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

[Argus]

Nope. Not the same thing.

What is different about this case?

[WestCoastRunner]

An Ontario court has upheld the ontario's law society refusal to accredit Trinity's law school.

The judges slammed the covenant calling it discriminatory.

I'd copy the link but not sure how to on my smart phone. It is on the Cbc website.

[Wilber]

Ya, I have a real problem with this. It is discriminatory but it has nothing to do with the quality of education being offered. I think it is a slippery slope when accrediting agencies start making decisions based on their own concept of morality, instead of the program standards they are supposed to be evaluating.

By the same standard, they could say, sure, your program is substandard but we will accredit your school anyway because we like what you stand for socially. Law societies lose credibility because no one knows for sure why they are giving accreditation.

To me, this is an unprofessional act being carried out by so called professionals.

[cybercoma]

I wouldn't expect the law society to accredit a school that said no blacks allowed and the same goes here for no gays and lesbians allowed. Imagine if this were a Muslim law school that was teaching the values of Sharia to their students and funded by Saudi Arabia. Well, you can look at the outrage when it isn't even a law school. We don't need religion interfering with our laws, particularly when the religious dogma preaches discrimination and intolerance.

[Wilber]

I wouldn't expect the law society to accredit a school that said no blacks allowed and the same goes here for no gays and lesbians allowed. Imagine if this were a Muslim law school that was teaching the values of Sharia to their students and funded by Saudi Arabia. Well, you can look at the outrage when it isn't even a law school. We don't need religion interfering with our laws, particularly when the religious dogma preaches discrimination and intolerance.

I believe prohibiting gays, lesbians or blacks would be illegal but apparently requiring gays and lesbians not to engage in sexual activity is not. I don't agree with that and a law society is quite entitled to express an opinion accordingly, but when it is accrediting courses their job is to make an objective evaluation of course content. If they aren't willing to do that, they should leave the job to someone who will. I do not want professional standards to evaluated by someone with a social agenda, I want them evaluated by professionals according to professional standards, period. They are doing a disservice to the public if they use non professional standards to rule on professional issues.

[cybercoma]

I believe prohibiting gays, lesbians or blacks would be illegal but apparently requiring gays and lesbians not to engage in sexual activity is not. I don't agree with that and a law society is quite entitled to express an opinion accordingly, but when it is accrediting courses their job is to make an objective evaluation of course content. If they aren't willing to do that, they should leave the job to someone who will. I do not want professional standards to evaluated by someone with a social agenda, I want them evaluated by professionals according to professional standards, period. They are doing a disservice to the public if they use non professional standards to rule on professional issues.

I hear you, but if a law school cannot abide by charter rights then it's not meeting professional standards. A school has no right to insist that its students don't have sex, least of all discriminating against one particular protected group. If you take a professional school as a job or job training, then what do you suppose the reaction would be if an employer said, "nobody is allowed to have gay sex." Well, obviously that only affects gay people, since straight people can have all the sex they want. It's discrimination and if the school can't abide the charter, then it speaks to its professional standards.

[Wilber]

I hear you, but if a law school cannot abide by charter rights then it's not meeting professional standards. A school has no right to insist that its students don't have sex, least of all discriminating against one particular protected group. If you take a professional school as a job or job training, then what do you suppose the reaction would be if an employer said, "nobody is allowed to have gay sex." Well, obviously that only affects gay people, since straight people can have all the sex they want. It's discrimination and if the school can't abide the charter, then it speaks to its professional standards.

It obviously is abiding by the Charter or what they are doing would be illegal. If the school was violating the Charter, we wouldn't be having this debate. The law society is wanting to impose its social mores on this school. This has nothing to do with professional standards, it is social activism pure and simple.

Should a lawyer have to believe in everything you do in order to represent you? Should you have to believe in everything your lawyer does before he will represent you? How professional would that be?

And yes, the law society is discriminating. By refusing accreditation on social grounds instead of professional competency, they are in effect telling law firms who they can hire based on what they see that persons personal beliefs to be, whether they are or not.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Wilber

[H10]

So much for freedom of speech. Its ironic, you can come from a law school like saudi arabia where they still hang people and still get recognized but if you come from one in BC that says gayness is immoral, which is factually true you are punished and banned from practice, canada is sick.

[Guest]

While I disagree with the stand taken by those who refuse to credit graduates of TWU, (it's not their fault, after all) I can see you are seriously lacking in understanding about what freedom of speech actually means, and you also have a warped view of morality.

[cybercoma]

So much for freedom of speech. Its ironic, you can come from a law school like saudi arabia where they still hang people and still get recognized but if you come from one in BC that says gayness is immoral, which is factually true you are punished and banned from practice, canada is sick.

First, show me evidence that law schools in Saudi Arabia are recognized here.

Secondly, discriminating against gay students is not freedom of speech.

[Argus]

To me, this just shows how judges will vote their ideological biases, regardless of what the law says. As far as I can see, and from what I've read of several respected lawyers opinions, not to mention the judge in NS, this is a very clear and settled case that the SC decided only ten years ago in the case of the same school only with regard to indignant teaching associations which didn't want to admit their graduates.

What possible excuse could there be to exclude their law school grads when the SC said their teaching grads couldn't be excluded? All the claims with regard to the lawyers are exactly the same ones the SC dismissed with regard to the teachers. As for the SC decision, what the Ontario court basically said was "Well, attitudes towards gays have changed in the last fifteen years, so maybe the SC will change its mind if it revisits the issue."

This is an astonishing admission that to these judges, law is not based on what is written down, but on society's changing attitudes, likes and preferences. Does that mean if attitudes harden towards gays that the charter would now be meaningless as a protection against discrimination? Would all the other pro-gay findings evaporate, since society's attitude has changed?

Like I've often said, to too many judges, the charter means whatever they want it to mean, not what's written down.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Argus

[TimG]

Secondly, discriminating against gay students is not freedom of speech.

It is freedom of religion. When rights come into conflict the one must trump the other. The SC ruled that the appropriate line to draw has to be based on the conduct of professionals. i.e. if a professional discriminates on the job then censor that professional. Trying to impose penalties on grads based on hypothetical concerns is a gross violation of the student's freedom of religion.

The thing about rights: people have them even if you don't like what they do with them.

Edited July 6, 2015 by TimG

[The_Squid]

It is freedom of religion. When rights come into conflict the one must trump the other. The SC ruled that the appropriate line to draw has to be based on the conduct of professionals. i.e. if a professional discriminates on the job then censor that professional. Trying to impose penalties on grads based on hypothetical concerns is a gross violation of the student's freedom of religion.The thing about rights: people have them even if you don't like what they do with them.

Your freedom to swing your arms ends at my nose...

Their freedom of religion does not include telling people they cannot attend their school if they perform certain sexual acts.

[The_Squid]

While I disagree with the stand taken by those who refuse to credit graduates of TWU, (it's not their fault, after all) I can see you are seriously lacking in understanding about what freedom of speech actually means, and you also have a warped view of morality.

There are NO graduates... this is about accrediting a program, not taking away accreditation from individuals.

[Michael Hardner]

Their freedom of religion does not include telling people they cannot attend their school if they perform certain sexual acts.

Then what is religious education, if it's not the ability to impart morals that are not part of general society ? There are trickier examples than this, but the court took an example that was not set up to discriminate against gay people (only fornicators) and threw it out based on popular opinion.

It's too bad.

[The_Squid]

Then what is religious education, if it's not the ability to impart morals that are not part of general society ? There are trickier examples than this, but the court took an example that was not set up to discriminate against gay people (only fornicators) and threw it out based on popular opinion.It's too bad.

They can impart their morals all they want, but they can't discriminate when someone chooses to exercise their own freedom of choice when it comes to their sexual partners.

A married gay man or woman is barred from this school. That's clearly discriminatory. So you are wrong about "fornicators" being the target.

Law schools have no business violating the Charter. Or, more precisely, they CAN violate the charter, but their school will not meet the proper criteria for accreditation.

Edited July 6, 2015 by The_Squid

[Michael Hardner]

They can impart their morals all they want, but they can't discriminate ...

Their morals necessarily include discrimination.

When you come back to this discussion brandishing your own moral code, it doesn't move the discussion forward.

I'm not wrong about 'fornicators' - abstaining gay people would be welcome, straight people having sex out of wedlock would not.

[The_Squid]

1 Their morals necessarily include discrimination.

2 When you come back to this discussion brandishing your own moral code, it doesn't move the discussion forward.

3 I'm not wrong about 'fornicators' - abstaining gay people would be welcome, straight people having sex out of wedlock would not.

1 - OK... but you can't discriminate and expect to have a law school with proper accreditation.

2 - My moral code has nothing to do with this... when did I say my morals should trump theirs? Never. It's about what is allowable by Canada's Charter.

3 - So you consider married gay people to be "fornicators"? Married gay people are not welcome at this school, unlike married straight people.

[Michael Hardner]

1 then you can't have religious education

2 you stated your beliefs, which aren't important here

3 my beliefs aren't important either

[The_Squid]

1 then you can't have religious education

2 you stated your beliefs, which aren't important here

3 my beliefs aren't important either

Who is banning "religious education"? You can't have an accredited law school that violates the Charter. It's nothing more than that. Stop trying to twist it into something else.

[Guest]

There are NO graduates... this is about accrediting a program, not taking away accreditation from individuals.

That was a question I had. Was there a program in place such that there would be students who had invested time and money at TWU before these decisions were made?

[The_Squid]

That was a question I had. Was there a program in place such that there would be students who had invested time and money at TWU before these decisions were made?

No. They didn't have a law school. It would have been starting in 2016.

[Guest]

No. They didn't have a law school. It would have been starting in 2016.

Ah, I see. Thanks.

[Michael Hardner]

At a certain point, it's not religious education. This is that point. They can't teach people about amoral behaviour if they are forced to accept it.

[cybercoma]

an example that was not set up to discriminate against gay people

There is absolutely no objective way to look at the circumstances here and say it doesn't discriminate against gay people.