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

[Bob Macadoo]

It was created by a legislative act but is self governing.

How is that a win/win? Sounds like a potential lose/lose situation for the student. They spend years and thousands of dollars getting a degree without knowing if they will be allowed to practice when they graduate. I just about choked on that hypocritical morsel in the courts ruling. "Let's see, we see you graduated from TWU. We have no idea if your school is any good because we wouldn't put it through the accreditation process, but if you tell us what we want to hear we might let you practice law in Ontario". Guess that's what passes for professionalism in Ontario.

It's win/win as the student has the free choice to go to that school and the school has the free choice to restrict their campus as they see fit. No "public" involvement means no intervention.

[Wilber]

It's win/win as the student has the free choice to go to that school and the school has the free choice to restrict their campus as they see fit. No "public" involvement means no intervention.

How is it a win/win for a student if their degree doesn't allow them to earn a living regardless of how high the standard of education provided by a school? What do you mean by no public involvement? You think only publicly funded schools should be eligible for accreditation? Is accreditation supposed to be about standards of education or is it now about anything political correctness decides it is? Are professional societies supposed to be the guardians of professional standards or is that now taking a back seat to whatever social cause they choose to back?

[Wilber]

The plot thickens.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trinity-western-law-society-bc-supreme-court-1.3359942

[Smeelious]

Well, I read through the Covenant.

Aside from never wanting to go there myself, frankly as a private institution I could care less what they ask of their students in terms of "code-of-conduct"

My Question: Can they revoke a degree once conferred (based on said covenant), and how would that affect accreditation?

I can see them wanting to revoke, but not actually being able to based on breach of the covenant.

[Wilber]

I think if they revoked a degree on non academic grounds they would be guilty of the same conduct as the Law Society for denying accreditation on non academic grounds.

[WestCoastRunner]

Time to resurrect this.

"Trinity Western University suffered a major setback on Wednesday in its quest to open a law school: Ontario’s top court upheld the Law Society of Upper Canada’s decision not to accredit its degrees, owing to its code of conduct forbidding sexual relations except among married male-female couples. And it’s awfully hard to pitch a law school in Canada if your graduates can’t practice in Rather, the court found that the LSUC’s decision was a reasonable exercise of its mandate, as the self-governing body overseeing the province’s legal profession, to act in “public interest.” On the one hand it had to consider TWU’s and co-applicant Brayden Volkenant’s constitutionally protected religious freedom; on the other it had its “statutory objectives of promoting a legal profession based on merit and excluding discriminatory classifications” — i.e., ensuring it does not exclude on the basis of of religion, colour or race."

I am pleased with this decision. Wilbur?

[TimG]

I am pleased with this decision.

Of course your are because your values make you believe the state in should force everyone to act like they believe what you believe. However, people who still think freedom of speech and freedom of thought are fundamental and non-negotiable pillars of our society are appalled.

[waldo]

"Trinity Western University suffered a major setback on Wednesday in its quest to open a law school: Ontario’s top court upheld the Law Society of Upper Canada’s decision not to accredit its degrees, owing to its code of conduct forbidding sexual relations except among married male-female couples. And it’s awfully hard to pitch a law school in Canada if your graduates can’t practice in Ontario.

.

Rather, the court found that the LSUC’s decision was a reasonable exercise of its mandate, as the self-governing body overseeing the province’s legal profession, to act in “public interest.” On the one hand it had to consider TWU’s and co-applicant Brayden Volkenant’s constitutionally protected religious freedom; on the other it had its “statutory objectives of promoting a legal profession based on merit and excluding discriminatory classifications” — i.e., ensuring it does not exclude on the basis of of religion, colour or race."

per your National Post quote:

that's 3 levels of judiciary that Trinity Western University has lost its case at... next up I expect will be the Supreme Court. It is odd that you would receive a reply suggesting the respective Ontario courts have ruled against freedom of speech and freedom of thought... odd, indeed!

.

[Argus]

Of course your are because your values make you believe the state in should force everyone to act like they believe what you believe. However, people who still think freedom of speech and freedom of thought are fundamental and non-negotiable pillars of our society are appalled.

It also demonstrates how little attention the courts pay to the law, as opposed to their own ideological beliefs. The law could not be more clear, wr to the last supreme court decision on this issue where the teachers tried to ban TWU graduates. The judiciary is basically saying "I don't care what the Supreme Court says." And they're counting on the Supreme Court to simply change it's mind now that they've had a decade to think about it.

Why can it simply change its mind? Because as I've been saying for some time, the constitution says whatever the judges feel it should say. If the judges say it is now unconstitutional to cut down trees or mow your lawn then that's what the constitution says.

Edited July 2, 2016 by Argus

[WestCoastRunner]

per your National Post quote:

that's 3 levels of judiciary that Trinity Western University has lost its case at... next up I expect will be the Supreme Court. It is odd that you would receive a reply suggesting the respective Ontario courts have ruled against freedom of speech and freedom of thought... odd, indeed!

.

And Ontario's top court got it right. Another win for the gay community.

[waldo]

It also demonstrates how little attention the courts pay to the law, as opposed to their own ideological beliefs. The law could not be more clear, wr to the last supreme court decision on this issue where the teachers tried to ban TWU graduates. The judiciary is basically saying "I don't care what the Supreme Court says." And they're counting on the Supreme Court to simply change it's mind now that they've had a decade to think about it.

Why can it simply change its mind? Because as I've been saying for some time, the constitution says whatever the judges feel it should say. If the judges say it is now unconstitutional to cut down trees or mow your lawn then that's what the constitution says.

if you're talking about the 2001 BC Supreme Court ruling... my interpretation is not yours! I'm shocked you give little-to-no details, yet make such broad declarative and definitive unsubstantiated claims - go figure!

my interpretation of that 2001 case has it that TWU wanted to adjust its, "teacher training program offering baccalaureate degrees in education upon completion of a five-year course, four years of which were spent at TWU, the fifth year being under the aegis of Simon Fraser University (“SFU”)". That adjustment had TWU apply to the B.C. College of Teachers (“BCCT”) for permission to assume full responsibility for the teacher education program... in line with, "TWU’s desire to have the full program reflect its Christian world view."

my take on the decision is one where the TWU was granted leave to take on the full responsibility for its program... removing SFU from involvement. However, this was subject to an initial 5 year review period. If in fact this is the Supreme Court/case/ruling you're speaking to, I'll leave it to you to provide an update on that initial review period... and to question/challenge my interpretation of the case/ruling. I expect you'll also be providing the correlation you see/interpret between that 2001 case and the current situation with TWU and the Law Society "administrative tribunal". Interestingly, this latest Ontario Court of Appeal ruling, itself, drew attention to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling in regards administrative tribunals... I'll leave this as a teaser for you to act upon, hey!

.

[Argus]

]I expect you'll also be providing the correlation you see/interpret between that 2001 case and the current situation with TWU and the Law Society "administrative tribunal".

It's pretty clear that the cases are identical. The teachers refused to licence TWU teacher graduates because they said the univesity discriminated against gays and suspected its graduates would be anti-gay.

Today’s Supreme Court decision marks the culmination of a dispute that started in 1996 when the BCCT refused to approve TWU’s teacher education program. Despite losing two lower court rulings, the BCCT appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing it has the right to deny approval of TWU’s teacher education program because students while at TWU agree to refrain from extramarital sex, including homosexual behaviour. The BCCT argued that the agreement was discriminatory and might lead to TWU graduates discriminating against homosexual students in public school classrooms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Western_University_v_British_Columbia_College_of_Teachers

https://twu.ca/about/news/general/2001/the-supreme-court-of-canada-upholds-the-b-c-court-.html

Edited July 5, 2016 by Argus

[waldo]

It's pretty clear that the cases are identical. The teachers refused to licence TWU teacher graduates because they said the univesity discriminated against gays and suspected its graduates would be anti-gay.

Ontario lower courts pointedly stated that 2001 SCOC ruling had no binding attachment to the current case involving the Law Society of Upper Canada; more pointedly a lower Ontario court emphasized that, in the subsequent decade and a half period, public attitudes had shifted during that time and needed to be taken into account. In regards that 2001 case, I made a point in referring to the lower court (BC Supreme Court) ruling to highlight TWU had won their case... that it was the BC Teachers Association taking the case forward to the SCOC. In the current case involving the Law Society of Upper Canada, it is TWU taking the case forward to the SCOC (as they have now done... although the SCOC has not advised if it will accept the case).

in the 2001 case, it was TWU seeking to take sole 'ownership and responsibility' for its teaching program - to certify, to accredit, its own program/graduates. In this current 2016 case, the 3 Ontario lower court levels have upheld the Law Society of Upper Canada's decision not to accredit TWU law school graduates... for the proposed TWU law school that does, in fact, not exist yet. This is hardly, as you say, "identical"!

.

[Wilber]

Del

Edited August 1, 2016 by Wilber

[Wilber]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/trinity-western-university-wins-legal-battle-with-ns-barristers-society-1.3695374

So what now? Do we no longer have national accreditation standards in this country?

Obviously this has to be heard by the SC of C

[The_Squid]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/trinity-western-university-wins-legal-battle-with-ns-barristers-society-1.3695374

So what now? Do we no longer have national accreditation standards in this country?

Obviously this has to be heard by the SC of C

I think that's part of the problem; there is no national accreditation. It's all province by province.

[Wilber]

But it isn't it supposed to be reciprocal. Or was.

[TimG]

But it isn't it supposed to be reciprocal. Or was.

That is before religious fanatics took over the law society and decided that they were entitled to punished groups that do not conform to their religion.

[The_Squid]

That is before religious fanatics took over the law society and decided that they were entitled to punished groups that do not conform to their religion.

What religion are these "fanatics" in the law societies?

[TimG]

What religion are these "fanatics" in the law societies?

The PC religion that prohibits anyone else from expressing a belief that differs from their own.

[The_Squid]

The PC religion that prohibits anyone else from expressing a belief that differs from their own.

that's not a religion.

You're spouting nonsense. Hyperbolic silliness.

[TimG]

that's not a religion.

If it quacks like a duck...

Seriously, the level of intolerance shown by the law societies is as bad the intolerance shown by anti-abortionists like betsy.

Both groups refuse to accept that different opinions exist and they think they are entitled to impose their opinion on everyone else.

Perhaps a link to the law in question would clear things up:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=3293341&file=4&Col=1

3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

IOW, private religious institutions are under no obligation to use the word 'marriage' in the same way as the government.

Edited August 1, 2016 by TimG

[Wilber]

What religion are these "fanatics" in the law societies?

Secular zealots can be just as intolerant as religious zealots. I have a problem with both.

[The_Squid]

Secular zealots can be just as intolerant as religious zealots. I have a problem with both.

The law society are secular zealots? How so?

Edited August 2, 2016 by The_Squid

[sharkman]

The law society are secular zealots? How so?

You make up a strawman and then ask "how so?". Try again.