The volume includes a preface by Professor Oliver Botar, setting the stage for a diverse array of essays contributed by esteemed faculty members from both institutions. Among the highlights are contributions from additional School of Art faculty:

• Katherine Boyer and Suzanne McLeod, co-authoring with Jarvis Brownlie: “Opapamipiciwak” Those Who Move from Place to Place: A Story Distorted
• David Foster: Mieke Bal’s Travels in Autotheory
• Grace Nickel: Anabaptist Potters: A Historical and Contemporary Legacy

This collection covers topics ranging from cyclical and imposed mobility to artistic interpretations of nomadism, identity, memory, and transnational integration. The volume also includes insightful explorations of nomadism in film, with works by Réka M. Cristian herself and other esteemed contributors.

The Nomadisms volume is freely available in EPUB format here. For those who prefer a physical copy, it can be purchased via Amazon in print-on-demand format here.

In seeking to further the understanding of the human experience of coerced and forced ignorance on social, human rights and criminal justice related topics, the editors of this book have drawn together scholars from multiple disciplinary fronts. As a whole, the book argues that people in our social world are forced or coerced through either implicatory or interpretive denial that is normalized through specific cultural and social mechanisms by which we refer to as non-knowledge or agnosis.

This book’s focus fills a gap in scholarship examining how human victimization and power intersect through the systematic orchestration of forced ignorance and doubt upon daily human life. The chapters examine the ways in which people find themselves in social spaces without empirical clarity and understand that absence as satisfaction, stability, or perhaps even pleasure. This book seeks to make visible the role of ignorance in governing society, highlighting how the late modern human experience in a post-World War II human rights era subsumes, subverts, and sublimates the complex relationship between knowledge and denial; and that the empirical gulf between knowledge and resistance may indeed breed complicit bliss.

The book includes chapters written by other UM Faculty of Law affiliated scholars including: Assistant Professor Martine Dennie, author of “You Just Roll with the Punches”: The Production of Ignorance in Professional Ice Hockey“; Gacek and Jochelson with former Associate Professor David Ireland [JD/2010; LLM/2014] (now a Manitoba Provincial Court judge), co-authors of “Gone, but Not Forgotten: The Agnotological Necropolitics of Inquest Fatality Reports“; Shawn Singh [JD/2022] and Assistant Professor Brandon Trask [JD/2012], co-authors of “Faded by Design: Manufacturing Agnosis of Settler-Colonialism in an Era of Indigenous Truth and Reconciliation in Canada“; Dr. Katie Szilagyi, author of “Fragmenting Epistemologies: Toward Philosophical Foundations for Machine Learning in Law“; and finally Shawn Singh and Brandon Trask individually with papers titled “Shortfalls of the Bioethical Approach to COVID-19: Vaccine Hesitancy, the Right to Choose and Public Health Management in Canada” (Singh); and “Call It Democracy: The Slippage Amongst Rights, Laws, and Values in Canada During the Pandemic Era” (Trask).

Upon the release of Justice in the Age of Agnosis Jochelson and Gacek addressed some questions regarding the need for this book at this time in this era of widespread access to information and widespread ignorance and misinformation.

What inspired you both to join forces to publish a book on this topic?

Gacek: During the height of the pandemic I watched how various conspiracy theorists seemed to be gaining traction on social media. I, like the rest of the world, was concerned about the uncertainties of Covid-19, but I was also alarmed with how misinformation was being weaponized to attack scientists, academics, and health care practitioners. Speaking to Richard on these topics, we agreed that this production of non-knowledge, or the avoidance of knowledge, seemed to leach into other areas of our social world – like how those who are climate change deniers could also potentially deny the benefits of vaccines, or believed that if they ‘did their own research’ on vaccines they would end up realizing a ‘New World Order’ was coming to replace them (i.e., where we see inklings of white nationalist thought).

[W]e felt it necessary to question whether ignorance was indeed blissful, or if the production of non-knowledge or said avoidance would worsen the conditions of already marginalized populations more so than the privileged. – Dr. James Gacek, Department of Justice, University of Regina

As an academic I’m not immune to hate mail on my justice research and teachings, but even I couldn’t believe the correspondence I received during the pandemic, with the rationales some individuals used to suggest the examples above were facts! Climate change denial, anti-vax conspiracy, white nationalism… the list goes on, but how firmly rooted these perspectives are in these people is where the ruminations on the book began. These people, whether they peddle in ignorance claims or are victims to said claims (or both), exist, and Richard and I became fascinated with them. [This was] where we set out to conceive the book.

Richard and I have worked on projects for a few years now, and given our interdisciplinary research relationship, we felt it necessary to question whether ignorance was indeed blissful, or if the production of non-knowledge or said avoidance would worsen the conditions of already marginalized populations more so than the privileged. Agnotology – the study of ignorance, misinformation, and following on, conspiracy—is a new area for us, but it is where we felt we needed to be having this discussion alongside other pertinent and cognate disciplines like law, socio-legal studies, criminology, and criminal justice (among others). Our discussion slowly evolved into where we assert in the book we are living in now: the Age of Agnosis; the political warfare and weaponization of non-knowledge and avoidance of knowledge to harm people in our world.

Jochelson: I was interested in the seeming disconnect between empiricism and the growing spiritual claims of both the left and right of the political spectrum. This is something I had commented on in 2016 upon USA presidential elections and it was a good example of how the left reacted to that election almost spiritually in its conception of repugnancy of the result. I noted that the left was making claims that were echoing some of the right’s moralistic reasoning during the 1980s.

There seems to be a late modern anxiety about waiting for science, law or disciplinary skill to yield a final result, and we seem to be advocating, shouting down and calling out each other, increasingly and at times, in a vacuum of empirical findings. In other words, in a state of ignorance. – Dr. Richard Jochelson, Dean of Law, University of Manitoba

I had always viewed the left of the spectrum as prizing evidence-based practice. In the intervening years, spiritual polarization between left and right has increasingly mobilized social movements. The Pandemic is a good example, with true believers on both sides of the political spectrum.  There seems to be a late modern anxiety about waiting for science, law or disciplinary skill to yield a final result, and we seem to be advocating, shouting down and calling out each other, increasingly and at times, in a vacuum of empirical findings. In other words, in a state of ignorance. 

What audience can benefit from the knowledge contained in this book and how?

Gacek: A wide range of readers can benefit from this book! Of course, we know undergraduate and graduate students, but also scholars, policy workers, and community activists would benefit from a fresh lens on world issues like what we incorporate here. Justice impacts all in society, but not all equally; how ignorance, misinformation, and conspiracy not only takes root but insidiously pervades our world needs to be further understood.

Jochelson: Agnosis knows no politics. From political actors through to people with main character syndrome, I think readers should challenge their views by reading the book, which contains views across a reasoned political spectrum.

What solutions to the problems of oppression and ignorance does this book offer?

Gacek: It would be easy for us to say that education, like sunlight, would be the best disinfectant to shine light upon what we don’t know – but as agnosis teaches us, the politics of ignorance is profitable. Our contributors, in various ways, demonstrate that it is not just education that we need; we need compassion and empathy for the marginalized; strong legal mechanisms to hold those tasked in the political and private spheres accountable, especially those who peddle in hate and conspiratorial claims; and better ways to reconcile with traumatic histories that still play into contemporary realities for many marginalized groups in society.

Jochelson: I think we need to return to evidence-based practice whether it is the fuel that drives advocacy, social movements or law reform. We need to learn to drop straw person arguments and tether ourselves to the technologies of something more objective than blind belief or wilful spiritualism.

Do the ideas presented in this book scratch the surface of this area of legal research or is there more work to be done in this area?

Gacek: Our book endeavours to challenge readers on how they gain their knowledge of the world, on how we think about accountability for ignorance production, and on the longstanding harms marginalized peoples continuously face because of agnosis. The potential to have a more informed and empathetic world is real, and our book is a starting point for this discussion.

Jochelson: I think it is an opening salvo. I would challenge all social science, humanities and socio-legal scholars to ask themselves about the objective foundations of their arguments. To the extent that their labour is emotional or spiritual, an objective tethering point ought to at least frame the analysis so we engage in critical analysis apprised of the best information.

Within her first year of working at the University of Manitoba, Hansen joined a team of 13 other disabled academics to study from a disabled-person’s perspective, Nazi Germany’s policy of eugenics, which led to segregation, institutionalization, sterilization, and mass murder.

From the horrors of this dark chapter, Hansen resolved that “never again” for her meant she needed to retell history from a disability perspective. In doing so, she sought to influence public attitudes and opinions—and consequently public policy—by “regularizing” the presence of disability in everyday life.

“It’s about putting disability back into the historical landscape by increasing its visibility and recognizing that our history is richer because of disability,” Hansen said. “Disability is rich and textured and important.”

Now associate professor in the University of Manitoba’s interdisciplinary master’s program in disability studies, Hansen has co-edited two books—Untold Stories: A Canadian Disability History Reader, and The Routledge History of Disability, the latter having been recently released in paperback format.

“Disability is creativity at a moment’s notice. It adds depth and texture. It’s another element in the human experience. We’re completing the picture.”

Released in May 2018, the Canadian history documents how persons lived and worked with disabilities in its many forms—mental, physical, and cognitive. The book also addresses the ways public policy in Canada was shaped by persons living with disabilities—many of whom were from Winnipeg.

‘Cradle of the disability rights movement’

“Winnipeg is the cradle of the disability rights movement in Canada, full stop,” she said, noting that people like Jim Derksen, Henry Enns, Allan Simpson, George Dyck, Yvonne Peters, and Doreen Demas were instrumental in the development and passing of equality and disability rights provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN convention on the rights of disabled people, as well as the Accessibility for Manitobans Act.

The second book released in 2017, broadens the historical scope and perspective to tell the story of disabled persons worldwide, encompassing antiquity to the 21st century.In researching the books, Hansen found that historical figures with disabilities were subject to editing.

“Historically represented individuals have had disability as a part of their experience. But traditionally, we’ve been subject to historical erasure,” Hansen said. “Because it would seem that if that disability is recognized that somehow the accomplishment is diminished.” 

Traditionally, the topic of disability has been approached in Western-European literature as a one-dimensional, medicalized understanding that sees disability as a deficit. However, Hansen’s history texts expand the story to include inter-sectional approaches that cross paths with other social spheres, including racial, ethnic, religious, cultural, sexual, gender and class divides. 

“It’s important to recognize that we’re not just one thing, Hansen said. “We have rich, vital lives and we’re working toward social justice.”

By framing disability as a natural part of the human condition, Hansen is excited about a future where society seeks to embrace the largely untapped into the potential of a population that represents 1 billion people worldwide, 20 per cent of the Canadian population and one-in-six Manitobans.

“Disability is creativity at a moment’s notice. It adds depth and texture. It’s another element in the human experience,” Hansen said. “We’re completing the picture.”

Click the links, if you are interested in purchasing Hansen’s books, Untold Stories: A Canadian Disability History Reader, and The Routledge History of Disability.

What no one predicted, but what they may not have found surprising, was that a half-century later, nuclear non-proliferation is still a going concern in the world. And in a twist of fate, the current Dean of Law at Robson Hall, Dr. Jonathan Black-Branch, happens to be a scholar who has devoted years of his legal academic career to the field of International Nuclear law. Last month, upon the 50^th anniversary of the Treaty’s coming into force, Asser Press published Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law: Vol. V – Legal Challenges for Nuclear Deterrence and Security, edited by Black-Branch, and Dr. Dieter Fleck.

Dr. Jonathan Black-Branch, Dean of Law. Photo by Mike Latschislaw.

“The ultimate goal of my work in this area is to be ‘out of work’, so to speak,” said Black-Branch. “That is, to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons and explosive devices; complete disarmament. To one day see countries in possession of nuclear weapons comply with their legal obligations to under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968) whereby we have complete and verifiable disarmament. Where we live in a world with nuclear peace and freedom from nuclear fear as proposed in our Winnipeg Declaration 2018,” he said, referring to a document that arose out of one of now three conferences on Nuclear law that he has organized at the Faculty of Law since arriving at Robson Hall in 2016.

The latest volume of the Black-Branch and Fleck series, focuses on various legal aspects regarding nuclear security assurances and nuclear deterrence, and is part of an in-depth long-term study on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the three main pillars of which are non-proliferation of nuclear weapons; the right to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes; and nuclear disarmament. Opened for signatures in 1968, the Treaty came into force in 1970. It is to this day, an object of continuing concern to advocates of nuclear non-proliferation.  The International Law Association’s (ILA) Committee on Nuclear Weapons, Non-Proliferation and Contemporary International Law, which was founded and is chaired by Black-Branch, has been meeting since 2006 with independent experts in cooperation with the foundation/charity ISLAND – International Society of Law and Nuclear Disarmament, to discuss and make recommendations as to how to effectively implement the terms of the Treaty, and other nuclear-related legal obligations. The issues and concerns surrounding this area of law are complicated and surrounding delicate political climates that must be handled with great care and diplomacy.

“As far as I can see,” said Fleck, “our ILA Committee has been the first to look into the three pillars of the NPT Treaty in context, thus bringing experts from three different areas – non-proliferation, safety of nuclear energy, and nuclear disarmament – together and making interrelationships between these different issues more visible.”

Black-Branch expanded that, “The Committee mandate is ‘to consider competing legal approaches to non-proliferation and regulating nuclear weapons within the contemporary context’, with a special focus on controversial issues and existing interdependencies between the three pillars.  The Treaty has to be examined in its entirety, taking into consideration the interdependent pillars.”

In order to accomplish this work, Fleck explained, the committee has organised two research conferences in Cologne, Germany, (each based on an international call for papers), Round Tables in Brighton, London, and Winnipeg, and Sydney as well as Black-Branch hosted two student-focused Round Tables at Dar Al-Hekma University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Black-Branch and Fleck have published numerous ILA Reports and five peer-reviewed academic Volumes in print with Volume

Volume V of Nuclear Non-proliferation in International Law

VI in progress. Volume I contained an exposé of relevant legal issues and international concerns, identifying and addressing questions requiring application of rules from various fields of inter-national law and practice. Volume II reviewed aspects of verification and compliance, Volume III focused on legal aspects of the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, Volume IV emphasized different human perspectives on the use of nuclear energy, examining the need for regional solutions, and the revived interest on a global scale in prohibiting and fully abolishing nuclear weapons. This volume included papers by three Robson Hall law professors besides Black-Branch, and one law student.

The just-published fifth Volume mentioned above, comes prior to the 10th NPT Review Conference (2020) and is, for the most part, the result of a research conference on Regional Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament: Controls, Defence and Diplomacy, held at Winnipeg’s Canadian Museum for Human Rights in September, 2018, followed by a Round Table on Legal Challenges for Nuclear Deterrence and Nuclear Security held last March in London.  Volume VI will focus on Nuclear Disarmament and Security at Risk and Challenges.

Black-Branch and the ILA Committee will next meet at the end of March at Emmanuel College in Cambridge, UK, for an intersessional meeting and Round Table to discuss legal challenges for nuclear deterrence and security. This event will be hosted by the University of Manitoba’s Faculty of Law, together with ISLAND and the ILA Committee.

The up-coming ILA Committee Report will be presented at the ILA conference in Kyoto which will mark the 75^th Anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The Report marks “the last major achievement in this field,” said Fleck, “thus contributing to transparency in a difficult and complex area of international law, but it also identifies unresolved challenges and issues – for example, on verification; radioactive waste management; nuclear deterrence strategies – that remain highly controversial. While such controversies remain connected with competing interests and all issues are political in nature,” Fleck added, “one of the greatest weaknesses of our research group Is the lack of funds for the endeavours of ISLAND; but at the same time our greatest strength is our independence.”

Dean Black-Branch’s work can best be summed up in his own words: “We must live in a world with nuclear peace and freedom from nuclear fear.  For years throughout the Cold War and afterwards many people have advocated the traditional deterrence approach saying that nuclear weapons protect us in that no country would have mutual destruction. Let us be clear: Nuclear weapons do not protect peace – nuclear weapons threaten peace.”

Fifty years after Professor Gibson hid his prediction in the law building’s wall, we are relieved that he was wrong and we hope he remains so, with the help of the Dean’s work.