Ontario has voted 'no' to accrediting Trinity University Law P

[Wilber]

The law society are secular zealots? How so?

We give organizations like law societies and teachers federations the responsibility of vetting schools to ensure they produce qualified graduates, not impose their own definition of morality on those schools. I have no problem with a law society subjecting TWU's covenant to a Charter challenge in the courts. I have a big problem with them abusing their powers in order to try and enforce their interpretation of the charter. That is not professional behaviour.

Also, provincial charters are a crock. There can be only one Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it has to apply equally to all Canadians in all of Canada. Including TWU.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Wilber

[taxme]

The Trinity University located in Langley, BC is starting a law program in 2016, however, students must abide by a covenant that requires them to abstain from sexual intimacy that "violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman".

The Ontario law society has said that graduates of this program cannot practice law in Ontario. I can't figure out how the law society of B.C.'s board allowed this school to go ahead and offer this program in the first place.

Read the story here.

So just what is wrong with Trinity University asking it's students to abstain from having sex before marriage? That should be greeted with open arms rather than with hatred and intolerance. The Ontario law society is just another liberal outfit trying to promote their perverted sick liberal non-values and liberal immorality, and decent and moral people eat up the law society's crap values that is fed to them with mouths wide open. Sad indeed.

But, wait a second. Maybe there are no more decent and moral people living in Canada anymore. I suppose that if Trinity were promoting their students to have sex with donkeys the law society would throw them a big party. Most Canadians probably say, hey, I am Canadian, feed me more of your liberal perverted bull. I like and want more. Hey, you never know.

[taxme]

that's not a religion.

You're spouting nonsense. Hyperbolic silliness.

Political correctness is a form of religion. A sick form of religion at that.

[bush_cheney2004]

Looks like Trinity Western has won again...

 

Quote

The B.C. Court of Appeal has upheld the right of future graduates of the faith-based Trinity Western University (TWU) Law School to practise law in the province.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trinity-western-law-1.3831024

 

 

[Wilber]

The SCC will rule the same when this case gets there. Ontario is the only hold out now.

[blackbird]

On 2014-04-24 at 7:17 PM, WestCoastRunner said:

The Trinity University located in Langley, BC is starting a law program in 2016, however, students must abide by a covenant that requires them to abstain from sexual intimacy that "violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman".

The Ontario law society has said that graduates of this program cannot practice law in Ontario. I can't figure out how the law society of B.C.'s board allowed this school to go ahead and offer this program in the first place.

Read the story here.

Trinity Western University is a private christian university.  They have that right because we have freedom of religion in the charter of rights.  Secondly, the law students which graduate are being barred from practicing law in Ontario by the Law Society in Ontario.  In my opinion, this law society is not respecting the right of these students to practice their freedom of religion and become lawyers.  If somebody doesn't like what these students have agreed to and believe in, they are free to go to any other lawyer they choose.  I think the law societies in B.C. and Nova Scotia also tried to bar the students but provincial courts overruled the law societies.   From what I have heard, this will probably go to the Supreme Court. 

Edited March 14, 2017 by blackbird

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎03‎-‎14 at 1:14 AM, blackbird said:

Trinity Western University is a private christian university.  They have that right because we have freedom of religion in the charter of rights.  Secondly, the law students which graduate are being barred from practicing law in Ontario by the Law Society in Ontario.  In my opinion, this law society is not respecting the right of these students to practice their freedom of religion and become lawyers.  If somebody doesn't like what these students have agreed to and believe in, they are free to go to any other lawyer they choose.  I think the law societies in B.C. and Nova Scotia also tried to bar the students but provincial courts overruled the law societies.   From what I have heard, this will probably go to the Supreme Court. 

its a tough issue, but as a lawyer believe it or not the law Society of Upper Canada does not allow me to refuse to represent a client simply because they are gay, believe in having freedom of choice in regards to when and if to have a child, having sex outside marriage.

The problem is can you get Trinity law graduates to guarantee they will be neutral when serving such clients?

See the Law Societies face a cold reality. If Trinity creates a private Christian law school, then soon we have a private Jewish one, then Muslim one and so on. Lawyers are not supposed to mix their personal religious beliefs with their practice of law.

Its a difficult issue in maintaining an appearance of being free from conflict of interest not just actual conflict of interest.

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

its a tough issue, but as a lawyer believe it or not the law Society of Upper Canada does not allow me to refuse to represent a client simply because they are gay, believe in having freedom of choice in regards to when and if to have a child, having sex outside marriage.

The problem is can you get Trinity law graduates to guarantee they will be neutral when serving such clients?

See the Law Societies face a cold reality. If Trinity creates a private Christian law school, then soon we have a private Jewish one, then Muslim one and so on. Lawyers are not supposed to mix their personal religious beliefs with their practice of law.

Its a difficult issue in maintaining an appearance of being free from conflict of interest not just actual conflict of interest.

Do you think there are a lot of Muslim lawyers representing gay clients? Do you think a lot of Muslim lawyers would WANT to represent gay clients? As I understand it Trinity Western teaches the Law as well as any other law school, which is why it has been accredited by most provinces. It does not teach the law in any way different from any other law school. I'm not why anyone would think its graduates, being observant conservative Christians, would be any less impartial than say, a conservative Christian who graduates from Windsor or Osgood Hall. Or, for that matter, an observant, religious Muslim who graduates from UofO or Western. 

It seems to me the Supreme Court considered this issue with regard to Trinity Western's teachers, who were barred by the BC teachers federation on the suspicion their conservative religious environment in which they were taught would render them incapable of being secular, impartial teachers, and the Supreme Court said that you could not forbid the graduates of a school which taught the proper curriculum from working on the suspicion that their religious oriented grads would not be fair.

[Rue]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

Do you think there are a lot of Muslim lawyers representing gay clients? Do you think a lot of Muslim lawyers would WANT to represent gay clients? As I understand it Trinity Western teaches the Law as well as any other law school, which is why it has been accredited by most provinces. It does not teach the law in any way different from any other law school. I'm not why anyone would think its graduates, being observant conservative Christians, would be any less impartial than say, a conservative Christian who graduates from Windsor or Osgood Hall. Or, for that matter, an observant, religious Muslim who graduates from UofO or Western. 

It seems to me the Supreme Court considered this issue with regard to Trinity Western's teachers, who were barred by the BC teachers federation on the suspicion their conservative religious environment in which they were taught would render them incapable of being secular, impartial teachers, and the Supreme Court said that you could not forbid the graduates of a school which taught the proper curriculum from working on the suspicion that their religious oriented grads would not be fair.

Q1-I really do not know.

Q2-I really do not know.I suspect fundamentalists of many religions may not feel comfortable with openly gay clients but I am not sure whether they would let that bother them or not, I really do not know.

3rd Sentence-as far as I know their legal curriculum is the same and they do not teach it any different.

4th Sentence-good question and probably the concern is because they were willing to go to a school that says if you are gay you can't come there or if you ave sex without first being married you can't go their.

An observant Muslim or Jew or Christian is not the issue-a school that caters specifically to their lifestyles is.

Tell me would you feel comfortable going to a lawyer who went to a Gay Law School or a Muslim law school? Probably not and therein lies the problem.

How far do we want to go segregating professions before we even walk in the door.

I ask what law school did you go to and the guy says Justin Trudeau Law School, or Gamel Nasser Law School  I might be thinking he's not going to do a good job supporting me on my custody dispute with my wife who's run off with another woman or a Muslim. Appearance is what we are talking about.

One who goes to a law school that openly demands certain conditions before you can get into it sets a different precedent and uneven playing field with the same person who goes to a law school that does not ask such things.

 

.

 

 

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

its a tough issue, but as a lawyer believe it or not the law Society of Upper Canada does not allow me to refuse to represent a client simply because they are gay, believe in having freedom of choice in regards to when and if to have a child, having sex outside marriage.

The problem is can you get Trinity law graduates to guarantee they will be neutral when serving such clients?

See the Law Societies face a cold reality. If Trinity creates a private Christian law school, then soon we have a private Jewish one, then Muslim one and so on. Lawyers are not supposed to mix their personal religious beliefs with their practice of law.

Its a difficult issue in maintaining an appearance of being free from conflict of interest not just actual conflict of interest.

 

 

We live in a society where multiculturalism and diversity is made much of.   I don't think it is right to ban a segment of society because of their religious beliefs.  This is where the issue of freedom of religion and freedom of expression will be tested.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

 

The problem is can you get Trinity law graduates to guarantee they will be neutral when serving such clients?

 

Its a difficult issue in maintaining an appearance of being free from conflict of interest not just actual conflict of interest.

 

 

The reality is I think that everyone has biases in one way or another.  It is impossible to have a world with people free from some kind of bias.

So why would they single out the TW students as unsuitable to be lawyers in Ontario.  I don't see it as an issue of conflict of interest.   I think it depends on what the issue a lawyer would be asked to do or defend, not necessarily whether the client is gay.  I don't think it was suggested by anyone they would not serve certain clients based on their sexual preference.  The law society is probably simply biased against people that have christian convictions.  One can be representing a gay person in a matter that has nothing to do with gay rights or discrimination of gays.  Those kind of cases are probably very few.  If it was a case where for example a gay person wanted representation because he was being discriminated because of being gay, then the lawyer could advise the client, he simply can't represent him because of his religious beliefs.  There are lots of lawyers around.  This shouldn't be a problem.  It is wrong for the law society to impose their own personal beliefs or lack of beliefs on other people and say that only people that fit their mold can become lawyers. 

[taxme]

18 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 

We live in a society where multiculturalism and diversity is made much of.   I don't think it is right to ban a segment of society because of their religious beliefs.  This is where the issue of freedom of religion and freedom of expression will be tested.

From what I have read is that this whole controversy was based on asking the students to not have sex before marriage? Was this the case or not?  

When it comes to multiculturalism and diversity, freedom of expression will always take second place when it comes to challenging minority rule, or what minorities demand. That test is over. The minorities have won. Canada is ruled over by the minority. In Canada we now consider that to be fair and equal. Welcome to the new political correct Canada. 

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, taxme said:

From what I have read is that this whole controversy was based on asking the students to not have sex before marriage? Was this the case or not?  

When it comes to multiculturalism and diversity, freedom of expression will always take second place when it comes to challenging minority rule, or what minorities demand. That test is over. The minorities have won. Canada is ruled over by the minority. In Canada we now consider that to be fair and equal. Welcome to the new political correct Canada. 

Yes, I get your point and agree.   This is a more difficult issue and could be quite complicated.   But basically I think you are correct that the issue with the law society in Ontario was that the students signed a covenant agreeing to no pre-marital or extra-marital sex.  But there could be more to it than that. 

[blackbird]

Another thought about this.  If they can discriminate against students from TWU, why not discriminate against anyone who holds certain beliefs.  How is it possible to find out exactly what individuals believe about something?  It is not only that TWU students have certain values or beliefs, most of the society does.  People from all walks of life have certain beliefs and people from various different religious backgrounds have various beliefs.  Are they going to say to a Muslim you can't become a lawyer in Ontario?  You better believe they are not going to say that.  They would be taken to the Human Rights Tribunal so fast it would make your head spin.  What about Jews?  The list could go on.  But for some reason it is in vogue to discriminate against WASPS,  white anglo saxon Protestants.  Time to get over that. 

[taxme]

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

Another thought about this.  If they can discriminate against students from TWU, why not discriminate against anyone who holds certain beliefs.  How is it possible to find out exactly what individuals believe about something?  It is not only that TWU students have certain values or beliefs, most of the society does.  People from all walks of life have certain beliefs and people from various different religious backgrounds have various beliefs.  Are they going to say to a Muslim you can't become a lawyer in Ontario?  You better believe they are not going to say that.  They would be taken to the Human Rights Tribunal so fast it would make your head spin.  What about Jews?  The list could go on.  But for some reason it is in vogue to discriminate against WASPS,  white anglo saxon Protestants.  Time to get over that. 

With trudeau and the liberals in power the WASPS will have to wait until the next election where we hope that Canadians can come to their senses and kick the anti-freedom of speech terrorist liberals out of office. What has been happening to the WASPS in Canada over the past several decades is a crime. To be a WASP today in Canada is to be treated like a third class citizen.  At least that is the way I am seeing things these days here in la-la land. 

[Argus]

21 hours ago, Rue said:

An observant Muslim or Jew or Christian is not the issue-a school that caters specifically to their lifestyles is.

I don't see the issue with the school. The school is teaching the law. Any prejudice they feel towards gays is innate and a part of their own religious beliefs. That prejudice would exist regardless of which law school they went to. 

Quote

Tell me would you feel comfortable going to a lawyer who went to a Gay Law School or a Muslim law school? Probably not and therein lies the problem.

No, I wouldn't have a problem, unless the reason I was going to them was somehow related to to some part of their sexuality or religious beliefs.

Quote

How far do we want to go segregating professions before we even walk in the door.

To the extent the constitution says that religious freedom allows. And it has already spoken on this issue in a nearly identical situation involving teachers and accreditation for the Trinity Western.

 

Quote

I ask what law school did you go to and the guy says Justin Trudeau Law School, or Gamel Nasser Law School  I might be thinking he's not going to do a good job supporting me on my custody dispute with my wife who's run off with another woman or a Muslim. Appearance is what we are talking about.

Would you not prefer to know ahead of time that your lawyer was an uber-feminist say who 'hated representing men' (a quote from a recent Christie Blatchford column on the incomparable incompetence of our family court system), rather than going to them and being misrepresented by an unenthusiastic person whose own personal beliefs made them not like you or your case? I mean, if you were a gay guy would you choose a conservative Muslim lawyer to represent your interests regardless of what law school he came from?

Quote

One who goes to a law school that openly demands certain conditions before you can get into it sets a different precedent and uneven playing field with the same person who goes to a law school that does not ask such things.

The only thing that should matter about a law school is that it teaches the law adequately. I mean, how far back to you want to go with this? There are a lot of Christian academies, for example, not to mention Catholic high schools. Should they not be able to teach anything?

Edited March 25, 2017 by Argus