Runnymede Radio

Paul Beaudry (University of Calgary's School of Public Policy) recently argued, in a Financial Post op-ed, that fears over net neutrality are overblown, that the regime in place since 2015 stifled investment and innovation, and that unwinding the 'open internet' order is good news for American consumers and the economy. We discuss his reasoning and the likely effect of the repeal on smaller content producers, as well as why the Canadian telecom industry is, for all of our hand-wringing, pretty good. Links: Paul Beaudry and Martin Masse: Don't freak over ending net neutrality Konrad von Finckenstein: Millenial moment: will the tech generation fight for net neutrality?

An autopsy of the Google memo with Marni Soupcoff, writer, commentator and policy analyst. Did Google have the legal and/or moral right to fire Damore for his memo on "Google's ideological echo chamber"? Is the incident a canary in the coalmine, or a microcosm for American society more broadly? What commonalities are there between the moral panic over the memo and that over sociologist Charles Murray's controversial research on race and IQ? How would greater epistemological humility serve us in cases like this one? Does Google's decision to fire Damore suggest that there is no refuge left for free speech, considering the decision in tandem with current university climates?   Links: Google's Ideological Echo Chamber Marni Soupcoff: Google axing someone for mouthing off was not a smart move Marni Soupcoff: Damore's firing latest example of society's intolerance of controversial ideas Sam Harris: Forbidden Knowledge

Steve Simpson, Director of Legal Studies at the Ayn Rand Institute, discusses why free speech is the killer app for Western civilization and why the most disconcerting threats to free speech occur on the level of culture rather than law. Why is the conversation about free speech so frequently focused on college campuses? How can educators overcome the human tendency to self-censor in order to hew to the crowd? What line can be drawn from the Salman Rushdie Satanic Verses controversy to the riots following the Jylland-Posten's publication of Muhammead cartoons to the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo? How has the hyper-partisan climate in the United States affected intellectual freedom? Links: Symposium: Is Free Speech Under Threat in the United States? Steve Simpson @ ARI

Part II of previous debate on the s. 33 notwithstanding clause with Leonid Sirota (AUT Law School), Maxime St-Hilaire (Université de Sherbrooke) and Geoff Sigalet (Stanford Law School). How should historical circumstances, in this case the intentions of parties to the adoption of the Charter, affect how we construe the proper use of its provisions in contemporary circumstances? Should s. 33 be limited to use in "exceptional circumstances"?

In May 2017, Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall announced his government's intention to respond to a court decision holding that public funding for non-Catholic students who wished to attend Catholic schools violated state obligations of religious neutrality by use of the Charter's notwithstanding clause. In this episiode, we debate the proposition: Regardless of the merits of the Good Spirit School Division decision, the government of Saskatchewan was justified in stating its intention to invoke the s. 33 notwithstanding clause in response to it. Participants: Maxime St-Hilaire, Université de Shebrooke, Leonid Sirota, AUT Law School, and Geoffrey Sigalet, Stanford Law School. Links: Saskatchewan's Brad Wall and the rehabilitation of the Charter Chekhov's Gun Les leçons de Jordan, III: À QUELLES CONDITIONS EST-IL LÉGITIME DE DÉROGER AUX DROITS CONSTITUTIONNELS FONDAMENTAUX?

Discussion with Professor Bruce Pardy, Queen's Faculty of Law and Asher Honickman, Advocates for the Rule of Law. What does Bill C-16 mean and how would alleged human rights violations under Bill C-16 be litigated? We discuss the Ontario Human Rights Commission's guidelines and how they might interact with an allegation of a Charter breach of freedom of expression, civility vs. legal obligations, classical conceptions of negative versus positive human rights, and some procedural and principled implications of Bill C-16. Links: Professor Pardy's opening comments at the Senate's Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8ReMwdurlk Professor Pardy and Jordan Peterson debate Bill C-16 at Queen's Law: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzkNHpiJ7AE&t=1327s

Discussion with Brian Bird, D.C.L. candidate at McGill's Faculty of Law and author of "Trinity Western and the erosion of religious freedom": why did the case of Trinity Western University's proposed law school occasion a 'clash of the titans' in the form of two powerhouse appellate courts, Ontario and B.C., disagreeing with each other substantively? How can courts balance claims to religious liberty with demands for equality under the Charter? What should we make of the suggestion that allowing Trinity a law school would reduce the overall number of spots for gay law students in Canada? We engage in rampant speculation about the SCC's future decision and consider broader theoretical implications of religious liberty in a pluralistic society. Runnymede now has an Amazon affiliate link! Simply follow runnymedesociety.ca/amazon, do your online shopping as you normally would, and a small percentage will support the Runnymede Society.

How has the Charter fundamentally changed Canadian politics? Discussion with Chief Justice (Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench) Glenn Joyal about Canada's founding ideological mélange and strands of liberal neutrality, communitarianism, and Westminster supremacy, the shift in political culture effectuated by the Charter, the notwithstanding clause, and how courts and legislatures can collaborate in articulating rights. CJ Joyal also responds to Leonid Sirota's critique of his speech. Text of Chief Justice Joyal's speech: http://www.ruleoflaw.ca/the-charter-and-canadas-new-political-culture-are-we-all-ambassadors-now/

Discussion with Teresa Bejan of Oriel College, Oxford about her 2017 book Mere Civility, which contrasts the views on the limits of toleration in a liberal society of John Rawls, Thomas Hobbes, and Roger Williams, and defends Williams' 'mere civility' which was based on "mutual contempt" rather than mutual respect. We also discuss recent events at Middlebury and Wellesley College, identity politics' want for epistemic humility, and 'free speech fundamentalism'. For more on Mere Civility, see this recent New York Times feature.

In the digital age, filter bubbles encourage conformity of opinion and confirmation bias. They discourage airing contrarian views-- both online and in person. A conversation with lawyer and journalist Lauren Heuser about the eroding culture of free speech, why polarizing figures like Milo Yiannopoulos should not be the mascots of free speech, and getting back to the real aims of open discourse for a free society. Read Lauren's Walrus piece here.