Search This Blog

Friday, January 11, 2019

Call for Submissions: Preyer Award. American Society for Legal History



Call for Submissions: Preyer Award. American Society for Legal History
Submissions are welcome on any topic in legal, institutional and/or constitutional history.
Early career scholars, including those pursuing graduate or law degrees, those who have completed their terminal degree within the previous year, and those independent scholars
at a comparable stage, are eligible to apply. At the annual meeting of the Society two early career legal historians designated Kathryn T. Preyer Scholars will present what would normally be their first papers to the Society. While papers simultaneously submitted to the ASLH Program committee are eligible, Preyer Award winners must present their paper as part of the Preyer panel and will be removed from any other panel.
Submissions should be a single MS Word document consisting of a complete curriculum vitae, contact information, and a complete draft of the paper to be presented. Papers should not exceed 50 pages (12 point font, double-spaced) and must contain supporting documentation. In past competitions, the Committee has given preference to draft articles and essays, though the Committee will also consider shorter conference papers, as one of the criteria for selection will
be the suitability of the paper for reduction to a twenty-minute oral presentation. The deadline
for submission is MARCH 15, 2019.  The two Kathryn T. Preyer Scholars will receive an 500 cash award and reimbursement of expenses up to $750 for travel, hotels, and meals.
Each will present the paper that s/he submitted to the competition at the Society’s annual meeting. The Society’s journal, Law and History Review, has published several past winners of the Preyer competition, though it is under no obligation to do so.
Named after the late Kathryn T. Preyer, a distinguished historian of the law of early America known for her generosity to early career legal historians, the program of Kathryn T. Preyer Scholars is designed to help legal historians at the beginning of their careers. At the annual meeting of the Society two early career legal historians designated Kathryn T. Preyer Scholars will present what would normally be their first papers to the Society. The generosity of Professor Preyer’s friends and family has enabled the Society to offer a small honorarium to the Preyer Scholars and to reimburse, in some measure or entirely, their costs of attending the meeting. The competition for Preyer Scholars is organized by the Society’s Kathryn T. Preyer Memorial Committee.
Please send submissions by March 19, 2019 to Laura Kalman, Chair, Preyer Award Committee, University of California, Santa Barbara, kalman@history.ucsb.edu.

Thursday, January 10, 2019

Room number for Osgoode Society Legal History Workshops--Winter term 2019


This term we will meet in Seminar Room 3, main floor, Falconer Hall.

NOT the new Jackman Building (attached to Flavelle House)
NOT Flavelle House, the building in front of the new Jackman Building

Falconer Hall is north of those two buildings, same (West) side of Queen's Park Ave., just south of the Museum.

Thursday, January 3, 2019

OSGOODE SOCIETY LEGAL HISTORY WORKSHOP, 2018-2019 WINTER TERM SCHEDULE



OSGOODE SOCIETY LEGAL HISTORY WORKSHOP, 2018-2019
WINTER TERM SCHEDULE

All Sessions begin at 6.30. Room TBA

Wednesday January 16: Nicholas Rogers, York University: 'Murder on the Middle Passage: The trial of Captain Kimber 1792'

Wednesday January 30: Philip Girard, Osgoode Hall Law School: ‘American Influences, Canadian Realities: The Rise and Fall of the Harvard Law Model in Canadian Legal Education’

Wednesday February 13: Jackson Tait, Osgoode Hall Law School: 'In Search of the Lex Mercatoria:  Canadian Legal Interpretation of Atlantic Marine Insurance Contracts, 1860 - 1924'

Wednesday February 27: Eric Reiter, Concordia University: ‘Robinson v. CPR (1882-92):  Law, Society and Wrongful Death in Quebec’  [tentative title]

Wednesday March 13: Mark Walters, McGill Law School: ‘The Quebec Act and the Covenant Chain: How Crown-Indigenous Treaty Relationships Shaped Imperial Constitutional Design’

Wednesday March 27: Colin Grittner, University of British Columbia: ‘Elective Legislative Councils and the Privileges of Property across Mid-Nineteenth-Century British North America’

Wednesday April 3: Patricia McMahon, Torys: TBA

Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Bourgeois,"Race, Space, and Prostitution: The Making of Settler Colonial Canada"

Robyn Bourgeois of Brock University has published "Race, Space, and Prostitution: The Making of Settler Colonial Canada" in Race, Gender, and Law: A Tribute to the Scholarship of Sherene Razack - Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 30.3, 2018.

This article examines the fundamental role that prostitution has played in securing settler colonial domination over Indigenous peoples and lands in the historical and ongoing making of the Canadian nation-state. Using the theoretical and methodological framework developed by critical anti-racist feminist scholar Sherene Razack, this article offers a spatial analysis tracing how prostitution has been deployed, repeatedly and in distinctly racialized and gendered ways, to secure settler colonial domination in Canada. This analysis focuses on four key examples: (1) early settlement in British Columbia; (2) the Indian Act; (3) the Pass System; and, more recently, (4) Vancouver's Missing Women. It also focuses on how these settler colonial deployments of prostitution contributed (and, in some ways, continue to contribute) not only to violence against Indigenous women and girls but also to the justification, legitimation, and erasure of this violence and, thus, its normalization within settler colonial society.

Tuesday, December 18, 2018

New from UBC Press: Disabling Barriers: Social Movements, Disability History, and the Law

Disabling Barriers

Social Movements, Disability History, and the Law

Edited by Ravi Malhotra and Benjamin Isitt





Disabling Barriers
Disabling Barriers analyzes issues relating to disability at different moments in Canadian and American history. In this volume, legal scholars, historians, and disability-rights activists demonstrate that disabled people can change their social status by transforming the political and legal discourse surrounding disablement.
Traditionally, disabled people were regarded as objects of pity and condescension. The rise of the social model of disablement – which identifies barriers, rather than physiological impairments, as the main problem facing people with disabilities – has resulted in a dramatic reconfiguration of how we regard political and legal structures affecting people with disabilities. Employing tools from the fields of law and history, this volume explores how disabled people have been portrayed and treated in a variety of contexts, including within the labour market, the workers’ compensation system, the immigration process, and the legal system (both as litigants and as lawyers).
This original contribution deepens our knowledge of the role of people with disabilities within social movements in disability history. The contributors encourage us to rethink our understanding of both the systemic barriers disabled people face and the capacity of disabled people to effect positive societal change.
This book will be of interest to scholars in the fields of disability studies, disability history, and disability law, as well as to disability activists in Canada and the United States.



Endowed Chair in Criminology and Criminal Justice--St. Thomas University, Fredericton


St. Thomas University is an undergraduate, liberal arts institution with a full-time enrolment of 1800. Its students graduate with Bachelor of Arts, Applied Arts, Education, and Social Work degrees. The faculty members are distinguished teachers, researchers and scholars, and the university holds two Canada Research Chairs.

Through a special endowment in Criminology and Criminal Justice, St. Thomas University is able to host the position of Endowed Chair in Criminology and Criminal Justice for a maximum of four months each year. The Endowed Chair is offered to a scholar with a well-established record of research. Candidates for an Endowed Chair appointment would normally have a PhD in Criminology or related field. Those appointed to the Chair are expected to teach one undergraduate course mutually agreed upon by the Department and the Chair holder, conduct research in criminology/criminal justice, and/or participate in a special symposium in their area of expertise.Appointment to the Chair includes travel and living expenses while in Fredericton, a research allowance, and a stipend of $24,000.00.

Additionally, an application under the Endowed Chair could be for a shorter time period and a specific activity that could include, but is not limited to: a workshop, conference, public lecture, series of class presentations, engagement with government agencies and non-profit agencies including, but not limited to: Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Public Safety New Brunswick, Correctional Services of Canada, John Howard Society, Elizabeth Fry Society, etc.

St. Thomas University is soliciting applications for either the January-April term or the September-December term. We are particularly interested in applications from researchers with expertise in the following areas: Crime Reduction Strategies, Effective Correctional Programming, Evidence-based Crime Prevention, Indigenous Peoples and the criminal justice system, Female Offenders, Senior Offenders, Cultural Criminology, Justice Involved & Youth, Organized Crime, Policing, Drug Policy, Cyber Security, Hate Crime & Hate Speech, Wrongful Convictions, or other areas of expertise in criminology and criminal justice.

Applications should include a statement of the research and other activities that will be conducted during the term of the Chair, including the course that would be offered, the term that would be most suitable for the appointment, a curriculum vitae, samples of scholarly writing, and arrange to have three letters of reference sent directly to Dr. Kim Fenwick, Vice-President (Academic & Research), St. Thomas University, Fredericton, NB, Canada, E3B 5G3. Electronic applications may be sent to vpacademic@stu.ca.

Closing date: April 15th, 2019, or when the position is filled. Applicants are responsible for ensuring that their completed applications, including letters of reference, are received by this date.

An equal opportunity employer, St. Thomas University is committed to employment equity for women, Aboriginal peoples, members of visible minority groups, and persons with disabilities. All qualified candidates are encouraged to apply; however, Canadians and permanent residents will be given priority.

Monday, December 17, 2018

Kirkby, "Reconstituting Canada: The Enfranchisement and Disenfranchisement of ‘Indians’, c. 1837-1900"


Coel Kirkby, of University of Sydney Law School, has posted  "Reconstituting Canada: The Enfranchisement and Disenfranchisement of ‘Indians’, c. 1837-1900" on SSRN. The article is forthcoming in the University of Toronto Law Journal.

Abstract

The constitutional history of Canada and First Nations is often told as the promise fulfilled of Aboriginal rights and treaties. I will challenge this dominant story by recovering the story of the enfranchisement and disenfranchisement of ‘Indian’ subjects in the first three decades of Canadian confederation. Far from forgotten actors in a foretold play, ‘Indian’ voters were crucial to determining the outcome of three closely-contested federal elections and challenging settler ideas of the nascent Canadian nation. The question of the ‘Indian’ franchise was always embedded in competing constitutional visions for Confederation. The Canadian dream of transforming and assimilating Indigenous peoples would give way to a cynical idea of segregation under the permanent regime of the Indian Act. If the Indian franchise was the apotheosis of assimilation, its revocation marked the start of racial segregation. I juxtapose these Canadian constitutional visions with two alternative possibilities. The Anishinaabe-dominated Grand General Council accepted the franchise as part of its vision of reconciling membership in both their treaty-recognized nations and the Canadian state. The Confederacy Council of the Six Nations, in contrast, rejected the franchise as an existential threat to Haudenosaunee self-rule mediated by a treaty relationship with the Canadian and imperial governments. Recovering the constitutional contests driving Indian enfranchisement and disenfranchisement shows us of how the successful imposition of a single vision of a white democracy silenced alternative visions of a multi-national coexistence. It also reminds us of the multiplicity of constitutional possibilities for a common constitutional future.