Runnymede Radio

This episode of Runnymede Radio features Dr. Kerri Froc, an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law at the University of New Brunswick. Interviewed by Mark Mancini, the National Director of the Runnymede Society, Professor Froc discusses the intersection of feminism and originalism in the context of Canadian constitutional law and interpretation.

This episode of Runnymede Radio features Dr. Paul Daly, a member of the Faculty of Law (Common Law Section) at the University of Ottawa, where he holds a University Research Chair in Administrative Law and Governance. In this episode, Dr. Daly and Mark Mancini, the National Director of the Runnymede Society, discuss the much anticipated rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada in the so-called "administrative law trilogy", a trio of cases in which the Court has sought to clarify the law governing judicial review of administrative decisions in Canada. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov Bell Canada v. Canada (Attorney General)

This episode of Runnymede Radio features Dr. Geoffrey Sigalet, a postdoctoral fellow in the Research Group on Constitutional Studies at McGill University. Dr. Sigalet, interviewed by Mark Mancini, the National Director of the Runnymede Society, discusses a collection of essays he co-edited with Grégoire Webber (Queen's University) and Rosalind Dixon (University of New South Wales). The collection is entitled Constitutional Dialogue: Rights, Democracy, Institutions (2019, Cambridge University Press). The blurb for Constitutional Dialogue captures the focus of the collection: The metaphor of 'dialogue' has been put to different descriptive and evaluative uses by constitutional and political theorists studying interactions between institutions concerning rights. It has also featured prominently in the opinions of courts and the rhetoric and deliberations of legislators. This volume brings together many of the world's leading constitutional and political theorists to debate the nature and merits of constitutional dialogues between the judicial, legislative, and executive branches. Constitutional Dialogue explores dialogue's democratic significance, examines its relevance to the functioning and design of constitutional institutions, and covers constitutional dialogues from an international and transnational perspective.

In the first Runnymede Radio episode of the 2019-2020 academic year, we speak with the new National Director of the Runnymede Society, Mark Mancini. We discuss the growth of Runnymede since its inception in 2016, recent campus events, the profile of Runnymede in The Globe and Mail, the inaugural Runnymede Fellows Program, and the upcoming Law and Freedom Conference in February 2020.

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