Free Expression, Beauty, State Control. Christine Van Geyn on Maple’s Garden & Pandemic Panic #101

Free Expression, Beauty, State Control. Christine Van Geyn on Maple’s Garden & Pandemic Panic #101

Christine Van Geyn captured the central debate around freedom of expression vs state control and put it into a children's book.  As Interim Executive Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, Van Geyn has the deep knowledge and experience required to explain the essential elements of free expression in a short book titled, Maple's Garden: A Canadian Freedom of Speech Story [https://amzn.to/4g5hQzv]. We also discuss her other books, Pandemic Panic [https://amzn.to/4oIgRap], and Free Speech in Canada [https://amzn.to/44pJyQa]. Thanks for checking this out! Shawn Chapters and AI summary Shawn Whatley interviews Christine Van Geyn, interim executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, about her children’s picture book Maple’s Garden, inspired by the Mississauga case involving Wolf Ruck and Ontario rulings that a naturalized garden can be protected expression reflecting subjective views of beauty. They discuss how governments and bylaws can overreach by enforcing aesthetic standards, the difference between harmful invasive or dangerous plants and taste-based complaints, and why free expression protects disagreement. Van Geyn also explains her co-authored book Pandemic Panic as a documented record of civil liberties impacts, cases, and “memory-holed” incidents from COVID-19, including the Freedom Convoy and the Emergencies Act challenge. The conversation ends with a primer on Charter Section 2(b), Section 1’s Oakes test, and concerns about human rights tribunals being used to penalize speech, citing cases in BC and Ontario’s Emo flag dispute. 00:00 Parents vs State Power 00:36 Why Free Speech Matters 01:30 Meet Christine Van Geyn 04:20 Why She Wrote Maples Garden 06:23 The Garden Case Explained 09:43 Kids And The Hidden Animals 11:37 Beauty Versus Weeds Debate 18:53 Invasive Plants And Real Harm 21:25 Where The State Draws The Line 29:33 Teaching Beauty Without Force 30:46 Kids and Creativity 31:29 Who Decides Beauty 33:03 What Is Beauty 34:25 Why This Kids Book 37:56 Illustrator and AI Art 41:14 Pandemic Panic Overview 42:59 Recording Pandemic Abuses 46:44 Charter and Human Rights 48:43 Oakes Test Explained 52:00 Human Rights Overreach Cases 01:01:08 Forced Endorsement by Tribunal 01:05:34 Defending Disagreement 01:08:43 Closing and Call to Action

Conservatism as a Coalition: NatCons, Trump, Media, & Bright Lines w Liberalism | Josh Lewis #100

How do we unify the very different voices on the non-Left? Do our differences mean we are doomed to a soft tyranny of centralized messaging? Josh Lewis has been wrestling with this, and many other issues, for the last 9 years on his podcast, Saving Elephants [https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/podcast]. He's hosted many of the biggest influencers in American conservatism, including a number of voices from Canada and Europe. The conservative movement is a jigsaw puzzle. Conservatives need to distinguish themselves from all the factions on the Left, while also retaining the distinct shapes of each puzzle piece. For conservatives, this is a conversation without end. If we grow tired of it, the coalition will fracture. Of course, we can't talk about American politics without talking about Trump -- plenty of that in this episode too. Thanks so much for checking this out! Let me know what you think. Shawn   Chapters and AI summary:  In the 100th episode of Concepts, host Shawn Whatley welcomes back Josh Lewis, founder of the Saving Elephants podcast, to discuss the coalitional nature of American (and Canadian) conservatism and how to handle disagreements within the movement. Lewis outlines enduring conservative factions—libertarians, traditionalists, and anti-communists—while exploring the rise and uncertainty of NatCon and post-liberal currents, Trump’s role as both aberration and lasting influence, and what Trump reveals about leadership, courage, and cultural “rot.” They also talk about why Lewis chose podcasting, where millennials and younger generations get information, how “bridge” institutions translate ideas, and competence as a key voter demand. The conversation culminates in proposed bright lines between liberalism and conservatism and reflections on how to appropriately mark America’s 250th anniversary. 00:00 Can Ideas Fix Politics 00:22 Episode 100 Welcome 02:06 Conservatism Is A Coalition 02:53 Nash Three Legged Stool 04:47 NatCon Moment And Trump 09:20 Avoiding Sectarian Purges 10:25 Handling The Crazy Uncle 13:49 Why Josh Chose Podcasting 18:34 Millennials News Habits 23:51 Scaling Ideas Beyond Nerds 29:42 Why I Stay Calm 31:02 What Voters Want 32:57 Competence Before Culture 34:35 Populism Versus Leadership 35:34 Trumpism After Trump 39:09 Courage And Character 42:16 Integrity And White Collar Crime 43:24 Ideas Versus Reality 45:22 Liberalism And Conservatism 50:36 Freedom Has A Purpose 54:48 America At 250 58:01 How To Celebrate A Nation 59:40 Closing Thanks

Identity Politics as an Incomplete Religion | Joshua Mitchell: American Awakening #99

Professor Joshua Mitchell is courageous. He argues for his positions even when they go against the grain of politically acceptable thought. Mitchell says conservatives have done a good job at addressing the debt and tradition economies. We are strong on fiscal policy, and we stand up for the debts we owe to our fathers. But we are almost completely blind to the more profound, urgent, and critical debt of guilt. Conservatives are blind to spiritual debt. The Left understands guilt and spiritual debt. It's their main focus. Criticize them for having bad data or for emotionalizing things, but the Left addresses an inescapable issue that the Right seems to miss entirely. I'd love to hear what you think of this episode. It's deep in places but also pointed and provocative. Thanks again for listening! Shawn Links: American Awakening [https://amzn.to/4ea9GnK] https://americanreformer.org/2026/03/whither-the-reformation-in-america/ [https://americanreformer.org/2026/03/whither-the-reformation-in-america/] Chapters and AI summary: Shawn Whatley interviews Georgetown political theorist Joshua Mitchell about his book American Awakening: Identity Politics and Other Afflictions of Our Time and his article on the Reformation in America. Mitchell argues the West’s turmoil is fundamentally a religious crisis, with identity politics functioning as a quasi-Christian, “incomplete religion” seeking purity and redemption without a Christian solution. He contrasts a “regime of competence” with a post-1989 suspension of history, critiques the feminization of public life as mercy detached from justice, and outlines three “economies” humans inhabit: payment, tradition, and spiritual debt. He contends conservatives focus on the first two while lacking language for the third, leaving the left to politicize guilt, stain, and redemption. Mitchell offers three futures—endless incomplete religions, Nietzschean rejection of Christian categories, or a return to Christianity—and emphasizes America’s covenantal Protestant imagination as key to overcoming identity politics. 00:00 Religious Crisis Frame 00:34 Show Intro Guest Setup 02:05 Is Woke Dead 03:02 Competence After 1989 04:53 Mercy Justice Feminization 07:09 Manliness Debate 09:20 Incomplete Religions Thesis 14:24 Nietzsche Tocqueville Futures 19:20 Three Economies Explained 24:00 Identity Politics As Religion 27:09 Tocqueville Self Interest 33:04 America Protestant Catholic Moment 34:53 Covenantal America Returns 35:56 Protestant Revival Warning 37:41 Host Rapid Fire Topics 41:16 Burke Simplicity Trap 43:37 Purity Stain Politics 47:43 Spiritual Economy Turn 50:20 Religion That Fits 55:00 France Religion Showdown 58:51 Aristotle Versus Plato 01:02:47 Covenant Beyond Nietzsche 01:03:45 Next Book Farewell

Conservatism’s Drift Toward Battle | Elizabeth Corey on Culture and the Contemplative Life #98

Professor Elizabeth Corey says conservatism is about far more than fighting. In fact, its major emphasis lies outside politics altogether. Corey offers a thick view of intellectual conservatism. She invites us into something challenging and deep.  I tried to push her on whether she was asking too much. Was her approach practicable? Should we never ever fight? What role does conflict play in a conservative philosophy? Professor Corey does not shy from these issues. She sees them as real questions for her students, but also in her own life. Let me know what you think of this episode! Thanks so much for checking it out. Shawn Links: https://lawliberty.org/podcast/conservatisms-lamentable-drift/ [https://lawliberty.org/podcast/conservatisms-lamentable-drift/] https://lawliberty.org/a-quiet-refusal-to-compromise/ [https://lawliberty.org/a-quiet-refusal-to-compromise/] Beautiful Losers [https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2026/03/100463/] https://essays.quotidiana.org/hazlitt/pleasure_of_hating/ [https://essays.quotidiana.org/hazlitt/pleasure_of_hating/] Michael Oakeshott on Religion, Aesthetics, and Politics [https://amzn.to/4e6Qvvc] Chapters and AI summary:   Host Shawn Whatley welcomes Baylor University honors program director and political science professor Elizabeth Corey to discuss her concerns that modern conservatism has become increasingly adversarial, reducing politics to winners and losers and neglecting culture, education, and the “realm of experience” beyond the friends-enemies dichotomy. Drawing on thinkers such as Oakeshott, Scruton, Pieper, Kirk, and Aristotle, Corey argues for understanding tradition as learned “practices” and for balancing the active and contemplative lives, resisting the urge to instrumentalize knowledge. They address internal conservative pluralism and the Philadelphia Society’s big-tent approach, the role of humility and charity in debate, and Corey’s reading of Laura Field’s Furious Minds on MAGA-linked institutions like Hillsdale and Claremont. Corey also discusses Hazlitt’s “pleasure of hating,” her First Things piece on admiring, and her forthcoming book The Heart of Learning. 00:00 Modern Conservatism as Battle 00:31 Meet Professor Elizabeth Corey 04:18 A Drift Toward Conflict 10:07 Hot Button Politics vs Real Life 12:03 Is Culture Enough 14:51 Tradition as Practices 20:54 Active Life vs Contemplation 26:29 Oakeshott on History and Modes 29:37 Defining Conservatism Today 33:25 Big Tent Debates and Economics 36:14 Life Beyond Economics 37:01 Avoiding Sectarian Right 39:04 Humility and Big Tent 41:02 Pluralist Conservative Case 44:32 Do Ideologies Still Matter 48:24 Furious Minds and MAGA 50:46 Hillsdale and Claremont 54:21 Pleasure of Hating 58:52 Heart of Learning 01:02:24 Can Admiration Survive

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

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