Peter F

It sucks because it says after 18 weeks the decision goes to the health board. I do indeed realize that this sort of law is pretty much the norm everywhere and that sucks too.

I'm quite sure that some employers, as you say, really do need employees. I bet they need workers really really bad. You are suggesting that government then step in and solve their problem. Sorta like the Employers provide an essential service. Except we're talking about mostly restraunts and stuff like that. I say boot up the wages to attract the workers or set up shop somewhere else or close the place down.

Allright, so up to 18 weeks into the pregnancy the woman can freely choose to abort. After 18 weeks she cannot. So Swedens laws suck.

Empower MP's to vote agains their own party platform? What madman of a PM would ever be so goddam stupid.

But not a millstone round English necks?

a very good post.

read section 4

Simple. Any abortion no matter the circumstance requires the permission of the National Board of Health and Welfare. IE others are making her decision for her.

Hows about 'millstone round English necks' ?

Not so. They didn't add anything to the Constitution. They said that sexual orientation was no basis for exemption from Sec 15 of the constitution which guarantees equal protection and benefit of the law to every individual . IE they interpreted 'every individual ' to include gay people too. How very 'activist' of them. So they did not rewrite anything unless one takes the position that homosexuals are not 'individuals' protected by law. The same applies for your other examples. The court interprets what is written they do not add or edit legislation.

Where did they do that? Try to amend the Supreme Court Act you mean? They (present government) did that on October 22nd 2013 by introducing Bill C4 into parliament. Bill C4 "a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on March 21" Specifically clauses 471 and 472 of the Bill C4 Thats when they did that. The time-line involved in the disputed appointment of Mr.Nadon is interesting: 11 June 2013: SCC selection panel announced (http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr-cp/2013/doc_32908.html) 30 September 2013: PM Harper announces his selection Federal Court judge Marc Nadon to the SCC (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2013/09/30/pm-announces-nominee-supreme-court-canada) 22 October 2013: Government introduces bill C4 to parliament 22 October 2013: The Gov.Gen. in Council issues Order in Council P.C. 2013-1105 referring to the SCC questions about the correctness of articles 471 and 472 of Bill C4 (http://www.pco.gc.ca/oic-ddc.asp?lang=eng&Page=secretariats&txtOICID=2013-1105&txtFromDate=&txtToDate=&txtPrecis=&txtDepartment=&txtAct=&txtChapterNo=&txtChapterYear=&txtBillNo=&rdoComingIntoForce=&DoSearch=Search+%2F+List&viewattach=28366&blnDisplayFlg=1 So my point stands about 'when did they do that?'. Harper appointed Nadon at the end of September then introduced legislation to thee weeks later to make him eligible.

Yeah, it was so clear-cut an appointment that the government had to change the legislation to make Nadon eligible for appointment.

When have they ever 'rewritten' laws? The constitution of this country ( brought about by parliament) require the SCC to check and balance the executive branch. That they did and have done. They strike down laws - they don't make them. edit to add: ...and the check on the SCC is the notwithstanding clause.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/beverley-mclachlin-pmo-give-duelling-statements-on-nadon-appointment-fight-1.2628563 probably better: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/05/01/stephen-harper-marc-nadon-call_n_5250092.html

Thats right, and was consistently referred to by the LSUC bench...any decision by LSUC must adhere to the Ontario Human Rights code. Thus the hang-up on TWU's covenant.

Perhaps many people do not consider an 18 year sentence and parole after 2/3 served outrageous

They did ask and were given the same advice and contrary advice through many submissions. see : http://www.lsuc.on.ca/uploadedFiles/For_the_Public/About_the_Law_Society/Convocation_Decisions/2014/convapr102014_submissions.pdf

yes, ultimately the vow is about pre-marital sex and TWU - on paper at least - would indeed deny a law degree if they believe (as they apparently do) that pre-marital sex is wrong. Thats why it specifically states in the TWU covenant that the covenant is a contract. And the covenant could very well be enforceable. They don't call it a contract for nothing. Edit to add: from the TWU Student Accountability Policy: https://twu.ca/studenthandbook/university-policies/student-accountability-policy.html Formal Accountability Process (more serious incidents) Stage One: " It is the responsibility of Assistant Directors of Community Life or appropriate designate to receive complaints and investigate possible violations of Community Covenant and/or policies and guidelines of the University. " Stage two "The Director of Community Life, at his/her sole discretion, may refer the matter to the Associate Provost (e.g., a referral of plagiarism and/or academic dishonesty; in the case of repeated or multiple offences; the student has made deceptive or dishonest statements at the interview; or due to the grievous nature of the violation to the Community Covenant and/or policies and guidelines of the University)." Possible Accountability Actions includes Expultion

True enough. TWU is one more of those institutions that really must be tolerated.

Yes, at the end of the day, I agree that Wilbur is correct. As long as the Law course encapsulates those things necessary to comply with what Lawyers should know, and it seems with this university that is the case, then that is all thats really important for accreditation. and yes, Wilbur, it is social activism for LSUC to withhold accreditation. That social activism is not a bad thing either. If it is then the university must be condemned for its own social activism. Never mind all the hundreds of other organizations that are socially active, including Parliament. and yes Bryan is also correct in that the university allows access to everybody on the condition they sign the covenant. Of course, the covenant require homosexuals to recognize that they are emotional and spiritual cripples who can never enjoy marital intimacy under the eyes of God. But, yeah, they don't really discriminate (thats sarcasm by the way)

Your challenge was: "you have no grounds to make the claim that anyone is not allowed in. It's your claim, defend it or retract it." Post 338 and 339 defend my position. Deal with it.

I'd like to note that in the LSUC discussions the biggest hangup the 'bench' had was with the universities Covenant particularly in regard to the sexuality thing. Over and over again various benchers brought up the sexuality clause in the covenant as the only hangup they had. Thier position was that it was the sexuality clauses that was causing them to with-hold approval. In the Submission from TWU to address the questions from the bench, if Bryan's position were true, TWU could simply have explained that the covenant was not a necessary condition of enrollment, thus taking the wind out of many sails. But no, TWU said nothing at all to counter so obvious a misconception. and that would be because Bryan is mistaken and agreement to the Covenant is in fact a condition of enrollment at TWU.

oooh. I found it. There is in fact a covenant see TWU submission to the Law Society of New Brunswick of January 4 2014 The president of TWU Bob Kuhn says: "The stumbling block to the approval process appears to be once clause in the university's Community Covenant. We have attached the full Covenant for your reference." etc. There follows the full Covenant titled " Trinity Western University Community Covenant Agreement Our pledge to one another" There follows the covenant broken up into numbered sections: 1. The TWU Community Covenant Wherein it states at the third paragraph, and I quote (italics mine): " The Community Covenant is a solemn pledge in which the members place themselves under obligations, on the part of the institution to its members, the members to the institution, and the members to one another. In making this pledge members enter into a contractual agreement and a relational bond. " etc. 2. Christian Community 3. Community Life at TWU " In keeping with biblical and TWU ideals, community members volountarily abstain from the following actions:" follows a series of bullet points, the fifth reading: "Sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman " with a footnote directing one to Romans 1:26-27 and Proverbs 6:23-35 4. Areas of Careful Discernment and Sensitivity with sub headings: Wise and substantial Self-Care... Healthy Sexuality under which is found: " A biblical view of sexuality holds that a person's decisions regarding his or her body are physically, spiritually and emotionally inseperable." and " Further, according to the bible, sexual intimacy is reserved for marriage between one man and one woman, and within that marriage bond it is God's intention that it be enjoyed as a means for marital intimacy and procreation." etc. Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco... Entertainment... 5. Community and Accountability " This Covenant applies to all members of the TWU community, that is, administrators, faculty and staff employed by TWU and its affiliates, and students enrolled at TWU or any affiliate program." ... " Students sign this covenant with the commitment to abide by the expectations contained within the Community Covenant and by campus policies published in the Academic Calendar and Student Handbook." ... " The university also applies formal accountability procedures to address actions by community members that represent a disregard for this covenant. These procedures and processes are outlined in the Student, Staff and Faculty Handbooks and will be enacted by designated representatives of the university as deemed necessary." Then follows the signature section: " By my agreement below I affirm that" .... third paragraph: "I have carefully read and considered TWU's Community Covenant and will join in fulfilling it's responsibilities while I am a member of the TWU community." end of covenant So, it seems to me that in order to be admitted to TWU as a student one must sign the Covenant. It is in fact a necessity of enrollment. You are claiming that this Covenant has no bearing - is not a condition of enrollment and never has been - and nobody is required to sign it. On the basis of what the University has published I would say that your position is without foundation.

I have no access to such things. Can you perhaps cite an example of someone being allowed in who refused to sign the covenant? Perhaps this covenant thing is some sort of myth.

Yes, its an open invitation to those who already believe. To those that dont believe (and in good concience wont sign the covenant) - They are not allowed in.