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

[Wilber]

We are not professionals. The comment above related to this forum.

True enough and law societies are also entitled to opinions but their actions need to be professional if they are to be credible.

[Michael Hardner]

Using 'religious freedom' as an argument is an easy way out for the University but it simply does not apply here. It's about a University forcing its students to sign a document that discriminates against LGBTQ members of the public.

You're characterizing it as an easy way out, but I looked at the document. It's pretty clearly about committing to a traditional Christian lifestyle:

http://acts.twu.ca/community/community-responsibilities.html

I don't see how it doesn't apply.

Another issue that I have wondered about, "what if a student decides in their 2nd or 3rd year that they are gay"? They would be forced to deny their personal identity if they wanted to finish the program. It's the old 'don't ask, don't tell'. Haven't we moved beyond that.

Uh, no. They would simply have to abstain. TimG pointed this out already, I think.

[Michael Hardner]

Forcing students to sign a covenant that is discriminatory to the gay community goes against the policies of Ontario.

WCR - discrimination is allowed and legal in many cases, see my posts above for a discussion. If you can acknowledge that to start, then the discussion could move from there.

[Wilber]

Forcing students to sign a covenant that is discriminatory to the gay community goes against the policies of Ontario.

And discriminating against students on ideoligical grounds is also their policy it would seem. The pot calling the kettle black.

[TimG]

Forcing students to sign a covenant that is discriminatory to the gay community goes against the policies of Ontario.

By your logic it is also discriminatory against porn users, drug users and alcohol users. The law school program is also discriminatory against people who can't speak English.

Despite all of the blather no one has made a coherent argument explaining why expecting students to forgo activities that they would be otherwise free to engage in is discriminatory. Discrimination means people are denied access for what they are or what they believe yet nothing in the policies actually says gay people cannot join the school. It is just says that students can't engage in sodomy while at the the school.

Edited April 28, 2014 by TimG

[gunrutz]

So if a law society can be considered anti gay and not given accreditation elsehwere because of it, is a lawyer allowed to hold any opinion on the issue other than what is currently deemed acceptable? If a lawyer doesn't agree with gay marriage should they be automatically be disbarred form practicing anywhere in the country? I know nothing about it so maybe, but if not why does the work put into a degree become void if the university they recieved it from holds that value? Lots of people aren't pro gay marriage, why aren't private individuals as responsible as private institutions, perhaps there should be a questionairre, 'do you agree with gay marriage', if no, please turn in your legal/medical/engineering etc diploma. i dont agree with the anit gay stance of the school but i don't see how other law societies can tell graduates that their degrees don't count becuase of it. Unless of curse lawyers are required to have no opinion on rights issues.

Edited April 28, 2014 by gunrutz

[cybercoma]

I guess if "non-blacks" aren't a group in your books then neither are "non-whites" ? So a "whites only" school is ok because it doesn't discriminate against a single identifiable group ? As I said above, I don't think this line of thinking addresses it.

I guess if you ignore everything I've been saying about Human Rights legislation listing protected groups and existing because of historical disadvantages. Sure. Since you're willing to complete ignore that, I'm willing to completely ignore anything else you have to add to this discussion now because you're not making any sense anymore. Edited April 28, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

So if a law society can be considered anti gay and not given accreditation elsehwere because of it, is a lawyer allowed to hold any opinion on the issue other than what is currently deemed acceptable? If a lawyer doesn't agree with gay marriage should they be automatically be disbarred form practicing anywhere in the country?

It has nothing to do with individual lawyers and their opinions. The law society is taking a stand against a school that is violating human rights legislation.

[TimG]

The law society is taking a stand against a school that is violating human rights legislation.

Setting rules for student behavior does not violate any human rights.

Barring students for what they believe or what they are would be a violation.

The distinction is very important.

Nothing in the human rights code says students should be allowed to do whatever they want.

Edited April 28, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I guess if you ignore everything I've been saying about Human Rights legislation listing protected groups and existing because of historical disadvantages. Sure.

As far as I can tell, you're coming up with this 'identifiable groups' line of thinking yourself. Are you ?

I'm citing examples of where religious organizations are treated differently, ie. given the right to discriminate. Against "non Catholics", gay people, transgender folks... Whether or not you like it or I do is quite beside the point.

[cybercoma]

There's something in the human rights code that says they can't prohibit students based on their sexual orientation though. So word it however you want. It's a violation. If a law school is not willing to follow the law, then the law society is not willing to recognize their degrees. Pretty straightforward.

[cybercoma]

As far as I can tell, you're coming up with this 'identifiable groups' line of thinking yourself. Are you ?

I'm citing examples of where religious organizations are treated differently, ie. given the right to discriminate. Against "non Catholics", gay people, transgender folks... Whether or not you like it or I do is quite beside the point.

If you want to discuss what Ontario Catholic schools have done, then start another thread and we'll talk about it. It's irrelevant here. Ontario Catholic School cannot and do not prohibit their students from being gay, nor do their students even have to be Catholic. There is no comparison with the Trinity story.

[Bryan]

Ontario Catholic School cannot and do not prohibit their students from being gay,

Neither does Trinity.

[TimG]

There's something in the human rights code that says they can't prohibit students based on their sexual orientation though.

But there are not prohibiting students based on their orientation. They are setting requirements for *behavoir* while at school. I realize that you wish to ignore the distinction because it gives you an excuse to pound on a soapbox, however, I don't think you have thought through what society would be like if the human rights code actually prevented any institution from having codes of conduct that restrict people from engaging in what would otherwise be lawful activities.

[Wilber]

There's something in the human rights code that says they can't prohibit students based on their sexual orientation though. So word it however you want. It's a violation. If a law school is not willing to follow the law, then the law society is not willing to recognize their degrees. Pretty straightforward.

The courts decide what is legal, not law societies.

[Michael Hardner]

If you want to discuss what Ontario Catholic schools have done, then start another thread and we'll talk about it. It's irrelevant here.

If you check back on the thread, there's plenty of talk of this or that being not allowed under the Charter of Rights. That's what I am talking about, there's legal precedent so I do think it's relevant - I can't see how it's not.

Also some of my examples are from B.C. too, in the links, I think.

It's too bad, but discrimination against behaviors associated with identifiable groups has to be protected if religious freedom is to be at all meaningful. It may in fact be that there's a way to draw the line differently, somehow, but we'd need to talk about some kind of principle or axiom and those who agree with the Ontario ruling have been reluctant to take the conversation there.

[The_Squid]

And discriminating against students on ideoligical grounds is also their policy it would seem. The pot calling the kettle black.

There is no student discrimination. Stop making stuff up. There are no students. Prospective law students have the same options as ever. This school would start in 2016 and students will know going in that many, or all, law societies will not recognize a degree from this school because it is not accredited.

It will be like getting your law degree from an online school in Taiwan and then being surprised that you are not a lawyer in Canada.... And then crying about discrimination! Of course there's discrimination about which PROGRAMS are accredited.

Edited April 28, 2014 by The_Squid

[The_Squid]

But there are not prohibiting students based on their orientation. They are setting requirements for *behavoir* while at school. I realize that you wish to ignore the distinction because it gives you an excuse to pound on a soapbox, however, I don't think you have thought through what society would be like if the human rights code actually prevented any institution from having codes of conduct that restrict people from engaging in what would otherwise be lawful activities.

That's a load of bunk.

A person who is one half of a married gay couple would not be accepted to this school when they couldn't sign a covenant that says they can't be with their partner. That's discrimination.

[Wilber]

There is no student discrimination. Stop making stuff up. There are no students. Prospective law students have the same options as ever. This school would start in 2016 and students will know going in that many, or all, law societies will not recognize a degree from this school because it is not accredited.

It will be like getting your law degree from an online school in Taiwan and then being surprised that you are not a lawyer in Canada.... And then crying about discrimination! Of course there's discrimimation about which PROGRAMS are accredited.

Bull. The reason they are not being recognized has nothing to do with the quality of education. The law society is making up a criteria that has nothing to do with law. If it was, this would be settled in court. They are excercising a moral judgement on the school and the students pay the price. They don't have the balls to test it it in court so they abuse their power and hope they can get away with it. Just plain sleezy IMO.

[The_Squid]

Bull. The reason they are not being recognized has nothing to do with the quality of education. The law society is making up a criteria that has nothing to do with law. If it was, this would be settled in court. They are excercising a moral judgement on the school and the students pay the price. They don't have the balls to test it it in court so they abuse their power and hope they can get away with it. Just plain sleezy IMO.

Not true. It's a legal judgement, not a moral one. Law schools must abide by Canadian laws, which makes perfect sense for a law school.

[Bryan]

Not true. It's a legal judgement, not a moral one. Law schools must abide by Canadian laws, which makes perfect sense for a law school.

Apparently law societies don't think they have abide by Canadian laws though, the hypocrisy is pretty thick.

[Wilber]

Not true. It's a legal judgement, not a moral one. Law schools must abide by Canadian laws, which makes perfect sense for a law school.

If the school is breaking the law, settle the issue in court. If the law society wants to preach morality, let them build their own church.

[The_Squid]

Apparently law societies don't think they have abide by Canadian laws though, the hypocrisy is pretty thick.

What laws aren't they following?

If the school is breaking the law, settle the issue in court. If the law society wants to preach morality, let them build their own church.

Again, you have it backwards. Law societies set the standards. If a school has issues with those standards, it is up to them to take it to court to change them.

[Bryan]

What laws aren't they following?

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Wilber]

The BC society accepted Trinity's program on its content, that's their job. Ontario decided to ignore their job and impose their own form of PC morality. We don't need a law society to do that, anyone here is just as qualified. Or not.