Juno News - January 28, 2020Mark Mancini on fostering diversity of thought at Canada’s law schools
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
168.16533
Summary
The Runnymede Society is a national law student membership group dedicated to constitutionalism, individual liberty, and the rule of law. In this episode, Lindsay talks to Mark Mancini, the National Director of the Society, about what it's all about.
Transcript
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
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.
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.
00:04:35.380
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
00:05:23.480
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
00:06:39.560
super interesting, because she is like a trained lawyer, isn't she, before she went into politics?
00:06:43.800
Yeah, she is. And she was. And obviously, she just brings a ton of experience and knowledge about
00:06:51.980
environmental issues that I think will be really a great addition to the panel and to the discussion of
00:06:58.060
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?
00:07:24.280
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
00:07:38.180
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
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.
00:15:26.320
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.