Conference examines the instability of the rule of law in theory and practice
In one of the last major events before the campus shutdown, law students at Massey College hosted their conference, “Threats and Limits to the Rule of Law,” on March 6, 2020. The conference brought together academics, practitioners, activists, and students to discuss the state of the rule of law, from the ways in which it has been challenged to its unsteady foundations in our own country.
Opening remarks were given by Mary Eberts, human rights lawyer and co-founder of the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund. Eberts gave an address about the necessity of maintaining vigilance towards the increasing diminution of the rule of law in many parts of the world, including very close to home.
The first panel, moderated by Karen Chen (3L), tackled the ways in which the benefit of the rule of law is not extended to many people.
Kate Kempton, partner at Olthuis Kleer Townshend, described Canadian rule of law as a blanket that continues to suffocate Indigenous peoples and lacks systemic legitimacy from the outset. Kempton suggested that movements like the Wet’suwet’en solidarity protests would only become more frequent unless the fundamental flaws in settler rule of law were addressed.
Professor Audrey Macklin drew links between how the Canadian rule of law excludes Indigenous peoples and how non-citizens experience a “diluted” form of the rule of law. Senator Kim Pate, an advocate for the rights of incarcerated people, discussed the staggering realities of incarceration rates. For example, she noted that in Saskatchewan, 98% of women in prison are Indigenous, and their struggles are often compounded by the harmful legacies of residential schools and intimate partner violence.
The conference continued with a panel examining how the rule of law is challenged by political action, moderated by Professor Lorraine Weinrib.
Professor Jutta Brunnée emphasized that the rule of law should not only concern lawyers, and suggested that the rule of law be conceived of as an ongoing practice rather than a static principle. Also on the panel was Adriel Weaver from Goldblatt Partners, who worked on the challenge to Bill 5, which cut Toronto City Council in half.
Weaver discussed how the “mischief” the bill sought to address—long council debates—was, essentially, an excess of deliberative democracy. Yet there remain reasons for optimism, according to Professor David Dyzenhaus: it is never too late to recuperate the rule of law, and practitioners can never afford to believe so.
Professor Dyzenhaus said that this is the time for the legal profession to renew its principles and fight back against the erosion of the rule of law.
Though attendees came from both within and beyond the legal profession, the day was stimulating for all. The intimate setting allowed for a frank discussion about a major institutional challenge facing our society, and ways in which all members of that society—not just lawyers—may work against these troubling trends.
Editor’s Note: Avnee Paranjape was an organizer of the conference.
