Juno News - Mark Mancini on fostering diversity of thought at Canada’s law schools

00:00:00.000 Hi everyone, this is Lindsay Shepherd, Investigative Journalism Fellow with True

00:00:09.320 North, and today my guest is Mark Mancini. Mark is the National Director of the Runnymede Society.

00:00:15.480 Runnymede Society is a national law student membership group dedicated to constitutionalism,

00:00:21.420 individual liberty, and the rule of law. So Mark, is the Runnymede Society at every law

00:00:27.600 school across Canada? We're getting there. We have a few that some of the French language ones in

00:00:34.860 Quebec we don't have a presence at, but we just expanded to cover the University of Victoria,

00:00:40.980 Lakehead University, and the University of Manitoba. So we're at almost every law school.

00:00:47.100 Awesome. So what kind of events do you do and what kind of work do you do with Runnymede Society?

00:00:54.660 Yeah, so our kind of our bread and butter is every semester we have an event at every chapter that

00:01:03.360 we have in the country. So we'll have an event usually featuring a debate style format on legal

00:01:09.520 topics, especially pressing legal topics. So that's sort of the bulk of what we do and our goal with

00:01:16.220 that is to try to encourage law students to think critically about legal issues and to present issues

00:01:22.320 that might not get an airing in the classroom or in the hallways of the law school. So that's sort of

00:01:28.320 one part. The second part is our national conference, which coincidentally is taking place next month,

00:01:36.700 February 28th, 29th in Toronto. And so that conference attracts law students, lawyers, and academics,

00:01:44.220 typically 150, 200 people. And the goal there is to, again, get some topics on the table that are

00:01:52.460 pressing and that don't necessarily get an airing in the legal community as much as they should.

00:01:56.940 So that's number two. And then number three, we're expanding more into producing more legal content,

00:02:04.140 more publications, articles. We have a podcast now. And again, the goal there is to have a discussion

00:02:11.240 with people in the legal community about these sort of legal issues. And overriding all of this

00:02:17.600 is a commitment to free speech, to open debate, and ultimately to using open debate to helping

00:02:26.500 students think more critically about the law. Yeah, I mean, the events you guys hold at the

00:02:34.240 different chapters at law schools across Canada, they're super interesting. So like a sample of some

00:02:38.840 of them, pipelines and the Canadian constitution, there's topics on religious freedom, political

00:02:45.360 correctness, proportional representation, feminist originalism. But I wanted to ask you, what is

00:02:51.400 feminist originalism? Well, yeah, we just had a podcast about that, a topic with Professor Kerry

00:02:57.240 Froff, who's from the University of New Brunswick. And basically, feminist originalism is the idea that 1.00

00:03:02.200 we should, you know, it's a particularly Canadian form of interpretation. But it's the idea that within

00:03:08.820 the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there, as originally understood, there's a commitment to

00:03:15.920 the protection of women's rights. So particularly in Section 28 of the Charter, which guarantees equality

00:03:23.000 between the sexes. So there's this kind of nascent school of thought that I think Professor Froff has

00:03:29.860 largely championed, that advocates for the Constitution to be interpreted as it originally

00:03:37.100 was enacted, not how judges have said it should be, not how the public thinks it should be interpreted,

00:03:45.240 but how it was originally intended to be interpreted. And within that interpretation, there's a, you know,

00:03:51.120 there's a good, there's good evidence that there was protections in the Charter for women's rights.

00:03:57.840 So that's basically the gist of feminist originalism. 1.00

00:04:01.300 Okay, interesting. But yeah, I mean, there's, there's so many topics, right? And I've done two

00:04:05.740 speaking events with Runnymede. So in September 2018, I did a free speech event at, that was Queens

00:04:11.840 University, the law school there. And then just a couple months ago, in October, I did free speech

00:04:17.620 and the digital charter, that was the name of the panel. And that was at University of Windsor. And

00:04:22.440 honestly, you guys have such a great group of people, I was like, I kind of want to go to law

00:04:27.240 school, just so I can like, hang out with these people, because they're a really great group.

00:04:31.320 So how big is each campus club generally?

00:04:35.380 So it ranges. At some of the smaller schools where we just started, we have just a handful

00:04:43.240 of people that are sort of running the show. And then at other schools, we have, you know,

00:04:47.840 10 people that are sort of in the club, 15 people that are in the club. And then of course,

00:04:53.120 we have membership that are sort of associated with that people who attend the events who

00:04:57.800 attend the conference, but who aren't in an organization role. So it really does vary.

00:05:04.300 And then so in September 2019, there was an article in the Globe and Mail. And so they called

00:05:11.180 you the well, the title of the article was libertarian student group, Runnymede society seeks

00:05:16.680 to shake up Canada's legal culture. Do you feel like calling you a libertarian group is an

00:05:21.980 accurate depiction?

00:05:23.480 Not at all. No. So that was, I mean, the article was an interesting sort of look into what we do. But

00:05:29.840 unfortunately, the characterization of us as libertarian is completely off the mark.

00:05:35.700 We are officially a nonpartisan, apolitical organization, we don't have a view on politics.

00:05:45.260 So we aren't really, we can't be characterized as libertarian. Just as evidence of that, you know,

00:05:51.420 we have speakers from all over the political spectrum who come out to our events, we're going

00:05:57.220 to have Elizabeth May speaking about the carbon tax, for example, at our conference in February. So we

00:06:05.120 really can't be accused of being particularly aligned to one side of the aisle. Now, if it's the case

00:06:12.740 that, you know, a belief in free speech is a libertarian value, then that might be different.

00:06:18.720 But I think free speech and commitment to open debate is a value that should permeate every act,

00:06:24.080 every part of the political spectrum, it shouldn't be something that's reserved to be a libertarian,

00:06:29.000 for example. So overall, though, I think the characterization was really inaccurate.

00:06:34.700 Yeah, I did see that Elizabeth May was speaking at the Law and Freedom Conference. I thought that was 0.98

00:06:39.560 super interesting, because she is like a trained lawyer, isn't she, before she went into politics? 1.00

00:06:43.800 Yeah, she is. And she was. And obviously, she just brings a ton of experience and knowledge about 0.92

00:06:51.980 environmental issues that I think will be really a great addition to the panel and to the discussion of

00:06:57.300 the carbon tax.

00:06:58.060 And so you did your JD at the University of New Brunswick, at the Faculty of Law there. And then

00:07:07.060 you actually did your Master of Laws at the University of Chicago. And the University of

00:07:11.500 Chicago is kind of the, they're very known for their free speech. They have the University of

00:07:18.000 Chicago, what is it called, the Statement of Principles for free speech?

00:07:21.780 Yeah, something like that. Yeah.

00:07:24.280 Yeah. And so they were kind of championing the idea that, well, we're not really into this idea

00:07:29.140 of safe spaces. And we do want to have a place of open inquiry here on campus. So what was your

00:07:34.900 experience doing your Master of Laws there?

00:07:38.180 Yeah, so, you know, before I went into the school, I, you know, I had heard about the commitment to free

00:07:44.280 speech and the principals. And, you know, it was something that appealed to me, but I didn't really

00:07:52.820 know whether or not it would actually be represented in the classrooms and in the, in the hallways and,

00:07:58.620 you know, in the, in the actual ethos of the school. But I was pleasantly surprised to find out

00:08:05.160 that it's actually a big part of what the school does. I mean, the classroom is a, the classroom there

00:08:11.760 is a place for truly open debate and discussion. I mean, everybody, they, they operate there on the

00:08:17.660 Socratic method. So, you know, you're cold call in class for answers. You have to come prepared to be

00:08:23.800 an informed participant in the discussion. People are encouraged to speak their minds. And this sort of,

00:08:29.960 every class I had was really like this. And it was really a commitment to critical thinking and open inquiry,

00:08:36.200 which really, really appealed to me. And I, I, you know, in those environments, I tend to flourish and

00:08:40.980 learn a lot. And so I really enjoyed my time there because of that, because of that operationalized

00:08:48.620 commitment to free speech. It wasn't just an ideal. I think it's something that permeates the school

00:08:53.160 itself. And when you were there, like, so you could actually feel that commitment, like that was your

00:08:59.620 lived experience, right? Yeah, for sure. For, for sure. It was, it was something that I,

00:09:06.240 that really, you really, you feel in that, you know, you benefit from. So that, it was really a

00:09:12.200 great experience there. Was that contrasted with University of New Brunswick in any way?

00:09:18.820 Well, New Brunswick, I mean, I think Canadian law schools are generally pretty open to free speech,

00:09:27.300 although not, not to the extent that Chicago is. Like, I think there's just not the same culture of sort

00:09:34.080 of, you know, unbridled free speech at Canadian law schools, but I think it's still a value that,

00:09:41.260 that I think is present in Canadian law schools. At New Brunswick, I never really felt that I couldn't

00:09:46.940 speak my mind. I, the school is great and the professors were great, but there, there just isn't

00:09:52.620 the same sort of hard and fast commitment that you would see at a school like Chicago.

00:09:57.080 Right. And so, um, are Runnymede Society chapters, um, across Canada, are any of them like

00:10:06.060 controversial or do they ever get like a negative reaction from other professors or faculty on campus?

00:10:13.300 Or is it generally like Runnymede is received pretty well?

00:10:16.940 Uh, that is dependent on the school. Uh, we, generally, I would say we've been received very

00:10:21.920 well. And I think that's just evident in the success that we've seen, um, since we started just a few

00:10:27.600 years ago. So generally I would say we received well, I don't want to label schools or name schools

00:10:34.220 per se, but, uh, some schools, you know, we have, we have, uh, we have opposition. Uh, we have opposition

00:10:40.460 from students. We have opposition from professors. Um, but to my mind, that's just means that we're doing

00:10:47.340 something right, that we're presenting, you know, we're presenting, presenting these events in good

00:10:52.620 faith. We're trying to be real contributors to the Canadian legal culture. And that's going to upset

00:10:58.040 some people sometimes. And while we want everyone to benefit from our events and we invite everyone,

00:11:02.780 no matter who they are, to come to our events and to participate, some people will be turned off.

00:11:07.700 And that's just, that's sort of the price of admission. We, we sort of expect that to a certain

00:11:12.060 degree. And so for your annual conference, the law and freedom conference, you mentioned like

00:11:18.260 academics, law students, lawyers go, is it also open to the general public? And yeah, it's open to

00:11:24.500 the general public. I just listed those three because those are generally the three top, top groups that

00:11:30.700 we get, but yes, it's open to the general public. And in the past we've had non-lawyers and, uh, people

00:11:35.580 in other disciplines come, come to the event, people in economics, for example, uh, lots of other,

00:11:41.280 you know, professors and academics from other disciplines. So it is open to the general public.

00:11:46.800 Nice. Okay. And then my, uh, last question for you was what is the, you know, hottest topic in

00:11:53.200 constitutional law right now? Yeah. Uh, tough question, but I think it's gotta be just the, uh,

00:12:01.280 the topic of the environment. And within that I'll include, you know, the pipelines and the, uh,

00:12:06.960 the carbon tax. Uh, I think right now, so the sort of the area of law that that engages is,

00:12:13.680 uh, is federalism, you know, our division of power is typically not a, uh, sexy or exciting

00:12:19.440 topic for most people, but it turns out that it's very important because that's what guides

00:12:24.720 what's going to happen with whether or not we can build pipelines in this country, uh, whether or not

00:12:29.520 the carbon tax is a constitutional mechanism of dealing with the climate, you know, climate change.

00:12:36.560 These are all things that are going to come down to the division of power. So it's getting,

00:12:39.920 you know, people are getting very interested in this topic because of those issues. So I would say

00:12:44.240 those collectively, those are sort of the hottest topics right now. Okay. That's interesting. I wasn't

00:12:49.280 expecting that answer. I was expecting more like religious freedom, maybe like, um, bill 21,

00:12:55.360 is it in, uh, yeah, I mean, that's, that's certainly a, I would, you know, that to me,

00:13:00.400 I mean, this is subjective, uh, inherently, but to me, that's like a close second. I think bill 21

00:13:06.400 is something that is also stressing our constitutional traditions. And it's, uh, an area where the feminist 1.00

00:13:13.120 originalism that we talked about is going to come in, come into play, I think, because the section I

00:13:18.240 mentioned, section 28 is sort of the basis of one of the challenges to the bill. So it's, you know,

00:13:24.400 it's, that's, that's a really important topic too. Uh, but it, you know, I think the reason I

00:13:30.800 chose sort of the pipelines of the carbon tax or the national implications of it, the, you know,

00:13:35.680 the pipelines are something that we've been, you know, as country, um, we've been trying to grapple

00:13:40.800 with for many years now, and the carbon tax has been incredibly controversial. So, I mean, that's why

00:13:45.600 they'll sort of make the top of the list for me. And then aside from, um, the division of power and

00:13:51.840 the issues with, you know, provinces and federal government, um, do like first nations rights

00:13:58.480 come into there too? Oh, absolutely. I mean, uh, so the, you know, there are some first nations

00:14:04.480 depending on the, excuse me, depending on the project that are supportive of, of, uh, the building

00:14:11.280 of pipelines, but others are not. And so there have been many, uh, challenges to the, you know,

00:14:17.280 the propriety of approving, uh, approving pipelines that first nations have launched and, you know,

00:14:25.120 their rights are, are within the constitution. So they, they form a constitutional basis and they,

00:14:31.120 uh, they have good claims in many cases to challenge, uh, the way that these pipelines were

00:14:37.040 approved or, or the way that they're being built. So that plays into it too. And it just, it really,

00:14:42.080 it, it makes it so that this issue is so fraught with difficult constitutional issues,

00:14:48.240 all of which they'll need to be considered and weighed properly.

00:14:52.560 Yeah. I mean, something interesting that happened recently, I don't know if you saw this, but, um,

00:14:56.800 so the UN said that we need to just not build these pipelines because it's an infringement on

00:15:02.640 indigenous rights and indigenous lands. Right. And the, the BC human rights commissioner,

00:15:08.240 uh, Kasari Govender said, yes, I agree with the UN, but then a whole bunch of people in Canada were

00:15:14.720 like, well, Hey, actually the, the, you know, 20 or so first nations along the pipeline route,

00:15:20.000 they actually want it. Um, and then the UN was like, oh, sorry, we didn't realize they wanted it.

00:15:25.600 Did you hear that?

00:15:26.320 I did hear about that. And, uh, I mean, it's sort of just my personal view,

00:15:31.520 it's a bit embarrassing for the UN to say the least. Um, you know, didn't they,

00:15:36.000 yeah. Didn't they say they, they don't do research on those matters or something,

00:15:39.280 but yet they still released a statement. They did say that. Yes. And I, I think,

00:15:44.160 you know, it's just, obviously they were not attuned to what's actually going on in Canada.

00:15:49.360 Uh, it's a lot, I think just, I, I'm not an expert on it, but just from looking at the situation,

00:15:55.680 it's a lot more complicated than how they framed it. There's a lot, you know, there's a lot,

00:16:00.720 there are groups that are opposed to it. There are groups that are supportive of it and that makes

00:16:05.040 it complicated, but that's part of living in Canada, I think. Absolutely. Well, that makes all

00:16:11.680 these issues very, very timely. As you said, um, the hottest topics in constitutional law. Well,

00:16:17.760 thanks so much for talking with me today, Mark. Can we check out your Twitter anywhere or any other

00:16:23.120 social media for Runnymede Society? Yeah. So we have, um, my, my Twitter handle is, uh,

00:16:30.000 at Mark P Mancini. And then of course we just have the general Runnymede Society Twitter handle,

00:16:36.480 which is just Runnymede SOC. And, uh, the running, really the Runnymede account is where you'll see

00:16:42.560 all of our information about our events, our conference, all of our upcoming discussions.

00:16:47.200 And, uh, and, you know, you could stay tuned to things there. All right. Perfect. And we at True

00:16:53.120 North, we're at TNC.news and I'm Lindsay Shepard. Thanks again, Mark. And have a great day.

00:16:59.600 Thank you. Yes. Thank you for having me.

00:17:01.600 Thank you.

00:17:12.480 Thank you.

Juno News - January 28, 2020

Mark Mancini on fostering diversity of thought at Canada’s law schools

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript