{"id":2004,"date":"2016-10-10T12:38:47","date_gmt":"2016-10-10T12:38:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/?p=2004"},"modified":"2017-01-14T19:12:10","modified_gmt":"2017-01-14T19:12:10","slug":"runnymede-society-debates-electoral-reform-and-other-upcoming-events","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/runnymede-society-debates-electoral-reform-and-other-upcoming-events\/","title":{"rendered":"Runnymede Society Debates Electoral Reform and Other Upcoming Events"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>You\u2019re invited to join the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/photo.php?fbid=10154625204773092&amp;set=gm.167996756984484&amp;type=3&amp;theater\">University of Toronto Runnymede Society Chapter<\/a> on Tuesday, October 11th for a debate between two leading Canadian public intellectuals on the currently pending issue of electoral reform!<\/p>\n<p><strong>Peter Loewen<\/strong>, <em>School of Public Policy and Governance<\/em>, will argue that\u00a0first past\u00a0the post has proven advantageous in our highly regionalized\u00a0democracy, we should not be quick to abandon it.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Andrew Coyne<\/strong>, <em>National Post<\/em>, will argue that Canada&#8217;s electoral system is\u00a0broken, and proportional representation is a step in the right\u00a0direction.<\/p>\n<p>The debate will be held on October 11, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. (With snack and drinks!) at Jackman Law Building, Classroom J140.<\/p>\n<p>This event has prompted a very enthusiastic response and space is limited. E-mail jbaron@theccf.ca to reserve a spot.<\/p>\n<p><strong>FALL RUNNYMEDE SOCIETY EVENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Follow @RunnymedeSoc and @jobearon on Twitter for future updates on chapter events. Currently scheduled:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Queen\u2019s University<\/strong>, October 20th: Debate: Trinity Western University, Freedom of Association (Daniel Santoro, DSF Litigation)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>McGill University<\/strong>, October 19th: How American Judges Judge: The Post-New Deal Evolution in Interpretive Method, and Where Are We Now?, with the Hon. Justice Diane Sykes, US Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>University of Calgary<\/strong>, October 25th: Carter, Assisted Dying, and Constitutional Challenges to Bill C-14 (Gerald Chipeur, QC, Prof Erin Sheley, Dr. Geoffrey Sigalet)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Dalhousie University<\/strong>, October 27th: Debate: Trinity Western University, Religious Liberty and Equality (Brian Casey QC, Prof Diana Ginn, Prof Ron MacDonald)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>University of Windsor<\/strong>, November 2nd: Debate: Trinity Western University, Religious Liberty and Equality (John Sikkema, Christian Legal Fellowship and Advocates for the Rule of Law, Ranjan Agarwal, Bennett Jones LLP, Prof Richard Moon)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>University of New Brunswick<\/strong>, November 8th: Panel: Comeau and Interprovincial Trade Barriers (Ian Blue, Gardiner Roberts LLP, Prof Nicole O\u2019Byrne, Prof Michael Maron)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>University of Ottawa<\/strong>, November 14th: Debate: Marijuana Legalization and Assisted Dying (back-to-back debate rounds with voting), Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal MP, Garnett Genuis, Conservative MP<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>University of Alberta<\/strong>, November 28th: Debate: Physician-Assisted Suicide with Prof Margaret Somerville and Prof Erin Nelson (students will also be meeting for a reading group several times in advance of Prof Somerville\u2019s visit to read and discuss her new book, \u201cBird on an Ethics Wire\u201d).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>You\u2019re invited to join the University of Toronto Runnymede Society Chapter on Tuesday, October 11th for a debate between two leading Canadian public intellectuals on the currently pending issue of electoral reform! Peter Loewen, School of Public Policy and Governance, will argue that\u00a0first past\u00a0the post has proven advantageous in our highly regionalized\u00a0democracy, we should not &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1254,"featured_media":1697,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[77],"tags":[50,196,277,276,208],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2004"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1254"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2004"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2004\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2010,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2004\/revisions\/2010"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1697"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2004"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2004"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ruleoflaw.ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2004"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}