Wednesday, October 08, 2025

Podcast for Inquiry S04E20: Modern Stoicism for modern life, with modern Stoic Donald Robertson

Donald Robertson (Substack) is a writer, cognitive-behavioural psychotherapist, and trainer. He is one of the founding members of the Modern Stoicism nonprofit, and the founder and president of the Plato’s Academy Centre nonprofit in Athens, Greece.


My conversation with Donald traces the path from ancient Stoicism to the modern day. The word stoicism had come to mean something very different over time, but that has started to change as Stoicism (the philosophy) has been more popular in recent years. Stoic principles lie at the heart of cognitive behavioural therapy, and we talk about how incorporating Stoic principles into one’s own life can lead to more emotional resilience, a greater sense of satisfaction, and more meaningful relationships with others.

Support Podcast for Inquiry on Patreon, subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts (Spotify Apple YouTube Music Deezer Player.fm), or listen here:  

A video recording is also available:  

Monday, October 06, 2025

Come see me perform stand up comedy!

Hello, friends!

I am taking the Advanced Stand-Up course at Comedy Bar, and the showcase for our class is coming up later this month. It's a funny group, and I'm looking forward to performing all new material. Come see me!

When: Wednesday, October 22nd at 7:00 PM

Where: Comedy Bar, 2800 Danforth Avenue, Toronto

Price: $15. You can buy ticket in advance here or at the door. 

I hope to see you there!


Wednesday, October 01, 2025

BCHA and Canadian Secular Alliance submit their brief on Quebec's Bill 21 to the Supreme Court of Canada


The following essay was first published in the October 2025 edition of Critical Links. 

The BCHA and CSA submitted their ten-page argument against Quebec's Bill 21 in September. (CFIC came out against Bill 21 back in 2019; see here and here and here and here for previous Critical Links articles).

There are fundamentally two arguments in the submission:
  1. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated and reiterated several times that Canada is a secular nation, with a duty of neutrality in matters of religion. This duty is baked into the Charter.
  2. What constitutes a religious symbol is a matter of personal perspective, and the state is incapable, even in principle, of making such a determination. Therefore, any law that requires the state to distinguish between religious and non-religious symbols is legally incoherent.
Let's get into a bit more detail on each of these points.

Canada is a secular nation beyond freedom of religion
The duty of state neutrality in matters of religion is an independent constitutional principle. It doesn't follow from freedom of religion; rather the freedom of religion clause of the Charter is an expression of the state's duty of neutrality. In fact, it is a democratic imperative, and is thus an inherent part of the Charter. There have been other unwritten principles read into the Charter, and it is appropriate to make this understanding, present and implicit since the Charter was ratified, explicit. State neutrality, as a duty, cannot be subsumed within a Charter right. Therefore the state must remain secular - neutral in matters of religion - even if the Charter provision guaranteeing freedom of religion is nullified by invoking the notwithstanding clause.

The state is incapable of determining what is a religious symbol
There is ample jurisprudence stating that "religious freedom is premised on the personal volition of individual believers" and variations on that theme. Therefore the practice of religion, and the meaning of its symbols, is individual and subjective. Some laws might have the effect of restricting religious freedom (e.g., wearing hard hats on a construction site), but that might be an acceptable cost for some social good (health and safety). But legislation intentionally restricting religion puts the state into the position of determining what is and is not religious expression. Christmas is a religious holiday, but are earrings in the shape of Christmas trees a religious symbol? It might be for some, and not for others. How is the state to decide? The state must maintain its neutral stance and not have a perspective, and thus Bill 21 is incompatible with Canada as a secular state.


Why did BCHA and CSA choose these arguments?
All interveners (38 of them - likely a record!) have just five minutes each for oral arguments, and only ten pages for a written submission. Given these restrictions, it's important to choose a limited number of propositions, so that they may be argued comprehensively. These arguments are at the heart of the purposes of BCHA and CSA, and if accepted will result in a just decision (striking down Bill 21) without the messiness of considering Section 33.

What other legal arguments are there against Bill 21?
There are several other ways to argue against Bill 21. 

One is that the use of the notwithstanding clause is inappropriate in this case, so the freedom of religion clause of the Charter still applies to this law. The Canadian federal government's submission, for example, will "urge the court to set limits on how the notwithstanding clause could be invoked" to avoid having provincial legislatures "indirectly amending the Constitution".

Another is to invoke section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which says the rights and freedoms it grants are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Opponents of Bill 21 could argue that this law cannot be demonstrably justified.

Finally, there are sections of the Charter that are not covered by the notwithstanding clause. (Invoking the notwithstanding clause means certain rights guaranteed by the Charter do not apply to a particular piece of legislation, but other rights are not subject to this exemption.) Two such sections are s27 on multiculturalism, and s28 on equality between male and female persons. Given Quebec courts noted that the negative effects of the law, whatever its intentions, falls disproportionately upon Muslim women, the Court might rule Bill 21 to be unconstitutional on these grounds. Other interveners will be making this argument.

What will those who support Bill 21 say?

From a legal perspective, there are many arguments to be made in the bill's favour, . 

Quebec's duly elected government has passed this bill following the appropriate processes, and it is an overreach of the Supreme Court of Canada to intervene in Quebec's internal affairs. The Quebec government's submission will likely be along these lines.

Other arguments will focus on the freedom of religion clause of the Charter and the fact that Quebec invoked the notwithstanding clause. Some interveners may argue that Bill 21 does not violate anyone's freedom of religion, so such challenges to the law have no merit. Personally, I find this argument weak and doubt it will convince any of the Supreme Court Justices. However, a related one is much stronger: even if the bill violates freedom of religion and/or freedom of expression, these sections are covered by the notwithstanding clause and thus the bill cannot be struck down on this basis. This is essentially the logic of the decisions from the Quebec courts, and the Supreme Court may decide to rule similarly.

Another approach being taken by some interveners is to agree that Canada is a secular nation, and define secularism as the "separation of church and state". Since Bill 21 applies only to government employees, who are therefore representatives of the state in public-facing roles, Bill 21 is furthering the principle of secularism and there is no Charter violation. This is the basis of why several secular organizations support Bill 21.


This will be a long, complex, and hotly contested hearing. No date has yet been set, though it will likely be at some point in early 2026. A decision probably will not be published for at least six months after that.

CFIC will keep you up to date on this important case as it unfolds.

Saturday, September 27, 2025

Podcast for Inquiry S04E19: Justin Ling on the right wing media ecosystem

Justin Ling (@justinling.ca) is an investigative journalist who writes the Bug-eyed and Shameless newsletter and recently published the book The 51st State Votes

Our conversation begins with the right wing media ecosystem, and its effect particularly on US politics. Justin explains why there isn’t really a counterpart on the left, and what makes Canada different from the United States in this regard. Leslie and Justin move on to democracy and authoritarianism on the international stage, and how to develop healthy media consumption habits in today’s world.

Support Podcast for Inquiry on Patreon, subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts (Spotify Apple YouTube Music Deezer Player.fm), or listen here:  

A video recording is also available: 



Friday, September 12, 2025

Podcast for Inquiry S04E18: The Examined Run with Sabrina Little

Podcast for Inquiry is back after its summer hiatus!

Sabrina Little is a philosopher, ultra-runner, and the author of The Examined Run: Why Good People Make Better Runners. She is a five-time U.S. National Champion in trail and ultrarunning, a former American Record Holder, and World Silver Medalist. 

In today’s episode, Sabrina answers the question: Why do good people make better runners? What are the performance enhancing virtues, and do they outweigh the performance enhancing vices? She talks about the difference in taking a short vs long term perspective, the importance and challenge of balancing the multiple areas of life that need your time and attention, what being competitive means, and how the same behaviours can be described in very different ways.

Support Podcast for Inquiry on Patreon, subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts (Spotify Apple YouTube Music Deezer Player.fm), or listen here:  

A video recording is also available: 



Friday, July 25, 2025

My first professional stand up comedy gig

 In April and May, I took an Introduction to Stand Up Comedy course at Comedy Bar. My first attempt was dreadful (though opinions may differ), but with the insightful guidance of my classmates and teacher, Dan Galea, I put together a "tight five" set that I am pretty proud of.

The class performance went well enough that in June I was asked to be one of a dozen comics at a subsequent show for budding comedic talents. I think my first professional stand-up gig went quite well; you can judge for yourself below. 

I hope you enjoy. 



Wednesday, July 16, 2025

Leslie's Diatribes #4: Show Me The Money!

There are many critiques that people have made about the AI industry: privacy, piracy, electricity and water usage, hallucinations, and more. Today's Podcast for Inquiry is a monologue in which I ask: Where does the money for AI firms come from? Each AI datacentre costs tens of billions to build, and hundreds of billions have been spent across the industry. Each time an LLM answers a question, or an AI model generates an image, audio file, or video, a lot of power and CPU cycles are used - in other words, AI is expensive to build and expensive to run. Hardly any consumers, and very few companies, are paying for AI services. If they’re not profitable, and there’s no clear path to become so, why are the market capitalizations of AI firms so high? 

I asks these questions, and more, in latest diatribe. 

Note: Opinions in this episode are mine alone, and are not shared by others on the Podcast for Inquiry team or the Centre for inquiry Canada.

Support Podcast for Inquiry on Patreon, subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts (Spotify Apple YouTube Music Deezer Player.fm), or listen here:  

A video recording is also available: 



Wednesday, June 18, 2025

Podcast for Inquiry S04E12: Aaron Devor explains the ABCs of the Trans+ community

I speak with Aaron about many issues related to transgender people, or the Trans+ community. We discuss how the perceived binaries of sex, sexual preference, gender, and gender expression are more complicated and nuanced in reality. Aaron details how many people identify as transgender and nonbinary in Canada, and provides insights into many current controversies including pronouns, sports, puberty blockers, and incarceration. 

Dr. Aaron Devor, PhD, FSSSS, FSTLHE, is an internationally recognized leader in Transgender Studies who has been studying and teaching about transgender topics since the early 1980s. He established and holds the world’s first Chair in Transgender Studies; initiated and hosts the international, interdisciplinary, and intergenerational Moving Trans History Forward Transgender Archives. He has published widely on transgender topics and has received numerous awards for his research and advocacy work. His opinions are frequently sought by the media, and he has delivered more than 40 keynote and plenary addresses to audiences around the world. He is a national-award-winning teacher, a former Dean of Graduate Studies, and a professor of Sociology, at the University of Victoria.

Support Podcast for Inquiry on Patreon, subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts (Spotify Apple YouTube Music Deezer Player.fm), or listen here:  

A video recording is also available: 



Wednesday, June 04, 2025

Two secular humanist organizations jointly apply for intervener status at Supreme Court hearing of Bill 21

The following essay first appeared in the June 2025 edition of Critical Links, the newsletter of the Centre for Inquiry Canada.

Two secular humanist organizations jointly apply for intervener status at Supreme Court hearing of Bill 21


The constitutionality of Quebec's Bill 21, which (among other things) bans provincial government employees from wearing of "ostentatious" religious clothing and symbols, is heading to the Supreme Court of Canada.

No issue has split the secular community of Canada like Bill 21. Several organizations, including CFIC, Canadian Secular Alliance, and BC Humanist Association, have come out strongly against the legislation. Humanist Canada has not taken an official position on the bill (though it did host a four part webinar series on the topic). The Mouvement Laïque Québécois - which stood staunchly against prayers to open municipal council meetings - is a major proponent of Bill 21. 

CFIC has covered the progress of this legislation extensively. CFIC came out against the bill back in 2019. In May 2020, Critical Links described the unsuccessful court case to suspend the bill until the full challenge could be heard. In November 2020, CFIC reported on the case as it was heard at the Quebec Superior Court, and again in April 2021 when the Quebec Superior Court rendered its verdict. The third and fourth episodes of Podcast for Inquiry were dedicated to secular arguments in favour (Caroline Russell-King) and against (Catherine Francis) the bill in early 2022. 

From the April 2021 Critical Links article: "The ruling largely upholds the provisions of Bill 21, with two notable exceptions: The bill would be “inoperative” for English school boards in the province, and restrictions would not apply to sitting Members of the National Assembly." Many groups still affected by Bill 21's provisions appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, as did the Quebec government, which was unhappy with the exemption for English school boards.

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear the case later this year or in early 2026. The BC Humanist Association and Canadian Secular Alliance have filed a joint application to be interveners in the case. (The CSA was an intervener in the Saguenay (municipal prayers) and Trinity Western University (see here and here for details) cases.) Both organizations, like CFIC, believe that Bill 21 is an unjustified infringement on religious expression, and will argue that Bill 21 should be struck down.

There was a large number of organizations that applied for intervener status in this case, and typically only a few such requests are granted. A decision is not expected for several months; Critical Links will keep you up to date on this case.


Podcast for Inquiry S03E11: Is nuclear energy low carbon, cost efficient, and sustainable? Jason Donev has the answers.

If uranium in a nuclear power plant emits so much radiation it boils tons of water, how safe is it for workers? Given the huge facilities required and massive mining efforts, is nuclear truly carbon neutral? Is there enough uranium in the earth for nuclear energy to be a long term source of electricity? If we build more nuclear plants, will we retire fossil fuel sources of electricity or simply increase our electricity usage accordingly? 

Jason Donev answers all these questions, and more, in our second conversation on nuclear energy. 


References from our conversation:


https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/what-is-the-budget-for-canadas-first-smr-project

https://energyeducation.ca/simulations/radiation_dose_calculator/index.html 

https://xkcd.com/radiation/ 


Prof. Jason Donev is tenured at the University of Calgary. He leads the world’s largest and most used energy resource for adults, EnergyEducation.ca. Prof. Donev works to help people understand nuclear power's role in providing reliable energy without emitting greenhouse gasses.

Support Podcast for Inquiry on Patreon, subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts (Spotify Apple YouTube Music Deezer Player.fm), or listen here:  

A video recording is also available: