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

guyser · May 4, 2014

I believe that graduates have to be from an accredited school to belong to the law society. So while they may be able to practice, they wouldn't be able to be members no matter how good TW's school was. So much for Professionalism.

Not quite

Any grad can apply ot the board and go thru a screening process. Denying them any acess......would be against the law.

Funny how that works huh?

Wilber · May 4, 2014

Not quite

Any grad can apply ot the board and go thru a screening process. Denying them any acess......would be against the law.

Funny how that works huh?

So they won't recognize the school but if asked nicely, they will recognize its students.

What would be the catch?

Edited May 4, 2014 by Wilber

Moonlight Graham · May 5, 2014

The Ontario Law Society for violating Trinity and their students' freedom of religion.

Hmm you do have a point here.

WestCoastRunner · May 5, 2014

Dow Marmur, who is rabbi emeritus at Toronto's Holy Blossom Temple wrote a very good column today. He is an appointed bencher and states that he would have voted with the majority. His reasons and thoughts in summary, are:

When it seeks accreditation from bodies that reflect current social mores, it must be prepared to modify its stance accordingly.

The bible can be interpreted as being opposed to homosexuality, but it can also be interpreted as promoting all manifestations of love between individuals irrespective of gender and every human being should be treated equally regardless of sexual orientation.

Scripture is sacred but not divine, despite the claims to the contrary, especially by those who wish to wrap their own prejudices and quest for domination in the mantle of holy writ.

Biblical teachings depend on human interpretations and insights gained through the ages resulting in commandments evolving. The words may be the same but their meaning is not.

if it wants its law students to be accepted by all legal jurisdictions in Canada, it must be prepared to comply with the principles of public policy as espoused by those whose approval it seeks. It’s not enough to be a “forgiving community,” as TWU claims. It identifies the elusive notion of sin and then claims seeming tolerance in not punishing sinners. Such an approach is baffling and unacceptable.

Bencher Raj Anand, renowned human rights advocate, states that “to prevent a student from manifesting his or her own sexual identity is itself a violation of the Human Rights Code.” And asking students to make a false declaration, either impugns their good characters or advocates a life of repression.

I couldn't have expressed my thoughts more eloquently than this.

Wilber · May 5, 2014

Except legal societies are entrusted with looking after the standards of the legal profession and as such, they should be acting in accordance with existing law, not trying to make up their own.

Boges · May 5, 2014

Michael Coren wrote about this on Friday.

Ultimately the vow is about pre-marital sex. No one would deny someone a law degree if they believed pre-marital sex is wrong, but because it goes to the realm of same-sex marriage it's suddenly offsides.

It's also just a personal vow and is in no way enforceable.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/05/01/law-school-pledge-isnt-right----but-its-their-right

guyser · May 5, 2014

So they won't recognize the school but if asked nicely, they will recognize its students.

What would be the catch?

No catch really.

Probably competence is what they are looking at, considering the school has a competency problem-no one has graduated from the programme - it should be looked at as a minor set back.

They can still practice anywhere they want. No one can take that away from them

guyser · May 5, 2014

Except legal societies are entrusted with looking after the standards of the legal profession and as such, they should be acting in accordance with existing law, not trying to make up their own.

Ok

What 'law' are they breaking ? If its the one denying access to their chosen profession, they are notdenying access to that.

Peter F · May 5, 2014

Michael Coren wrote about this on Friday.

Ultimately the vow is about pre-marital sex. No one would deny someone a law degree if they believed pre-marital sex is wrong, but because it goes to the realm of same-sex marriage it's suddenly offsides.

It's also just a personal vow and is in no way enforceable.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/05/01/law-school-pledge-isnt-right----but-its-their-right

yes, ultimately the vow is about pre-marital sex and TWU - on paper at least - would indeed deny a law degree if they believe (as they apparently do) that pre-marital sex is wrong. Thats why it specifically states in the TWU covenant that the covenant is a contract.

And the covenant could very well be enforceable. They don't call it a contract for nothing.

Edit to add: from the TWU Student Accountability Policy: https://twu.ca/studenthandbook/university-policies/student-accountability-policy.html

Formal Accountability Process (more serious incidents)

Stage One:

" It is the responsibility of Assistant Directors of Community Life or appropriate designate to receive complaints and investigate possible violations of Community Covenant and/or policies and guidelines of the University. "

Stage two

"The Director of Community Life, at his/her sole discretion, may refer the matter to the Associate Provost (e.g., a referral of plagiarism and/or academic dishonesty; in the case of repeated or multiple offences; the student has made deceptive or dishonest statements at the interview; or due to the grievous nature of the violation to the Community Covenant and/or policies and guidelines of the University)."

Possible Accountability Actions includes Expultion

Edited May 5, 2014 by Peter F

Wilber · May 5, 2014

No catch really.

Probably competence is what they are looking at, considering the school has a competency problem-no one has graduated from the programme - it should be looked at as a minor set back.

They can still practice anywhere they want. No one can take that away from them

Because of reciprocal agreements, they cannot be prohibited from practicing if their program has been accredited by another province. They can be denied membership in the Ontario Law Society. So what would magically make them eligible for membership?

Edited May 5, 2014 by Wilber

Wilber · May 5, 2014

Ok

What 'law' are they breaking ? If its the one denying access to their chosen profession, they are notdenying access to that.

Evidently, you didn't read the link written by one of the BC benchers. They didn't make their decision blindly. They solicited advice from constitutional lawyers and asked for representations. The advice they got was that the SC decision TWU vs the BC Teachers College is the law. The BCCLA came to the same conclusion.

One of the most persuasive submissions was from the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, (an organization not known to shy away from protecting the rights of the LGBTQ community). The BCCLA took the position that its commitment to a society in which LGBTQ people are free from unlawful discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation did not give anyone licence to discriminate against others on the basis of their conscientiously held religious beliefs, nor to deny them their fundamental freedoms. “For the Law Society to deny TWU’s application for accreditation” they said “would itself be contrary to law, as established by the Supreme Court of Canada, and would result in unlawful discrimination against and infringement of the fundamental freedoms of those who seek only to be able to study law and be allowed entry to the legal profession without discrimination based on their religious beliefs.”

There is little doubt the Ontario society would have received the same advice had they asked for it. Instead they decided to make a statement.

It all depends on what think the role of professional society should be. Should they be objective evaluators of the standards of their profession, or should they be makers of social policy? They can't have it both ways because as soon as they start using social criteria to evaluate professional standards, their professional objectivity becomes suspect and their credibility is devalued.

Peter F · May 5, 2014

There is little doubt the Ontario society would have received the same advice had they asked for it. Instead they decided to make a statement.

They did ask and were given the same advice and contrary advice through many submissions.

see : http://www.lsuc.on.ca/uploadedFiles/For_the_Public/About_the_Law_Society/Convocation_Decisions/2014/convapr102014_submissions.pdf

guyser · May 5, 2014

Evidently, you didn't read the link written by one of the BC benchers. They didn't make their decision blindly. They solicited advice from constitutional lawyers and asked for representations. The advice they got was that the SC decision TWU vs the BC Teachers College is the law. The BCCLA came to the same conclusion.

Im afraid that is not correct.

Heres the first 2 paragrpahs of their decision (LSUC)

First, the FLSC relies heavily on a 2001 SCC judgment in a case involving

TWU and the B.C. College of Teachers. Although this precedent cannot

be ignored, over the last 12 years the law has transformed. The 2013

case of Whatcott departs from the 2001 Trinity Western decision in

important ways, notably by wholly rejecting the “hate the sin, love the

sinner” excuse adopted by TWU to continue its discrimination in 2001. An

institution cannot ban “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of

marriage between a man and a woman” (i.e., sex between LGBTQ

individuals) without effectively banning LGBTQ individuals. The effect of

the Covenant is to exclude anyone who lives in a committed same-sex

relationship, an issue that was completely overlooked in the 2001 case.

• Second, the 2012 SCC decision in Doré now imposes an obligation on law

societies to apply the Charter and provincial human rights legislation every

time they make a decision. The B.C. College of Teachers was under no

such express obligation in 2001. In practice, this means that private

religious organizations can adopt rules that reflect their beliefs, but

governments and regulators that are required to operate in the public

interest are not bound to accredit such institutions if they discriminate

against individuals.

That ^ is something I said earlier.

Peter F · May 5, 2014

Second, the 2012 SCC decision in Doré now imposes an obligation on law
societies to apply the Charter and provincial human rights legislation every

time they make a decision.

Thats right, and was consistently referred to by the LSUC bench...any decision by LSUC must adhere to the Ontario Human Rights code. Thus the hang-up on TWU's covenant.

Wilber · May 5, 2014

I think this will wind up in the courts again which is maybe what should happen. While it would be better if the covenant would just disappear, I have no problem with a decision that says one group's rights don't always come before another group's. That should go for gays as well as religious institutions.

WestCoastRunner · May 5, 2014

I think this will wind up in the courts again which is maybe what should happen. While it would be better if the covenant would just disappear, I have no problem with a decision that says one group's rights don't always come before another group's. That should go for gays as well as religious institutions.

One group's rights shouldn't come before another group's if it goes against human rights. And that is the essence of this battle TWU finds itself in with a a couple of provinces and perhaps NB as well. TWU couldn't really care less about the other provinces. It's the Ontario Law Society that concerns them the most and rightly so.

Wilber · May 5, 2014

One group's rights shouldn't come before another group's if it goes against human rights. And that is the essence of this battle TWU finds itself in with a a couple of provinces and perhaps NB as well. TWU couldn't really care less about the other provinces. It's the Ontario Law Society that concerns them the most and rightly so.

What do you consider human rights? Freedom of religion, belief, expression and association are all classified as "fundamental freedoms" in Section 2 of the Charter.

How do you prioritize freedoms? It's OK for schools to discriminate according to gender but not by sexuality? It's OK to discriminate against people because of their beliefs but not because of their race, gender or sexuality?

This is not a simple issue.

WestCoastRunner · May 5, 2014

This is not a simple issue.

It is actually pretty simple. Remove the covenant.

Wilber · May 5, 2014

It is actually pretty simple. Remove the covenant.

So you get to say who's rights are more important than someone else's. No need for a Charter or SC then.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Wilber

WestCoastRunner · May 5, 2014

So you get to say who's rights are more important than someone else's. No need for a Charter or SC then.

Well, TWU is telling everyone who's rights are more important.

Wilber · May 5, 2014

Well, TWU is telling everyone who's rights are more important.

Only at TWU, not anywhere else.

WestCoastRunner · May 5, 2014

Only at TWU, not anywhere else.

Well, the Ontario Law Society is directing their ban towards TWU, no one else.

Wilber · May 5, 2014

Well, the Ontario Law Society is directing their ban towards TWU, no one else.

Nonsense, they are directing it against a belief system.

TWU is not trying to impose their belief system on you. You are trying to impose yours on them.

WestCoastRunner · May 5, 2014

Nonsense, they are directing it against a belief system.

TWU is not trying to impose their belief system on you. You are trying to impose yours on them.

If I were a gay student and my parents were paying for my education and I had to hide my sexual identity in order to get a law degree, the college is in fact imposing their belief system onto me by making me sign this covenant and denying me my human rights.

WestCoastRunner · May 5, 2014

Nonsense, they are directing it against a belief system.

TWU is not trying to impose their belief system on you. You are trying to impose yours on them.

And again, I would have to quote:

Bencher Raj Anand, renowned human rights advocate, states that “to prevent a student from manifesting his or her own sexual identity is itself a violation of the Human Rights Code.” And asking students to make a false declaration, either impugns their good characters or advocates a life of repression.

This is how they are denying a gay student their human rights.