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

[TimG]

It's perfectly fine for Trinity to impose its values on people by discriminating against gay people.

Total rubbish. TWU has a code of conduct and BY DEFINITION a code of conduct means asking students to conform to a set of values. If you like to drink don't attend TWU. If you want to have unmarried sex don't attend TWU etc. Since TWU does not have a monopoly not attending is a viable option for anyone.

IOW - TWU is imposing it values on no one who does not choose to accept them. They simply say that if one chooses to attend their private institution you must follow rules. What people do outside of the institution is no concern. Are you really arguing that no one anywhere can have codes of conduct as a condition of using a service?

OTOH, the law society IS trying to impose its values on TWU since the law society has a monopoly of approving lawyers in a province. This means the law society has an obligation to show some reasonable accommodation when it comes to private institutions. The reasonable accommodation, according to SCC, must be by imposing their code of conduct only on the actions of individual lawyers. The law society cannot arbitrary reject all students from an institution just because it does not approve of the institution's code conduct.

Edited June 16, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

Right. So how does this school do that ? They offer religious education to people who come to them for that.

It's a law school, open to the public.

.

[jacee]

What people do outside of the institution is no concern.

They're saying no off campus sex either.

Not sure how they police that.

.

[cybercoma]

Total rubbish. TWU has a code of conduct and BY DEFINITION a code of conduct means asking students to conform to a set of values. If you like to drink don't attend TWU. If you want to have unmarried sex don't attend TWU etc. Since TWU does not have a monopoly not attending is a viable option for anyone.

IOW - TWU is imposing it values on no one who does not choose to accept them. They simply say that if one chooses to attend their private institution you must follow rules. What people do outside of the institution is no concern. Are you really arguing that no one anywhere can have codes of conduct as a condition of using a service?

OTOH, the law society IS trying to impose its values on TWU since the law society has a monopoly of approving lawyers in a province. This means the law society has an obligation to show some reasonable accommodation when it comes to private institutions. The reasonable accommodation, according to SCC, must be by imposing their code of conduct only on the actions of individual lawyers. The law society cannot arbitrary reject all students from an institution just because it does not approve of the institution's code conduct.

You can twist it however you want. They offer a service to the public and their code of conduct discriminates against gays. I would think that you, as a libertarian, would object to a school placing requirements on people that are wholly irrelevant to their education. That individuals personal freedoms should prevail. Better still, I would think that you, as a libertarian, would be completely open to the Bar Association having the freedom to police its profession and recognize or not recognize whichever law degrees it chooses.

But like I said, you're only libertarian when it comes to things you support. You were against Tesla selling direct to customers too, if I remember correctly. So I find it hilarious that you would claim you're holding this position here because you're libertarian and believe in people's freedoms. You only believe in some people's freedoms. For others, you support discrimination. In this case, you support the school's right to expel gay students, but you don't accept the Bar Association's right not to recognize a law degree from a school that violates not only Human Rights Codes across the country, but also refuses to recognize the legal reality that gay people are allowed to marry in Canada.

The hypocrisy is hilarious because on one hand you have discrimination based on nothing but sexual orientation. On the other hand, you have discrimination based on a law school failing to adhere to and recognize the laws in Canada. I would say a bar association is perfectly justified in discriminating against a law school that doesn't recognize the law. A law school, on the other hand, has absolutely no reason to discriminate based on sexual orientation and in fact is not allowed to do so when they offer a service to the public. Here, you support the indefensible discrimination in the name of libertarianism, while rejecting the bar association's completely reasonable requirement that a law school ought to recognize the laws of the land.

Edited June 16, 2014 by cybercoma

[TimG]

You can twist it however you want. They offer a service to the public and their code of conduct discriminates against gays.

No it does not. Their code of conduct has a provision that only applies to married students and their definition of marriage does not happen to include gays. They do not prevent gays from attending the school.

I would think that you, as a libertarian, would object to a school placing requirements on people that are wholly irrelevant to their education.

Private institution. No one is required to attend. I certainly would not.

That individuals personal freedoms should prevail. Better still, I would think that you, as a libertarian, would be completely open to the Bar Association having the freedom to police its profession and recognize or not recognize whichever law degrees it chooses.

As I said before, the bar is free to impose rules of conduct on individual lawyers. What it can't do is apriori reject all lawyers from a institution which meets their academic criteria.

But like I said, you're only libertarian when it comes to things you support. You were against Tesla selling direct to customers too

Was not me. I have little patience for regulations designed to protect incumbents.

The hypocrisy is hilarious because on one hand you have discrimination based on nothing but sexual orientation. On the other hand, you have discrimination based on a law school failing to adhere to and recognize the laws in Canada.

Have you never heard of the phrase "reasonable accommodation"? As I said, the law society can discipline lawyers that actually act in discriminatory ways. What it can't do is presume that lawyers will discriminate because of the code of conduct at an institution. Also SCC agrees with me.

while rejecting the bar association's completely reasonable requirement that a law school ought to recognize the laws of the land.

The laws of the land allow religious institutions to define a version of marriage that excludes gays. What the bar association is trying to do is bully religious institutions into accepting its version of marriage. The SCC has also ruled on a similar case and it agrees with me so your "law of land" argument is clearly false. Edited June 16, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

The laws of the land allow religious institutions to define a version of marriage that excludes gays. What the bar association is trying to do is bully religious institutions into accepting its version of marriage.

They can impose their religious views on those who choose their faith, but not on members of the public to whom they are selling a service.

.

[Rue]

In response to Tim;

1-I am not sure which Christian law schools you are referring to but it may be because they are not a Canadian law school violating a Canadian law which Trinity does, a different criteria might be used-that might explain the differential analysis used-however it could very well be the national council of Law Societies will revisit the entire issue now that Trinity is trying to set a precedent, and it may require they revisit the issue with any religious law school inside our outside Canada;

2-Sorry Tim but if a client comes into an office and sees that Trinity degree on the wall it necessarily says the lawyer prescribes to specific religious beliefs and it tells the public this lawyer is anti gay-no that can not inspire public confidence in the profession as a whole and please don't tell me that lawyer is sending out a message he is neutral to his client's personal beliefs-no a lawyer like this is not going to separate his personal view sin family law matters;

3- I don't want our profession turning the clock backwards to institutionalize religion as a criteria of admission to law school which is what Trinity is doing-its creating a law school that necessarily has admission criteria that is discriminatory and restrictive;

4-further to 3, arguing that the discrimination is based on religious views does not change its discriminatory and restrictive nature;

5-further to 3 and 4, arguing that the discrimination is based on religion does not change the fact its illegal, i.e. violates existing Canadian human rights law and therefore is not only illegal but contrary to public policy;

6-the fact a person may consent to this discriminatory belief does not undo its discriminatory and illegal nature-volunteering to engage in practices that are discriminatory does not define its legality-consent is not a criteria-the posting of the discriminatory criteria expected of students is the test-once that is made known as the criteria, it matters little if you consent to it or not, it necessarily makes it restrictive to gays or non gays who don't agree with the religious views of the law school and human rights law does not allow that;

7-high schools are not law schools-their mandate is not the same-more to the point Catholic schools in Ontario are the last public religious schools and eventually they will evolve past their religious identity as they did in Newfoundland and Quebec-right now the Catholic high schools can not refuse a non Catholic entrance let alone establish an admission criteria that gays are not welcome as gays-more to the point there are high schools for gays, high schools for blacks-is that the model we want for professional graduate schools...what we now should have a gay law school, a Jewish one, a Muslim one, then what a Christian medical school, a Satanist Engineering School, a Wiccan Architecture School...how far do we go with this?

Bottom line-Law Societies have to uphold their neutrality. Affiliating with schools that violate Canadian human rights laws and deliberately discriminate against people based on their gender preference ain't gonna happen.

Its not my business who anyone sleeps with. It only becomes my business as a lawyer if I represent the crown, and I am being asked to prosecute you not because you are gay or straight, but because you choose to engage in sex that exploits, engages in violence, is not consensual

Otherwise, its not my concern nor should it be the state's. Trying to get lawyers to hang out shingles that necessarily indicate they are anti gay lifestyle is a not so subtle way to advertise their discriminatory views.

it makes me cringe. I already had a battle with a particular lawyer from British Columbia who deliberately went out of his way to represent right wing anti-semites and neo Nazis and did not separate his own extremist views from those of his client and used the law as an opportunity to spread hatred.

Thanks but I pass on people using the law to preach particular religious views. It stars with Christianity and then it spreads to extremist political beliefs, on and on.

[TimG]

2-Sorry Tim but if a client comes into an office and sees that Trinity degree on the wall it necessarily says the lawyer prescribes to specific religious beliefs and it tells the public this lawyer is anti gay-no that can not inspire public confidence in the profession as a whole and please don't tell me that lawyer is sending out a message he is neutral to his client's personal beliefs-no a lawyer like this is not going to separate his personal view sin family law matters;

Is your argument really that TWU has a bad reputation because opponents of TWU have spread falsehoods and misrepresentations in the media? Doesn't that strike you as unfair to judge a school not by the facts but by the misinformation spread by detractors?

[Argus]

As a member of the Ontario Bar I was asked my opinion on Trinity and I expressed it. I had a very real concern as to the precedent set by creating any type of religious orientated law school let alone one that imposes admission criteria on its students in direct violation of existing Canadian laws.

And no evident interest in what the Supreme Court had already stated on the subject. Tell me, if you have no respect for the law, why are you a lawyer? Just to rake in what cash you can, I guess?

Bryan stated earlier on Trinity should sue the Law Society of Ontario. Well it can not. Law Societies have a monopoly on accrediting law schools and one of their criteria is that the law school not engage in policies of enrollment or continuing admission that violate or run contrary to public policy.

Yeah, good luck suing the teachers federation. Everyone knows they have a monopoly on accrediting teaching schools and one of their criterias is that the teaching school not engage in policies of enrollment or continuing admission that violates or run contrary to public policy! .... Oh wait!

Good luck arguing in court the Law Society of ANY province is obligated to recognizing a law school that violates human rights legislation.

Good luck arguing in court the teachers federation of ANY province is obligated to recognizing a teaching school that violates human rights legislation! ... Oh wait!

My prediction. Trinity will sue the law societies. The judge will not only rule in their favour but order the law societies to pay their legal bills and all court costs for wasting the court's time in a case which has already been clearly decided by the Supreme Court.

[Argus]

The hypocrisy is hilarious because on one hand you have discrimination based on nothing but sexual orientation. On the other hand, you have discrimination based on a law school failing to adhere to and recognize the laws in Canada.

First, the Supreme Court has already stated Trinity's policies are quite acceptable under the Charter. So Trinity is not violating any sort of law. The law societies are attempting to refuse its graduates permission to get the proper accreditation on the presumption that they will all be discriminating against homosexuals somehow in their practice. It's an absurd position to take, just as it was for the teachers federations. And in clear violation of the SC's ruling in that case.

[Michael Hardner]

It's a law school, open to the public.

.

High schools are also open to the public. You don't have to be Catholic to go to a Catholic high school but you have to follow the rules of the religion.

Otherwise, religious freedom is a meaningless right. Religious freedom means freedom to live the life within society as that religion sees fit.

[jacee]

High schools are also open to the public. You don't have to be Catholic to go to a Catholic high school

True

but you have to follow the rules of the religion.

No you don't.

/father-wins-right-to-have-son-exempted-from-all-religious-programs-at-ontario-catholic-high-school

The court ruling only confirms the intention of the architects of the act when it included open-access legislation with the extension of funding to Catholic high schools in 1985, said Mr. Naylor, who also operates a website for parents called http://www.myexemption.com.

...

parents ... can simply opt out of religion classes and participation in things such as mass and liturgies with a letter to the board and reference to this court case.

Otherwise, religious freedom is a meaningless right. Religious freedom means freedom to live the life within society as that religion sees fit.

As the members of that religion see fit, for themselves ... yes ... but NOT to impose their beliefs on members of the public when they provide a service to the public!

Religious freedom NEVER includes the right to impose religious beliefs on others not of that faith. NEVER!!

Because that is a violation of their right to religious freedom.

.

Edited June 17, 2014 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

As the members of that religion see fit, for themselves ... yes ... but NOT to impose their beliefs on members of the public when they provide a service to the public!

Religious freedom NEVER includes the right to impose religious beliefs on others not of that faith. NEVER!!

Because that is a violation of their right to religious freedom.

.

Ok, that's a valid example but the employees of the school don't have the freedom to opt out. I don't doubt that a practicing gay teacher could be fired - I believe this already happened in BC.

[Bob Macadoo]

Ok, that's a valid example but the employees of the school don't have the freedom to opt out. I don't doubt that a practicing gay teacher could be fired - I believe this already happened in BC.

All they need is a letter from their parish, after that its all the premarital, contraceptioned sex they can get......at least in ON.

[jacee]

Ok, that's a valid example but the employees of the school don't have the freedom to opt out. I don't doubt that a practicing gay teacher could be fired - I believe this already happened in BC.

I think that will eventually work its way out via court challenges too.

.

[cybercoma]

High schools are also open to the public. You don't have to be Catholic to go to a Catholic high school but you have to follow the rules of the religion.Otherwise, religious freedom is a meaningless right. Religious freedom means freedom to live the life within society as that religion sees fit.

You don't have to follow the religion at all. There's plenty if openly gay students at Catholic schools.

[Michael Hardner]

All they need is a letter from their parish, after that its all the premarital, contraceptioned sex they can get......at least in ON.

Gay sex ?

[Michael Hardner]

You don't have to follow the religion at all. There's plenty if openly gay students at Catholic schools.

Gay sex ?

[WestCoastRunner]

There's nothing new here, except possibly that the average Canadian accepts homosexuality where they didn't 20 years ago.

There is plenty new here. The law society has never had to deal with a christian university implementing a law program that forces legally married gay students to sign a covenant promising they won't have sex. This is absolutely new for Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

There is plenty new here.

A new instance doesn't mean that it's a new and unseen legal situation. These things have been considered in the past. As the G&M says in this case....

The teachers in a Christian school are expected to teach Christian ideals and religion is major part of the curriculum. Since teachers are viewed as having a moral influence on their students, a Christian school could argue, and probably establish, that being in an opposite-sex relationship is a necessary requirement of the job

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/career-advice/can-an-employer-fire-someone-for-being-in-a-same-sex-relationship/article553177/

[cybercoma]

Gay sex ?

Believe it or not, teenagers have sex.

[WestCoastRunner]

It seems the TWU faculty are not happy with the decision of the Board of Governors to not back down given the pressure from the Law Societies.

"One faculty member estimated that roughly half the faculty is “embarrassed” by the ban on same-sex relationships, another 30 per cent are “on the fence” and 20 per cent “staunchly” support it."

Other information coming to light is the fact that TWU is afraid of losing major evangelical financial donors.

An example given about evangelical donations goes like this:

'The giant Christian relief organization, World Vision USA, learned a harsh lesson about gay rights when it announced it would no longer define marriage as between a man and a woman in its employee conduct manual. Many evangelical donors, including Assemblies of God leaders, immediately urged members to drop their support for World Vision. Within a week, World Vision, which has a $1-billion budget, reversed its stance and said it would no longer recognize the same-sex marriages of its employees. The World Vision case “provides an example of how to mollify a donor base."

One faculty member (speaking anonymously for fear of being fired) has stated “there was a time when students weren’t even allowed to dance at Trinity Western.”

Indeed.

[Argus]

"One faculty member estimated that roughly half the faculty is “embarrassed” by the ban on same-sex relationships, another 30 per cent are “on the fence” and 20 per cent “staunchly” support it."

Those who don't wish to work at a Christian college are, of course, free to find work elsewhere.

[TimG]

Those who don't wish to work at a Christian college are, of course, free to find work elsewhere.

To be fair: if they are Christians they are free to argue that the school should revisit its stance.

[Argus]

To be fair: if they are Christians they are free to argue that the school should revisit its stance.

Is there some disagreement on the subject of homosexuals having sex amongst Christian scholars?