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

[WestCoastRunner]

An interesting quote from Shauna Van Praagh, who is a law professor at McGill and president of the Canadian Association of Law teachers:

"It’s clearly foreseeable that law students at Trinity Western will question their institution’s fundamental tenets. Indeed law students are particularly adept at challenging rules attempting to fix the permissible range of human behaviours and relationships. Trinity Western’s law school should expect and indeed encourage its own students to do so."

Let's hope that the future law students at Trinity do their best to overturn this covenant.

[Wilber]

What does Trinity plan to do I wonder, put spies on you to follow you around and see who you have sex with? Put hidden cctv's in all the dorms? One thing about it is it will provide an interesting "home grown" topic for buddinbg lawyers to discuss. It will be interesting to see how TWU responds to the NS response.

Who cares, that's their problem.

[TimG]

The entire Covenant is here: https://twu.ca/studenthandbook/university-policies/community-covenant-agreement.html

In keeping with biblical and TWU ideals, community members voluntarily abstain from the following actions:

communication that is destructive to TWU community life and inter–personal relationships, including gossip, slander, vulgar/obscene language, and prejudice

harassment or any form of verbal or physical intimidation, including hazing

lying, cheating, or other forms of dishonesty including plagiarism

stealing, misusing or destroying property belonging to others

sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman

the use of materials that are degrading, dehumanizing, exploitive, hateful, or gratuitously violent, including, but not limited to pornography

drunkenness, under-age consumption of alcohol, the use or possession of illegal drugs, and the misuse or abuse of substances including prescribed drugs

the use or possession of alcohol on campus, or at any TWU sponsored event, and the use of tobacco on campus or at any TWU sponsored event.

Seems to me the ban on sexual relations is the least odious of the terms from the POV of an average 20 something.

[Michael Hardner]

The issue is that the university will discriminate against students. And this IMO is taking a few steps backwards with regards to equal rights in Canada.

Not at all - discrimination on religious grounds is a protected right.

[WestCoastRunner]

"sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman"

This is the deal Tim. They are discriminating against gay men and women. I would like to think that Canada has risen above and beyond other countries.

[WestCoastRunner]

Not at all - discrimination on religious grounds is a protected right.

And this is your rebuttal against a very important decision made by the Upper Canada of Law Society?

[TimG]

This is the deal Tim. They are discriminating against gay men and women. I would like to think that Canada has risen above and beyond other countries.

Actually it bans all sexual intimacy outside of marriage. So a gay person does not need to lie or hide their orientation - they just need to be abstinent - like all of their hetero peers. The rule applies to everyone and is, therefore, not discriminatory. Edited April 26, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

And this is your rebuttal against a very important decision made by the Upper Canada of Law Society?

Well, yes. They have a Charter right to their values. You seem to think these policies are something new.

[cybercoma]

The flip side of the coin I can see is what if I'm gay, I've got the money, and I want to study at Trinity. Can't do it unless I'm willing to lie about who I am. Sounds like I'm being barred from my occupation because of my beliefs. I also agree that they can do whatever they wish in their own sandbox, but Ontario does recognize same sex marriages so I see the potential for conflict.

Problem is, as long as it's accredited, there really is no valid reason for the law society refusing their students. The problem with how they treat their students should start and end with accreditation.

[cybercoma]

There are plenty of pro-gay universities that you can go to, there's no reason for you to sabotage anyone else's right to go to one that is not. You already can have what you want, let them have what they want.

You fail to recognize that the people who go to Trinity could also go to those pro-gay universities. They have the privilege of going wherever the hell they want. It's the gay students that are discriminated against, not the Christians.

The opposite is the case for the law society's decision. They're discriminating against students that come from Trinity, based on the religious regulations at the school. Unless the education Trinity is providing is not up to the standards expected by the Law Society, then they have no grounds for rejecting their students. What they should be doing is going after the school's accreditation.

[cybercoma]

So that makes it OK for everyone else to discriminate against its graduates. As long as this school gets no public money, they should be free to discriminate as they wish as long as they don't break the law. You would think a law society should be able to grasp such a concept.

The Law Societies are making a statement against what amounts to the exact same thing as black students not being allowed to attend "white" schools. They're going about it the wrong way though. They should be going after the school's accreditation, rather than the graduates from the school.

[cybercoma]

Well, yes. They have a Charter right to their values. You seem to think these policies are something new.

What do you think happens when two Charter Rights bump into each other? We're talking about a private institution though, so it would be the human rights act of the province that it's in and not the Charter anyway. But for argument's sake, say this does go to court. What do you suppose is going to win out? The right of the school to have oppressive and discriminatory rules? Or the right of individuals not to face this kind of archaic nonsense?

[Wilber]

The Law Societies are making a statement against what amounts to the exact same thing as black students not being allowed to attend "white" schools. They're going about it the wrong way though. They should be going after the school's accreditation, rather than the graduates from the school.

Having to agree not ot have sexual relations outside of marriage is hardly the same as having to agree not to be black.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Charles Anthony
fixed mal-formed quote

[On Guard for Thee]

Actually it bans all sexual intimacy outside of marriage. So a gay person does not need to lie or hide their orientation - they just need to be abstinent - like all of their hetero peers. The rule applies to everyone and is, therefore, not discriminatory.

It is discriminatory under our charter of rights.

[Wilber]

What do you think happens when two Charter Rights bump into each other? We're talking about a private institution though, so it would be the human rights act of the province that it's in and not the Charter anyway. But for argument's sake, say this does go to court. What do you suppose is going to win out? The right of the school to have oppressive and discriminatory rules? Or the right of individuals not to face this kind of archaic nonsense?

Archaic nonsense like boys and girls schools, women only gyms etc?

[On Guard for Thee]

It is discriminatory under our charter of rights.

It bans all sexual intimacy outside of marriage "between a man and a woman". The civil marriage act back in 2005 recognizes gender neutral in all of Canada, for better or worse. The Trinity covenant is in direct conflict with that act. Which makes it discriminatory under our law.

[TimG]

It's the gay students that are discriminated against, not the Christians.

But they are not discriminated against. They are free to go to Trinity except they have to choose to abstain from sex out side of marriage. They also can't do drugs or alcohol or use pornography. The rules are applied equally to all students. The only place where unequal treatment would come up is with a married gay couple but we are talking about 20s somethings who rarely marry.

[cybercoma]

Having to agree not ot have sexual relations outside of marriage is hardly the same as having to agree not to be black.

having to agree not to be gay is though. More to the point, the students' sex lives have nothing to do with their education. Last I checked, most college students are adults. In any case, sexuality is protected the same as race. Edited April 26, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

But they are not discriminated against. They are free to go to Trinity except they have to choose to abstain from sex out side of marriage. They also can't do drugs or alcohol or use pornography. The rules are applied equally to all students. The only place where unequal treatment would come up is with a married gay couple but we are talking about 20s somethings who rarely marry.

outside of marriage BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN. So straight students can be married and have sex. Gay students can't. It's discrimination, plain and simple. Edited April 26, 2014 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

It's discrimination, plain and simple.

Yes, kind of like how the Ontario Separate school boards can refuse employment or fire people who are openly gay, who cohabitate out of wedlock and so on. One difference is that the Ontario boards are publicly funded.

[Wilber]

outside of marriage BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN. So straight students can be married and have sex. Gay students can't. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

And that is legal just as gay marriage is legal but churches can't be compelled to perform them. The question is, should law societies have the right to descriminate against the students of a particular school strictly on ideological grounds of their own chosing? Should their role be one of maintaining fhe standards of their profession or social activists? Teacher's unions are often criticised for doing just that

Edited April 26, 2014 by Wilber

[Argus]

The issue is that the university will discriminate against students. And this IMO is taking a few steps backwards with regards to equal rights in Canada.

Well, the problem with this is it sets a precident. If the lawyers can shun students because they went to a Christian law school which doesn't respect gay rights does this not suggest universities can refuse to accept students coming from Catholic high schools? After all, their schools discriminate against gays, therefore, the students are not qualified to go to 'pluralistic and open' universities, right?

And I wonder how many of the lawyers in Ontario and Nova Scotia went to Catholic high schools...

[Wilber]

The Ontario Law Society's action disturbs me more than Trinity's covenant. Here we have one of the institutions we depend on for justice under the law, itself chosing to discriminate for ideological reasons. You may like that right now but how about when they take such actions for a cause you don't approve of. This sets a bad precident.

[The_Squid]

So that makes it OK for everyone else to discriminate against its graduates. As long as this school gets no public money, they should be free to discriminate as they wish as long as they don't break the law. You would think a law society should be able to grasp such a concept.

You are confusing discrimination against people with not accrediting a university because of their discrimination against a protected class of people.

Not accrediting a university is NOT discrimination. That's like saying that it is discrimination to not allow doctors from Squid's Bargain Surgery School.

No. Squid's Surgery School is not accredited and anyone graduating is not a doctor. That's not discriminatory.

Edited to add: To say that student's religious rights are being discriminated against by the law societies is a bit bizarre when there are no students! They are trying to be accredited for 2016. Not accrediting a school is not discrimination against a theoretical student.

Edited April 26, 2014 by The_Squid

[The_Squid]

outside of marriage BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN. So straight students can be married and have sex. Gay students can't. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

Exactly. If a gay man who's married wants to get a law degree, he can't go to Trinity Western.

Law Societies have criteria for schools to be accredited. One of he criteria is that the law school must not violate the Charter. Sounds reasonable enough to me. Even if you don't like the laws in place, as a law school you must follow them to be able to hand out law degrees. That means you cannot have policies that violate a person's Charter Rights and be accredited.

Edited April 26, 2014 by The_Squid