#97 Tim Haggstrom: Free Speech in Canadian Law Schools? Runnymede, Rule of Law, and Tim vs U. Sask

#97 Tim Haggstrom: Free Speech in Canadian Law Schools? Runnymede, Rule of Law, and Tim vs U. Sask

Tim Haggstrom doesn't just promote theory. He bears the personal scars of legal practice. He leads an organization focussed on legal theory, while fighting (personally) for free speech. This caught me off guard. I thought Tim was simply an exemplary leader of a noteworthy organization. I had no idea that he was also personally up to his neck in litigation about the legitimacy of race-based scholarship. You won't meet a nicer, more thoughtful guy. Tim goes out of his way to ring-fence his own case from the organization he represents. You need to know about the Runnymede Society. The Society appears even more worth, and necessary, when you hear about Tim's case, at the end of the episode. Let me know what you think! Thanks again Shawn Chapters and AI Summary:   Host Shawn Whatley interviews Tim Haggstrom, National Director of the Runnymede Society [https://runnymedesociety.ca/en/team/], about whether freedom of speech exists in Canadian law schools and how students learn “no-go zones” on contentious issues. Hagstrom explains Runnymede’s founding in 2016 amid concerns about insufficient debate over constitutional change, citing the Supreme Court’s 2015 Saskatchewan Federation of Labour decision on a Charter right to strike, and outlines the Society’s mission to promote constitutionalism, the rule of law, and fundamental freedoms through debates it does not adjudicate. They discuss taboo topics, civil discourse, and competing views of the rule of law, interpretation, legal neutrality, and substantive equality (including the 2020 Fraser case). Hagstrom then recounts his personal judicial review against the University of Saskatchewan after being found guilty of non-academic misconduct following letters defending dialogue and critiquing race-based policies, linking the dispute to university commitments to decolonization and anti-racism training. 00:00 Free Speech in Law School 00:22 Meet Tim Haggstrom 04:23 Why Runnymede Started 07:10 Tim’s Path to Runnymede 09:47 Campus No Go Zones 13:42 Staying Relevant and Civil 16:28 Sacred Cows Debate Example 19:05 Tim’s Lawsuit Teaser 21:53 Why Institutions Matter 25:24 Network Formation and Skills 31:03 Rule of Law Explained 37:26 Law Without Translation 38:53 Bridge Norms Example 41:33 Courts Versus Legislatures 44:13 Thick Rule of Law 45:57 Rodriguez To Carter 48:46 Living Tree Origins 50:19 Can Law Be Neutral 51:09 Substantive Equality Debate 56:05 Runnymede Student Plug 56:59 Saskatchewan Case Begins 01:05:41 Critical Social Justice Claims 01:10:11 Campus Speech Outlook 01:13:09 Protect Legal Tradition

#96 Shawn Whatley: Conservatism vs. Liberalism (and Neoconservatism), Definitions & Differences

Update on the quest to define conservatism! After almost 100 episodes, I see a way to articulate conservatism coming into view. I hope to capture it all into a short book/long essay later this year. In the meantime, I offer a recap of liberalism and contrast it with conservatism. I also touch on inheritance, myth, and experience as themes within conservatism. I also tackle a summary of neoconservatism. Neocons remain the main opinion shapers on the non-left in Canada. Their eminence has waned in America, but it remains strong in Canada. We end with a review of upcoming guests. Looking forward to hearing what you think! Thanks again Shawn   Chapters and AI summary:   Host Shawn Whatley shares a scheduling update amid a busy summer and looks ahead to the podcast’s 100th episode, then continues his effort to define conservatism by contrasting it with liberalism. He critiques George Grant’s thin definition of liberalism and Grant’s claim about the impossibility of political conservatism, and instead uses Fukuyama/John Gray’s four-part account of liberalism (individualism, egalitarianism, universalism, meliorism) to frame key conservative objections: the involuntary obligations of life (especially family), equality before law alongside excellence, particularism over universal political templates, and prudential skepticism about reform. He adds conservative emphases on inheritance, regional myth/self-understanding, and shared experience. He then outlines three waves of neoconservatism—its origins, post–Cold War central-planning and interventionist tendencies, and a 2016-era “never-Trump” internationalist turn—before previewing upcoming guests Josh Mitchell, Tim Hagstrom, and Elizabeth Corey. 00:00 Big Questions Intro 00:14 Podcast Schedule Update 01:26 Defining Liberalism 04:56 Fukuyama Four Pillars 06:54 Conservative Pushback 10:45 Tradition Myth Place 13:51 Thin vs Thick Politics 14:58 Neoconservatism Origins 17:04 Second Wave Neocons 20:53 Third Wave Never Trump 22:41 Guests and Wrap Up

#95 Jodi Bruhn: Supreme Court vs. Provinces, Notwithstanding Clause & Canadian First Principles

Jodi Bruhn offers a sobering take on Canada. Professor Bruhn is an expert on governance and constitutional thought. She says we might not appreciate the significance and potential fallout from the Supreme Court wading in the Notwithstanding Clause. We discuss civics education and whether there's an increased appetite for first principles. Thanks for checking this out! I look forward to your comments. Shawn Chapters and AI summary: Host Shawn Whatley interviews Dr. Jodi Bruhn about renewed interest in first principles, civics, and regime analysis in her University of Lethbridge courses, contrasting first-year and fourth-year students’ ability to identify clashing political principles behind current events. They discuss political science versus political philosophy, including critiques of Straussian textualism, and consider thinkers such as Aristotle, Voegelin, Bergson, and Carl Schmitt. Bruhn warns that the Supreme Court of Canada hearing cases involving the notwithstanding clause signals a misunderstanding of legislative supremacy and could provoke a political showdown with provinces like Quebec and Alberta, potentially risking Canada’s dissolution. They examine constitutional change constraints, separatism’s uncertain outcomes, leadership and ethical decay under unwritten constitutional conventions, demagoguery, and Bruhn’s account of Tamara Lich’s University of Calgary talk about the trucker convoy. 00:00 Supreme Court Warning 00:52 Meet the Guest 02:52 Teaching First Principles 05:26 Civics and Regimes 07:37 Political Science vs Philosophy 15:31 Teasing Out Principles 18:03 Notwithstanding Clause Clash 21:14 Charter and Judicial Review 23:34 Can Canada Rewind 25:26 Alberta Separation Scenarios 28:41 Schmitt and Conflict Horizon 29:57 Friendship Course Spectrum 31:29 Canadian Founding Enmities 33:27 Hooker and English Middle Way 35:42 Ideology and First Principles 37:31 Alberta Separation and Reconfederation 39:47 Constitutional Mismatch and Corruption 44:51 Demagoguery and Vital Breakthrough 47:33 Reading Bergson and Courage 49:10 Tamara Lich at University 51:11 Teaching Critical Thinking Finale

#94 Tom Flanagan: Friedrich Hayek, Spontaneous Order, Markets, Justice, and the Limits of the State

Tom Flanagan explains why we need Hayek's ideas about spontaneous order, institutions, and the limits of state control. Hayek will frustrate central planners and also anarchists. Libertarians can't depend on Hayek; he's too supportive of traditional institutions. Professor Flanagan has taught a generation of political science students at the University of Calgary. He's informed so much of what the Right assumes in Canada. He's generous, thoughtful, and resists capture into a neat, political box. Books mentioned: Grave Error: How The Media Misled Us (and the Truth about Residential Schools) [https://amzn.to/3QyrdwJ] Dead Wrong: How Canada Got the Residential School Story So Wrong [https://amzn.to/4ebSzCL] Articles mentioned: Settler-Neoliberalism: Tom Flanagan and Friedrich Hayek on the Prairies | Canadian Historical Review [https://utppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3138/chr-2022-0029?journalCode=chr] Was Hayek a Gnostic? - VoegelinView [https://voegelinview.com/was-hayek-a-gnostic/]   The long reach of the Calgary School | C2C Journal [https://c2cjournal.ca/2018/05/the-long-reach-of-the-calgary-school/]   Let me know what you think! Thanks again, Shawn   Chapters and AI summary Host Shawn Whatley interviews political scientist Tom Flanagan about Friedrich Hayek, focusing on spontaneous order versus top-down organization and the state’s proper role in enforcing rules without directing outcomes. Flanagan explains spontaneous order through examples like language, markets, common law, and even skiing etiquette, and argues modern governments often create chaos by trying to control systems such as Canadian healthcare through price and quantity setting, producing persistent shortages and waitlists. The conversation explores Hayek’s assumptions about property, justice as a feature of fair process and intention rather than outcomes, and practical questions about unintended consequences in politics. Flanagan also discusses Canada’s formation through sovereignty claims, treaties, and force, defending treaty-making as broadly just for its time. He contrasts Hayek’s limits on “spiritual problems” with Voegelin’s strengths and notes he is not an Alberta separatist. 00:00 Hayek In A Nutshell 01:00 Show Intro And Guest 04:56 Flanagan Meets Hayek 06:08 Spontaneous Order Explained 07:02 Language As Emergence 09:50 Markets And Simple Rules 11:55 State Control And Healthcare 16:55 Ski Hill Rules And Enforcement 22:20 Property Justice And Tradition 27:49 Colonialism And Civilizing Mission 30:28 International Anarchy And Empire 35:40 Treaties and Education 36:51 Hayek Order vs Organization 38:16 Canada Built by Force 39:22 Morris and Prairie Treaties 42:03 Mirage of Social Justice 47:55 Intentions vs Outcomes 49:29 Weber and Policy Consequences 56:17 Hayek Meets Voegelin 01:03:13 Spiritual Pathology Politics 01:04:46 State Supports Spontaneous Order 01:08:28 Alberta Separatism and Wrap

#93 Evan Menzies: Alberta Separation. Alberta Should Be Upset, but It Should Stay in Canada

Evan Menzies shows why Albertans should be furious. As an Albertan himself, he understands. And as a political consultant, he sees even more reasons to be upset than most Albertans have heard of. He is frustrated and doesn't hide it. In spite of powerful reasons to be upset, he still thinks Alberta should stay. The rest of Canada isn't paying enough attention to this. Alberta separation wouldn't be an issue if Canada was well governed. It will continue to be an issue until our governance is fixed. Here's the article we discuss: An argument for Canada from an Alberta conservative. [https://evanmenzies.substack.com/p/an-argument-for-canada-from-an-alberta] Thanks for listening!  Let me know what you think.   Chapters and AI summary:   Alberta Separatism Debate: Evan Menzies’ Argument for Staying in Canada Host Shawn Whatley interviews Evan Menzies, VP at Crestview Strategy and former Wildrose/UCP staffer, about his Substack article “An Argument for Canada from an Alberta Conservative” and the rise of Alberta separatism. Menzies explains why many Alberta conservatives feel exhausted and unheard—citing issues like equalization, Senate and House of Commons representation, pipeline barriers, and judicial “constitutional adventurism” (including MAID, mandatory minimums, and debates over the notwithstanding clause). He argues separatism is a risky, non-conservative “tear down to the studs” revolution that promises a utopia while forcing Alberta to rebuild institutions and constitutional order from scratch. Instead, he urges reform within Canada, appeals to patriotism and gratitude, warns against victimhood politics, and predicts Alberta’s growing demographic and economic weight will keep shifting Canada’s power westward. 00:00 Alberta Separation Stakes 01:07 Show Setup and Guest Intro 05:05 Why Albertans Feel Exhausted 08:02 Who Supports Leaving 11:50 Senate Imbalance Debate 15:40 House Seats and Time Zones 18:21 Equalization and Quebec Hydro 20:43 Courts and Constitutional Drift 25:04 Charter Pragmatism vs Principle 28:03 Why Stay In Canada 28:35 Three Reasons To Stay 31:05 Blank Slate Constitution Risks 33:04 Revolution Not Devolution 35:41 Communicating Conservatism Again 39:26 Patriotism Over Victimhood 45:05 Gratitude And National Story 49:39 Alberta Story Is Canadian 51:28 Make The 21st Century Canada 51:59 Closing Thanks And Moral Ground