out was just stacks and stacks of paper of random nonsense lyrics, which we then went through line by line and found one that fit our vocal melody that we could actually use, and then ones that also were interesting and we could build the song around. You know, we weren't adding anything. We weren't adding any words, it was just about finding the right one to fit the song.

CO: Amy Winehouse is just one of many of these artists that you went through this process with. We're going to play a bit of a song in the style of Nirvana, which is lots of questions about that. This one, it's called Drowned in the Sun.

[SOUNDCLIP: NIRVANA STYLE SONG "DROWNED IN THE SUN"]

CO: Wonderful. Wow, you've got someone who really sounds like Kurt Cobain as well.

SEAN O'CONNOR: That was Eric Hogan, who is a tribute artist that deals with a lot of Nirvana and different Pacific Northwest grunge bands.

CO: I wonder if this was even more difficult because Kurt Cobain, I mean, very idiosyncratic creator. I don't know how you could possibly -- how much you would have to feed into artificial intelligence before you could actually try to imitate the style or the sound. How much more difficult was this one?

SEAN O'CONNOR: This was quite a bit more difficult only because it was a lot tougher for the A.I. to pick apart what it was supposed to be listening to at one time. So some other of the songs that have sort of a really defined melody which are easier for the A.I. to follow along with. And then this one, it wasn't more difficult, it just took more time. There was a lot of trial and error and a lot of things just didn't work.

CO: All right. Here's another one. This is The Doors. And we're going to play this one's called The Roads Are Alive.

[SOUNDCLIP: THE DOORS STYLE SONG "THE ROADS ARE ALIVE"]c

CO: Okay, Jim Morrison and The Doors and not them, right, this is in the style of Jim Morrison and The Doors. And so how have fans been reacting to these songs that you're making?

SEAN O'CONNOR: You know, the reception has been really good. I'd say for the most part, everyone is sort of doing a double take and listening again and sees the campaign and the message. And we're getting an outpouring of support, definitely of people, you know, asking questions. They're just so interested in kind of the process and also the mental health aspect of it all. There are some people who will listen to it and say, "Oh, well, that's not this artist." And we'll go, "Of course not, because that artist isn't with us." And that's kind of the whole point of what we're doing. We can't replace these people, so we want to get them, you know, anyone out there as a musician struggling with mental health, we want to get the support that they need.

CO: This is important because you're not doing this just for fun or for some commercial purpose. You want people to understand who these artists were because we lost them so young. And in fact, the whole project is called The Lost Tapes of the 27 Club -- these are all artists who died at the age of 27. Is that right?

SEAN O'CONNOR: That's right. We wanted to highlight artists that we had lost to mental health struggles and you know, the 27 Club is a group of artists who we did lose all at 27 and most of them from different mix ups with the rock n roll lifestyle and drugs and addiction and depression and things like that. And we wanted to sort of imagine a world where maybe they had gotten the mental health support that they needed and they would have gone on to make more music and what could that music have sounded like. And so that's kind of where the ideas come from.

CO: What do you want people to understand about them and what they were struggling through?

SEAN O'CONNOR: I think we want people to stop and think just about how they're viewing mental health in the music industry. And we really, as an audience, romanticise the depressed artist and the music becomes more authentic because it's a real lived experience. And it's almost like we love hearing about it and it adds so much to the song. But it's really quite a dangerous road to go down. And it ends up that we lose real human lives because of it. And we just want people to stop and think about that. And then for artists, we want them to know that there are organisations out there, like Over The Bridge who can help you with your mental health struggles and could provide resources and support, so you don't have to go down this road and join the 27 Club.

CO: You can imagine this year especially has been really hard for musicians. We've spoken with a number of them. The lack of a connection with audiences, the lack of an ability to get on the road and to perform and to be who they are has been additionally hard and including all the other things you just described. How hard do you think this has been for people in this past year?

SEAN O'CONNOR: Yeah, there's no question that this community has definitely been hit hard. We had just seen a statistic out of the UK that said 78 percent of musicians were feeling drastically more mental health issues during COVID than they had the year prior. And the community has already hit so hard.,And you add that and it's quite devastating what's happening this year.

CO: Well Sean this is a really fascinating project. And I'm glad that you guys are there for the musicians. And thanks for speaking with us.

SEAN O'CONNOR: Oh thank you so much for taking the time.

SM: Sean O'Connor is on the board of directors of the not for profit organisation Over The Bridge, and one of the creators of their project, The Lost Tapes of the 27 Club.

[Music: Guitar Music]

Part 2: Lego enthusiast explains why the black market for the toy bricks is so lucrative

India Religious Pilgrimage

Guest: Shashidhara

SM: Not long ago, health authorities in India were fielding calls about how the country had avoided another wave of COVID-19, but a lot has changed since then. Today, India reported its highest single day case total, yet at over 100,000. Some parts of the country are now locking down, but at the same time, the government is allowing the religious festival Kumbh Mela, an event known to gather millions to take place as scheduled. Shashidhara is a biology professor at Ashoka University. Him and other scientists have been urging India's government to cancel the festival. We reached the professor in New Delhi, India.

CO: Professor Shashi, what kinds of crowds are already gathering for this festival?

SHASHIDHARA: In the earlier estimate, it used to be hundreds of thousands -- pre-COVID time whenever it used to happen. But we do not know yet how many will actually turn up. The fact that the Indians are very religious and their religious beliefs are much stronger than any other inhibitions related to COVID or any other matters that influence them. My guess is it could be still in a very large number, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.

CO: Some are even anticipating millions over the course of the festival.

SHASHIDHARA: You see there are multiple different Kumbh Melas along the Ganges. Major one is further down south, that's an area called Prayagraj. That Kumbh Mela is the largest gathering. There it will be millions. In this case, Haridwar is a smaller town and it's unlikely to be that number.

CO: All right. It's up around the Himalayas, right, so more difficult to get to?

SHASHIDHARA: Yeah. Yeah. It's closer to the origin of the Ganges River -- Haridwar is somewhat closer.

CO: This festival only happens every 12 years. So how strong is the force that's bringing all these people to the Kumbh Mela festival?

SHASHIDHARA: It's very strong. You know, the River Ganges is sort of a lifeline for the whole of north India. And for them, having a dip in the river is sort of entry to salvation.

CO: What concerns have you expressed about this gathering during this COVID epidemic?

SHASHIDHARA: Because it's happening that the second wave were already large pockets of India are already infected and different parts of India has different viral strains, and all of these people coming to one place, it's for sure that not only will spread the virus, it will spread different types of viruses to different pockets of India. And this is what the worry is. People are coming with different viral strains in one particular place and there will be a lot of mixing that will happen. And that may lead to a third surge. We don't know what may happen. It's really a worry.

CO: But you're talking about how powerful the attraction is, how strong these feelings are for people to go there. Should the government have stepped in? Was it the responsibility of government to cancel this event?

SHASHIDHARA: Rationally speaking, yes. But it could also be a larger problem because the religious beliefs are so strong that if we cancel this, it's very likely that people will start protesting, which may create a new headache for the government. So either the government has to succumb to the belief system or put all kinds of checks and balances to contain the spread. So it looks like they didn't have the option of cancelling it.

CO: Because people would have shown up anyways and protested against this restriction.

SHASHIDHARA: They would protest against the restrictions. And also, it is a political decision -- many times it also leads to, you know, voting. People may not vote for them next time in the elections. And also the state in which it's happening, Kumbh Mela Haridwar, it's in a state which is going to election next year.

CO: How serious is the infection rate right now in India?

SHASHIDHARA: Pretty serious. You know, yesterday we had 100,000 cases per day for the first time since the pandemic. That means our second wave is taller than the first wave. So the spread is happening all over the country. And 100,000 is a very large number per day of detected cases. We don't know how many undetected cases or asymptomatic ones who are spreading. So in a way, it's very worrisome. And also there a large number of new strains that have been discovered in India, including viral strains which have two mutations in the same virus, which is even more worrisome. So if you remember the South African variant, Brazilian variant -- we have all of them in India.

CO: What have you been trying to make the government understand about the dangers of Kumbh Mela and continuing given this infection rate?

SHASHIDHARA: All the scientists, health workers, and doctors, epidemiologists, they keep saying that any large gathering should be avoided, should be stopped. Even today there is a restriction that you can't have more than 50 people in a marriage. In India typically, a marriage can have 2,000-3,000 people. So certain restrictions are still in place. For Kumbh Mela. I think, for variety of religious and other reasons, they have allowed them to happen. But we have given -- we, means the people who are knowledgeable in epidemiology -- have been talking about it continuously. So there have been certain restrictions are in place. Those who only are COVID negative, certified that they are COVID negative can come and attend. They should carry an app so that it says that they are COVID negative. Then they have to wear a mask -- all kinds of restrictions are there. But still large gathering in a smaller place, the physical distancing will not happen. That's worrisome.

CO: And these are large outdoor gatherings. We've seen pictures already of this, people very cheek by jowl, very close, people in the Ganges bathing, which is part of the ritual. So I mean, watching this, what is going through your mind as you see how close people are and given what you know what's there?

SHASHIDHARA: So any other time it's a spectacle -- Kumbh Mela is actually something worth seeing and experiencing whether you believe in the system or religion or not. As a biologist, I see only virus in the host. There are lots of virus moving around and trying to invade, infect the host and the host will multiply and transfer to others. So I'm only seeing infection is going to spread.

CO: Yeah, we know that your country's chief minister said faith is stronger than fear, and religious sentiments need to be given priority. What do you make of that?

SHASHIDHARA: Indians, the faith in these kind of rituals are so strong they are not worried about that. In fact, I told you the very purpose of going to bathe in the Ganges during these months, once in 12 years, is to actually reach salvation after death. So people are actually happy to die soon after this also. So there is no fear of death for sure.

CO: All right, we will follow the developments in India as everywhere with this virus Professor Shashi. And I appreciate speaking with you tonight. Thank you.

SHASHIDHARA: Thank you. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity.

SM: Shashidhara is a biology professor at Ashoka University. We reached the professor in New Delhi, India.

[Music: Synth Music]

Lego Thieves

Guest: Chris Malloy

SM: French police are hot on the trail of a ring of thieves. These robbers are not stealing priceless art or jewellery or fancy cars -- they are after Lego. According to a report in The Guardian, French authorities are warning shops and even parents to be on the lookout after a trio from Poland were caught stealing Lego from a toy store outside Paris. It's something that Chris Malloy isn't too surprised by. He runs the Lego news site Brothers Brick. We reached him in Seattle.

CO: Chris, why are people stealing Lego?

CHRIS MALLOY: Lego is becoming very popular and has quite a following with the adult fan community because of that, there's a huge market for Lego right now.

CO: But this isn't just like stealing some bricks or trays here, this is groups of thieves that have been busted in this one case in France. I mean, they are gathering this stuff up and taking it into some Lego black market. I mean, did you know that was going on?

CM: You know, that has actually been going on for quite a few years. We see reports of Lego sets being stolen on a pretty large scale fairly regularly because it's a very easy product for thieves to flip. There's always a ready market of buyers who, of course, don't realise that what they might be buying is stolen. You know, unlike a lot of products, it doesn't have serial numbers. So it's a very easy product for thieves to target. And it also is a very valuable product. Some Lego sets go for hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, depending on what they're targeting.

CO: Wow. What are some of the most valuable Lego sets?

CM: Lego tends to have products that are available for a couple of years at a time, and then they phase them out. For currently available stuff that you could walk into a Lego store or buy directly from the company right now, they range from anywhere from a couple hundred dollars up to the largest is a Millennium Falcon that is about the size of a toddler, actually, and that one goes for about 800 (dollars). Of course, if you look at older sets that are no longer in production, they have a collector value on top of their original value and those can go for thousands of dollars. Lego has a line of modular city buildings that are kind of classic architecture from Americana and some European cities, and those can go for thousands of dollars. There's one from 2007 called s Cafe Corner, and it's a cute little cafe kind of in a European style, and that goes for two to three thousand dollars, depending on how nice of a copy it is.

CO: What would someone have bought the original Cafe Corner at the toy store for that?

CM: One would have gone for about 150 dollars originally.

CO: And so the street value of Cafe Corner is a couple of thousand dollars.

CM: Yes. Of course, it all depends on finding the right buyer. And if somebody has nostalgia for it or because it's a series maybe they have all the rest of the series but they're still missing that one, so they might be willing to pay more for it. So the prices can fluctuate a bit. But it's a pretty safe bet that you'd be looking at a thousand dollars, up to several thousand.

CO: When people steal these Lego sets, are they breaking into daycares and schools and places like yours? How do they get them? Where do they find these Lego sets?

CM: There are reports, of course, of thieves targeting individuals, people who have large collections. But most of the time they're targeting retail stores. It's just a lot easier pickings and it's a lot easier to sell products that are still new as opposed to used. There is a huge market for used Lego sets, but that tends to take a lot of effort and a lot of knowledge and knowing exactly what you're selling, how to best sell it, which thieves usually don't possess. So they're looking for that quick dollar with brand new sets that are easy to flip over.

CO: They're not stealing or trying to get the blocks and the trays and stuff like that. Like, that's pretty garden variety, right?

CM: They definitely are. Individual Lego pieces actually have quite a market. There's a number of whole websites that are dedicated to selling nothing but individual pieces a la carte. So you can go in and say, I need a red 2x4 brick and I need, you know, a blue tile that's three studs long -- and you can get just the specific quantity of those. But that sort of thing is not really of interest to thieves because again, it takes so much effort and knowledge to know what you're doing to be able to sell that kind of thing profitably. So thieves tend to target the complete sets with minifigures and all of the blocks to build something just as Lego intended.

CO: Do you have a lot of these sets? I'm not suggesting you bought stolen ones, but ycou're a big collector, right?

CM: I am, yes.

CO: What's your favourite?

CM: I really like the ultimate collector's series, it's called The Slave One. It's a ship from Star Wars. It was Boba Fett's ship. And Lego made a big version for adult fans a few years ago. And it's just a really cool model. I love the original ship from Star Wars. And I think the Lego one does it a lot of justice. And of course, it tickles my fancy as a kid inside as well.

CO: And so what is it worth now?

CM: It would be worth probably about twice what I paid for it originally. I believe the original price on that one 200, so I think if you wanted to buy a new copy of it now, you'd probably be looking at about 400 and even the used one, like the one that I have sitting on my shelf next to me is probably worth at least what I paid for it.

CO: Now, is there a particular set that you covet that you would scour the earth in order to find?

CM: For me, that tends to be sets from my childhood that I kind of always, you know, eyed in the catalogues when I was a kid, but never quite had enough Christmas money to get -- like Old castle sets from the 80s and 90s. I'm always looking out for stuff like that, ones that I was always eyeing and never owned. One right now that I actually have my eye on is a technic set, which was Lego's original theme for adult builders. And in the mid-90s, they released a version of the space shuttle. And it's one of the few space shuttle sets that I still don't own. Lego actually just released a brand new large space shuttle, which I've already got. But there's that one that I was always seeing as a kid that I still don't own. And I would love to get my hands on one.

CO: And what would that set you back?

CM: That one, I believe, would be about 500 to 600 dollars. And it originally sold for, I think about 130.

CO: You're just a big kid, aren't you?

CM: Oh absolutely.

CO: Well Chris it's good to talk to you. Thanks.

CM: You're welcome. Thank you.

SM: Chris Malloy is a Lego collector and the managing editor of Brothers Brick, a Lego news site. He is in Seattle.

[Music: Flute Music]

Driver’s Licence Languages

SM: Getting your driver's licence can be one of life's big moments. And in Ontario, that big moment is getting just a little bit more accessible. The province offers the G1 driver's licence test in 27 different languages, which as of today includes Indigenous ones too. People can opt to take the knowledge test in Cree, Ojibwe, and Oji-Cree -- thanks to efforts made by the province after the 2019 Indigenous Languages Act. Dominic Beaudry is an Indigenous language and cultural educator on Manitoulin Island. Here he is speaking with CBC Sudbury yesterday.

DOMINIC BEAUDRY: [SOUNDCLIP: For me as a proponent of Indigenous languages, especially Ojibwe and Anishinaabe language. I think it's important that folks that are trying to get their driver's licence, they should be able to do that in the Ojibwe language. I mean, that's amazing. I looked at some of the work the government was doing and they are translating for folks to get their driver's licence in so many other languages you know like Chinese, Mandarin, Portuguese, Finland, French, there's so many languages. I think it's about time that they're going to be able to use the Ojibwe language for when folks go out and get their driver's licence, it's about time.

ANGELA GEMMILL: Can you think of an instance where this would have been helpful in the past?

DOMINIC BEAUDRY: A while back, a long time ago, I should say, when I got my driver's licence, there was an Ojibwe elder that came into the centre to do their driver's licence as well. And at that time, they were able to accommodate the Ojibwe elder and they allowed her to have a translator in the Ojibwe language and a transcriber. So she was able to hear the questions in English and someone would translate them for her and then she would answer in Ojibwe and then someone would write the answers down to her. So that was a long time ago -- decades ago. If I had an opportunity back then to be able to do it in the Ojibwe language, I certainly would have. I would have appreciated that, because it makes you feel like your language is valued and that your language can also be used as a working language, right. I mean, we live in an era where BIPOC, Black, Indigenous, Peoples of colour, they have a voice now. Especially the Indigenous people, Ojibwe people, we want our Ojibwe language to be included in everyday activities too. For the youth that are coming up, they want to see their culture and language presented in meaningful ways that way they feel included in the community in a positive way, right.]

SM: Dominic Beaudry is an Indigenous language and cultural educator on Manitoulin Island. He was speaking with CBC reporter Angela Gemmill.

[Music: Drum & Bass Music]

Wheel Of Fortune “And”

SM: You got to feel bad for David Peterson, and I'm not just saying that. Last Wednesday, The Wheel of Fortune contestant was set to solve a four-word puzzle about fish and then this happened.

PAT SAJAK: [SOUNDCLIP: So you've got that and you have one thousand three hundred fifty dollars cash. What do you want to do?

DAVID PETERSON: I'd like to solve Pat.

PAT SAJAK: Say everything. Don't add anything. Go ahead.

DAVID PETERSON: Soul, flounder, cod and catfish. [Buzz sound]

PAT SAJAK: I'm sorry. That's not right.]

SM: And-yways, no, no, Pat Sajak, you can't just throw the Vanna White for a commercial break and spin out of this travesty. As you just heard Mr. Peterson solved the puzzle word for word. He just added an extra word "and" as it turns out, according to the rules, that "and" is enough to cost him the game. The rule in question was introduced in 2016. A spokesperson for Wheel of Fortune said in a statement, "A contestant must say only what is on the board without adding words. Contestants are thoroughly briefed prior to the show, and Pat often reminds them of this rule." Well, that didn't stop fans from reminding Pat Sajak that the rule is a stupid technicality. One viewer tweeted, "Another contestant losing out on money because they said 'and' on the crossword puzzle. Change the dumbest rule ever and allow this." Another fan called it a draconian rule that needs to go. But at least one viewer came to Mr. Sajak's defence and tweeted, "Why can't contestants just follow the rules for the dumb game show? Jeopardy, you have to answer in the form of a question." Finally, one fan offered a solution and asked, "Why don't you have the 'and' symbol in the puzzle? Then people could say 'and' and not lose their money." It's a good suggestion, but it might be just as hard to ampersand. Either way, it's clear the show and fans are at a conjunction.

[Music: Guitar Music]

Part 3: How this killer whale researcher ended up in a decades-long struggle to save wild salmon

Alex Morton Feature

Guest: Alexandra Morton

SM: Fisheries researcher Alexandra Morton dedicates her latest book to her children, which is not that unusual a choice. Lots of authors do that. But Ms. Morton's dedication hints at something more, a thank you, even a kind of recompense to offspring who have been, "unwavering in their love, support and kindness as we live this together." And when you read Not On My Watch, that starts to feel like quite the achievement. The book chronicles Alexandra Morton's decades of research and advocacy around salmon, specifically the impact salmon farms have had on adjacent wild salmon populations. And it documents the pushback, the gaslighting, and the relative poverty Ms. Morton and her family faced because she chose to do this work. Alexandra Morton joined Carol for a feature conversation about the book from Sointula, B.C..

CO: Alex, welcome to As It Happens.

ALEXANDRA MORTON: Thank you so much, Carol. It's really wonderful to be here.

CO: You have been doing this work for a very long time. And I just wonder what it is about this particular book that you needed to write and publish right now.

AM: Well, there was two things. One, there has to be a record of what happened here because it is really quite unbelievable. And I felt that I know people have heard about this over the years, but there needed to be the full story with the citations, like how did I come to these opinions? And second of all, I witnessed the most extraordinary thing. When the First Nations of this area decided to occupy the farms, it triggered an uprising. And I got a peek into watching an ancient government reconstitute itself, the hereditary leaderships. They could see that it was something that was destroying their culture. There was no more salmon left for them to eat, to preserve for the winter. And so I know that they knew that this was important, that the impact of the salmon farms was important because I had been talking to them for decades. But it really wasn't until their members stepped onto the farms and decided they were going to stay there through the winter of 2017 until something was done and the farms would start to be removed. And so when you look at these First Nation governments, there's the elected government, which can do one thing, but there's the hereditary government. And they were the ones who guided us through this. And they place so much value on the life of their territory. So they succeeded.

CO: And so you wanted to make sure that the story was told, the fight against the farmed salmon, those decades you spent doing that. And there are footnotes, documents, everything in this book. But you also wanted the back story of how you came to be involved in this. And I want to ask you about that. I want to ask you, because you started with whales, right, with orcas? That's where you began your work. That's what you were doing in California. Tell us a bit about that. Tell us a bit about your time at Marineland, especially, and how that led you to the B.C. coast.

AM: I was studying two killer whales or orcas at Marineland because I really wanted to try to figure out what another large brained animal was thinking and saying on this planet. And so that left the choices of elephants, primates, or whales -- and I picked whales. And I began to spend an enormous amount of time watching and recording these whales, 12 hours all day one day, and then 12 hours all night the next week. And in the process of that, the whales gave birth which was a remarkable thing to witness. But the baby died because the mother didn't know how to nurse it. And after this happened a couple of times, I realised that I really couldn't study whales in captivity, things weren't right. And so I wanted to try to find their family in British Columbia, which I know it sounds like that would be a really difficult thing to do, but it was quite easy because a British Columbia scientist at DFO Fisheries and Oceans Canada named Dr. Michael Bigg, he was in the process of identifying all the individual whales by the saddle behind their fin. And he took pictures during the captures. And so he knew which whales, the whales at Marineland came from, which pod they were with. And in fact, the female Corky was very close with a female whale during the turmoil and terror of the capture operation. And so we realised that was her mother. And Dr. Bigg sent me a bunch of photographs of the family. He said, go to Alert Bay in August. And so I did. I had no idea about British Columbia or how to run a boat or anything. But off we went and I found them on the first evening that I was there and I took one sniff of British Columbia and realised that this was my habitat. I loved everything about it.

CO: Yeah. Many people can identify with what you're saying. But as you fell in love with it and you found the family of Corky, you also found a great threat to it. What is it that brought you to spend decades of your life fighting against farmed salmon?

AM: So in 1984, I followed these whales into an archipelago called the Broughton Archipelago, and found the little community of Echo Bay and made it my home. And for the first few years of research there, it was absolutely phenomenal. Every time I went out with the whales, I learnt something and I loved the lifestyle, you know, living in a floating house in the middle of nowhere. But when the farms came, when the salmon farms came, my first thought was that they were a good idea, that they would keep our school open, they would be good for our tiny little local economy, but they weren't. And it was the fishermen who first came to me and said, you know, could you write a letter to the government and tell them that they're putting these things in all the wrong places, right on top of the prime habitat for the salmon, the prawns, and the rock cod. So I did that. And the answer came back, Dear Ms. Morton, there's no evidence. And this went on for years. I just kept writing them letters about the additional evidence, the toxic algae blooms, the Atlantic salmon showing up in the rivers because these farms were full of Atlantic salmon, that they displaced the orca with the acoustic harassment devices. And finally, when the sea lice outbreak happened and there was dying young salmon everywhere, I said, okay, all right, I need to start researching this, stop writing letters, produce the data, because DFO kept saying there's no evidence and they just weren't out there getting the evidence. And one thing just led to the next, and they never -- the industry and the government -- never admitted that there was a problem here. Had they done that, had they said, okay yes there is a problem and here's what we're going to do about it. I would have so happily given this up and gone back to whale research, but they never did. And in the process I grew up -- I was a young woman with a baby when I arrived and I became a mature woman who was now watching her home be destroyed. And so I just kept going. I actually can't believe that I did that because I have no interest in studying sea lice or eventually viruses.

CO: They're ugly. They sure are. And whales are not -- they're beautiful.

AM: I know. Imagine what I would know if I'd spent all this years studying the communication of whales. But never mind. This came up and apparently it was my calling.

CO: You're listening to As It Happens. And I am speaking with Alexandra Morton about her new book, Not On My Watch, which looks at the impact of salmon farming in British Columbia. So you are a scientist. You are a biologist. When was the moment when you realised that you were going to have to become an activist?

AM: This happened in 2010 when I had now done 10 years of research on sea lice showing catastrophic impact of these farms. The sea lice are really easy to study because they change their body shape every few days for the first month, so you can tell when they get on the fish. And they were getting on the fish at the farms and the fish were dying. And nothing I did worked. I mean, I went to Norway, I spoke at the AGM of these companies. I entered into all kinds of government processes. I took the industry to court. I wrote scientific papers. I turned my home into a research station and fed and housed young scientists who were also studying the sea lice. Try to figure out what to do next, what to do next. So I began to host these small dinner parties and invited the most creative thinkers that I knew. And as the wine flowed, I asked questions like, what do we do next? And I harvested the ideas. And there was a lot of, you know, there was a lot of silliness and there was some other good ideas. But on the third night, I had two friends, Don Staniford from Scotland and Anissa Reed an artist from Vancouver Island. And I forget which one of us said it, but we said we should just walk down Vancouver Island and invite everybody who is against these farms to walk with us. And so we did that. And by the end of the walk, there was thousands, the people on the parliament grounds in Victoria said there was 5,000 to 7,000 people of us. We took over the entire highway coming in from Sydney. People brought their horses and wagons and trumpets and canoes. But it did nothing. But now I realised that there had to be something beyond the science, beyond the law, beyond sitting quietly and explaining this to government. And so it was a slow process of ramping up. But in 2017, when a young hereditary leader who is also a school teacher, Ernest Alfred, said in a meeting in Alert Bay, I'm going to occupy the farm at Swanson Island until the farm leaves. Everybody realised, okay, we're stepping over the line here. And so I jumped up and I joined him and became part of that occupation for 280 days, it was gruelling. I mean, people were losing their relationships, their jobs, arguments flared up, people were cold and tired and scared. But it worked. And at some point, I realised that if you can be peaceful and honourable about it, just physically putting your body in the way of what is damaging life on Earth is a very very powerful thing. And I said it's the only thing that worked. So those farms are leaving now a couple every year. And last spring, I had the extraordinary experience of looking at the juvenile fish for the 22nd year at the farm sites that were now empty. And instead of being covered with sea lice and bleeding and shivering and emaciated and their eyes clouded over, these little pink salmon were so beautiful. They were sparkling, you know, silver and blue, and their eyes were just so black you would have felt like you were looking into another world when you looked in their eyes. And they were fat and sassy. So they'll be returning this summer. And I'm very curious about how their numbers will look.

CO: But you know that many people and the government, other scientists, certainly in the industry, disputed that salmon farming, fish farming, was the cause of the diminished wild salmon stocks. You run up against that a lot. And were there other considerations that you could entertain as to the reasons why the salmon stock was diminishing?

AM: Well, in this argument that has been presented to me again and again, I have never said salmon farms are the only impact. But I will say this, they're just not making it past these farms. Large percentages of them are simply being killed outright by the sea lice. And then as I went on in my research, I realised it's also viruses, it's also bacteria. And so the other impacts just aren't having a chance to kick in. Climate change is huge and obviously we hopefully are getting on that as soon as possible, like right now. Also, deforestation, urbanisation, all of these things have impact. But I have to use my experience as the guide. So I went into the Broughton Archipelago in 1984 after as much logging as people could physically muster, had been done for 100 years. And yes, there was damage and it was wrong. But salmon were still abundant because the logging had specific impacts on specific parts of the rivers so different tributaries. There was no urbanisation in the Broughton Archipelago. There was just fewer and fewer people every year. There's almost nobody out there. So that was not an impact. And yet when the salmon farms came in, the first thing we lost was the overwintering Chinook salmon and then we lost the herring. The herring were being protected, no one was allowed to fish them. And they continue to go down and down and down. And it was during the occupation when I kept handing underwater cameras to the people on the farms that we realised there was thousands and thousands of herring in every single pen of every farm. And the whales were definitely displaced to the acoustic harassment devices. So while people could theorise about other things, I was on the grounds seeing it, measuring it, and I was very open to being convinced I was wrong, but I wasn't wrong. And we're going to see as the farms are being removed, we are going to, for the first time, really get a feel for how catastrophic this impact was.

CO: I want to ask you about that idea that you were open to other ideas, because it is always difficult as a scientist to also be an activist. And did you have any concerns yourself that you were not bringing enough scepticism, scientific enquiry to the work that these two hats you were wearing sometimes collided?

AM: No, I mean, I did publish a paper at one point. So the salmon farmers did treat their lice successfully for a few years with a drug called Slice. And the lice numbers went down on the farms and they went down on the wild fish. And I published on that. You know, I thought maybe this problem had been solved. But like everywhere else in the world, the lice became resistant. And by 2015, the lice returning back on and the wild salmon were suffering again. So no, I have absolutely no doubts. And when I went to Norway and met other scientists there, they rented a room in a university and we started talking. And when the time was up for that room, we rented a room in a hotel and we went over and we were still talking. Those guys were putting wild salmon in tubes and towing them past the salmon farms because they wanted to protect the salmon of the Vasso river. And they were trying to get them past the farms fast enough that they wouldn't get lice, but they had to tow them in the water so the fish would imprint and know how to get back. These men were desperate. They were catching every single fish going into a river and checking its DNA to find out if it was a farm fish or not, and killing the farm fish and only letting the wild fish go. They knew exactly what I was facing because this industry has been very hard on every scientist that has gone up against it. And I write about that in the book as well. You know, I feel that the most dangerous animal on earth is a scientist who will change the data, change the output of their data to fit a corporate activity or a policy. We see this in climate change. We saw it with the tobacco industry. And those scientists are here in the salmon farming fight. And I talk about what they did. In fact, Random House said you got to take the virus stuff out of your book Alex, because there won't be any room for pictures. And I said, no, I can't take that out. The record has to stand as to what these people did.

CO: This is As It Happens. And I am in conversation with Alexandra Morton, a biologist who became an activist, did groundbreaking research on salmon farming on the coast of British Columbia. And we're talking about her new book, Not On My Watch: How A Renegade Whale Biologist Took On Governments And Industry To Save Wild Salmon. There's a lot of pushback that you took. And at one point there was even a documentary made about your efforts called The Unofficial Trial of Alexandra Morton. How personal did the pushback that you got actually become?

AM: Well, it devastated my life. I mean, I didn't plan to be doing any of this. I planned a really quiet life learning about what whales are thinking and what they're saying. And so I lost that. I can't live in the wilderness anymore because until COVID I was on the road constantly going to meetings, meeting with people, meeting with other scientists. Funders stepped away from me. My allies stepped away from me. Because the more heat that I got, the more people just didn't want to suffer the same impact. The worst was when one of the companies hired these boats to follow me around with blacked out windows. And when we drilled down as to who had hired them and where they were from, the name of the company they were operating under was Black Cube, which is a pretty sinister group. They claimed it wasn't the Black Cube from Israel, but I really don't know. And these are very stressful things that just wear away at you. However, I live on the edge of the wilderness and I see it all the time and I see the animals and the fish. And it is so inspiring to be working for this big ecosystem that keeps us alive. You know, these salmon feed the trees that make the oxygen we breathe, 100 species depend on them. And this whole coast, the way that the systems come in from the Pacific and the clouds hit the oceans and it creates rain and it falls down into these watersheds and the salmon go up and they die and their nutrients, pour down through these valleys, it's incredible. And the more I know, the less I can step away from this battle. I just have to see it through.

CO: The battle you were fighting was in this specific area, but you were battling an enormous industry. And also perhaps, if I can use the word sea change in the production of food. We saw that agriculture is now what produces most land based food. And for many, they would argue that aquaculture is inevitable. It is what is going to produce water based food. Is it possible to feed the world's population with wild food?

AM: Probably not. And so aquaculture itself has enormous potential. For example, if you began with growing the algae, the seaweeds, you would create the bottom of your food chain. And then you put your salmon into tanks and you build the food chain up, feed those salmon, take the waste from that salmon and use it to grow plant crops. If you're going to break the natural rules by stopping the salmon from migrating, stopping the predators from cleaning up the sick, giving pathogens such an incredibly good environment, you have to seal that new ecosystem away from the traditional ones that keep us alive on this planet. So there's no gain in having your aquaculture in the ocean, which is killing off the wild fish around you, and create less food than you began with. Because people don't realise farming salmon, for one, requires that somebody go fishing, and go fishing a lot to get the food that those farmed salmon need. So there's huge fisheries in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific to feed these farmed fish along with a lot of grain products. If you really want to make food, you would farm a fish that eats plant matter, that eats algae. So there's a lot of potential and there's people doing it. There's Canadians that are doing it. And I hope that the government is looking to them. But right now, the salmon farming industry is getting a free flush. Now, the only farmers that don't shovel their manure, they use the ocean to oxygenate their pens. So they're getting a lot of natural services for free and they're externalising costs that you and I are paying and the whales are paying. And so this has to be brought into balance if they're really going to feed people.

CO: And what are the chances of that? Because, I mean, what you came up against with government is though the government has responsibilities to environments, but often the principal obligation is to produce food for people and jobs for people. So can all those things be balanced in your mind? Can the government find a way to balance that?

AM: Absolutely. And the government is moving in that direction. So our current minister of fisheries, Bernadette Jordan, this is the first minister of fisheries that I find myself in complete agreement with. She did an astonishing thing in December. She told these three Norwegian companies operating here that they couldn't put any more fish on the very narrow channel where the Fraser River sockeye migrate in the Discovery Islands. They couldn't put any more fish there ever. The companies are pushing back and they are suing our government to put fish back into the territory where seven First Nations very clearly said they don't want these farms to operate anymore because of the impact on the wild salmon. So the solutions are here. The government has started to turn. But there is enormous inertia in DFO amongst the senior bureaucrats and some of them just, I think, really need to retire or just start working directly for the industry and I talk a lot about this in my book.

CO: You do. And you name names, lots of names and specific industry officials, people with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO researchers. And you accuse them of indifference, intimidation. Do you expect to be hearing from them?

AM: Yes, I do. I mean, I can't say I'm not worried. But on the other hand, I have to do everything I can. You know, I'm a grandmother now and I've kind of got the grandmother attitude, and that is okay look, a bunch of you guys have just been really naughty, you've gotten away with this for far too long, you may not have intended to go so far, but here you are. You are way over the line. And somebody who has nothing really to lose has to call this out. I'm not a tenured professor. I don't want a political career. I don't run a big organisation very much on purpose so that I can speak freely. And so somebody just has to call it the way it is. And this is just wrong. So, I mean, one of the things I've done is I've ordered thousands and thousands of pages of internal DFO conversations through the Access to Information Act to actually know what they're saying. I know who's been naughty. I know who's been nice.

CO: Do you feel you need that for your defence? Are they're going to come after you, do you think?

AM: I definitely think they're going to come after me. But I've been in court so many times now with this industry and they always try to discredit me, but I have the information. I have their own words. I would not say these things if I was not absolutely certain of my position and of the catastrophic damage that this industry has done to this coast. Somebody has to speak out. And so I've taken that role and I'm just going to take the consequences.

CO: You talk about being a grandmother. You early in your book, you talked about developing a twitch in one of your eyes. Your children often wondered if you were going to come home, maybe be arrested and worried about you a lot. Clearly, you were pushing so much of the time and often talked about how tiring it was. Do you still have the energy in you to keep this fight going?

AM: I have a lot less energy, but I have to see it through. And what has been so remarkable is the allies that I have built around this in particular are the First Nation governments. So I work for a number of First Nations now. Some of them pay me, some of them don't. It doesn't matter to me. These are governments that actually take my information and try to figure out what to do next. I pay symbolic taxes to the 'Namgis government whose territory I live in because they are doing so much to protect the world that I live in. So, yes, I'm tired, but there are more and more people shouldering this and finally, who believe me and can see the catastrophic shape that these wild salmon are in. We need to act now or it's over. I mean, the Fraser River sockeye -- the lowest run in the history of this country, came back last year. Some of the tributaries had 20 fish show up. And this is the biggest removeable impact that we could possibly do. And the minister of fisheries has done it. And so now we are fighting in court. I mean, I have incredible allies with Ecojustice -- those lawyers, I could never afford these lawyers. And so as my energy wanes, I see the energy around me growing. And that is very very rewarding.

CO: We will be watching. And I'm sure this is not the last time we will speak. And thank you for your book and for speaking with us today Alex.

AM: Thank you so much Carol.

SM: Alexandra Morton is the author of the new book Not On My Watch. It's published by Penguin Random House and is available now. We reached Ms. Morton in Sointula, B.C.. For a deeper dive on this story, visit our website: cbc.ca/aih.

April 5, 2021 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode