Peter F

The same can be said of the school itself - inhibiting access to prospective students based on irrelevancies required by the covenant in that the requirements of the covenant have nothing to do with a students ability to succeed or fail in thier studies. And it most certainly is a moral judgement and, reading the transcripts of the deliberations shows that most of the members were seriously concerned with giving a 'stamp of approval' to a university that willfully seeks to limit access based on religous grounds - specifically only married hetrosexuals can engage in sex and all others must not. Lets not forget that it was the university that sought approval from the LSUC- not the other way around. And they sought that approval so they could plump it up on thier web page "we are approved by the law society of Upper Canada!" The university has no need for the LSUC's approval to offer law degree's.

Nope. Law societies accredit places that they think deserve accrediting. The Ontario society didn't think they should accredit a university the descriminates above and beyond the norm to determine who gets to attend thier law program. And, by denying that accreditation, they are not punishing anyone.

First of the Dutch get to make thier own laws and sentences. According to wiki the average sentence is 12 to 15 years for killing another. No doubt many would consider that 'light' as you say. But then the Dutch government isn't beholden to what a bunch think in far distant lands. As for Geert, I have a very low opinion of the mans beliefs and actions.

well, actually they really do expect everyone else to follow it - thus the covenant. If what you say was true, that they believe in personal freedom of choice , then there'd be no covenant at all. But there is and having all adhere to the University's Evangelical belief is in fact why the university was created. They have rejected the concept of personally living thier own lives to thier own moral standards and ethics. Having congregations with like minded individuals isnt good enough for these folks. All must adhere to thier moral standards and values else there is no avail to the public of the universities courses and education. So I think the university is most certainly a bigoted institution. Which they are allowed to be - to a limited extend - under the laws of this fine land. But that in no way requires Law Societies to accredit thier bigot university.

I agree with that. If we need workers so bad offer the tfw's full citizenship.

yeah, I'm starting to understand that the convenant is a meaningless load of feel-good crap.

Indeed it is the heart of the agument. I was very interested to read my Hero Marion Boyd ask (on page 169 of the 10 Apr convocation) The answer from the Lawyers for TWU is as follows (see reply submission of TWU at http://www.lsuc.on.ca/twu/#transcriptsetc page 42) I gather they are saying that there is no possible way in hell they can enforce the covenant.

I don't think the covenant wording is vague at all. Its very obvious that any student at that university must agree to forgo sexual relations on or off campus unless they are married to a person of the opposite sex. That is very clear.

of course TWU could be a better place for such things...so could the U of Sask, or my backyard.

Well, thought I, perhaps there is a point here. So I went to the horse, so to speak, and tried to learn a bit about what really went on with this accreditation thingy. at http://www.lsuc.on.ca/twu/#transcriptsetc are the transcripts of the Law Society of Upper Canada regarding wether to accredit or not TWU (at bottom of the page) along with the TWU answer to the LSUC members questions. Upon reading the above linked articles I have come to the conclusion that I believe TWU to be a goofy place that I would never recommend to anyone - never mind sexual-orientation or conduct - that the course should actually be accredited. Simply because the university does seem to have in place a legitimate law course . Anyone graduating from that course, on the face of it, should be able to competently practice as well as anyone else. It remains to be seen if the inherent evangelical atmosphere of the school will actually be detrimental to the law students ability upon graduation. and, just to be clear, I most certainly do cast my aspersions upon TWU's convenant. But what the hell, others think different.

So, as Bleeding heart said earlier: they have every right to be silly little bigots...just as we have the right to call them on it. And so the Ontario Law Society has every right to not recognize graduates from the silly law program. Not to worry, graduates of Trinitys law program can practice law elsewhere and all is well.

So a man and a woman who are married can be admitted to the university and enjoy their sexual congress to their hearts content - but not so for a homosexual married couple.

I don't think those five words are necessary. The first four words accomplish the same thing.

According to CBC http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mcdonald-s-canada-ceo-calls-foreign-worker-controversy-bullshit-1.2621151 From Minister Kenny’s press release Apr 16. Under ‘Previous reforms to the Temporary Worker Program’ a bullet point: ‘Requiring employers pay TFWs at or above the prevailing regional wage rate as established by Service Canada' So there is no 15% less pay for temp foreign workers that I mentioned above. Edit to add: but there used to be. The Toronto Star article linked by MH was Published on Sat Apr 28 2012 (post 130)

Quote from the linked Toronto Star article: "Employers will now be allowed to pay foreign temp workers 15 per cent less than the average wage." What is the point of that?

Exactly. This was not rocket science. The Government employs many constitutional lawyers and the CPC has a few constitutional experts. Senate Reform is a big deal to the CPC base who think the government has the power to change whatever it wants at the stroke of a parliamentary pen. Harper was not blind to this belief of the base, and rather than expose himself to their ignorance by explaining why it cannot be done, he made the reference to the SCC to explain why it can't be done. Now he can roll his eyes and shrug and the ignorant will believe Harper gave tried but those non-democratic liberal judges shut him down.

I was going to say something but then....ooo! Dejavu!

Thats interesting. We want the cheap labour - we just dont want that cheap labour to be citizens.

Perhaps the company should realize that, without government intervention, operating a business in that labour environment may simply be prohibitively expensive.

They won't need UI if they shut their business down. The owners can go work at McDo's or some such place and make oodles of money! Without the risk to boot.

I was going to say something but the quote says it all.

What? Business supporting laws that interfere with the free market of labour? Whodathunk!

The Wright-Duffy transaction is hugely suspicious. He could have easily let Duffy suffer the consequences of his own actions. The worst that could have happened is Duffys wages get garnished. But no.... Certainly Wright is a fool and, it seems very likely Harper too

absolutely...the fact that the law allows business to pay 15% less than the going wage is the give-away to what this FW thing is all about. (in ref to Small C's post) No they wouldn't...they'd just have to wait in line longer.

Your first sentence is correct. Braneis U is indeed filled with scholars who know very well exactly what Ali was all about. So they came up with a petition to the university president asking hiim to rescind the invitation. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M0AvrWuc3V0nMFqRDRTkLGpAN7leSZfxo3y1msEyEJM/edit?pli=1 It seems your second sentence regarding careful vetting may be incorrect. From the linked petition: "We further urge you to re-institute the past practice of a faculty committee that vets potential honorary degree recipients" I see no reference to Isreal anywhere in the petition.