dre Posted July 21, 2015 Report Posted July 21, 2015 It's just a "minor change" for someone to eschew their beliefs. It's quite arrogant to write that. Nobody is being asked to eschew their beliefs. It seems to me the issue here isnt that the school will teach religious beliefs, its that they might santion or expell able students who have legal consentual sex. Its no wonder an instituion with that policy would have a hard time getting accredited. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
The_Squid Posted July 21, 2015 Report Posted July 21, 2015 What's so difficult about you accepting Jesus into your life ?It's really not that difficult, plus you will leave forever in heaven. Can't you see that ?*Sarcasm* No one is telling anyone what to believe... unlike your strawman... Quote
Wilber Posted July 22, 2015 Report Posted July 22, 2015 No one is telling anyone what to believe... unlike your strawman... Then why are they denying accreditation? Isn't this all about conflicting beliefs? It sure isn't about the school's ability to turn out qualified graduates. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Michael Hardner Posted July 22, 2015 Report Posted July 22, 2015 No one is telling anyone what to believe... unlike your strawman... You're imposing your beliefs on others, which is exactly why church and state are supposed to be separated in the first place - to allow freedom of belief and expression. Unfortunately, religious freedom means that they have the right to condemn behavior that the public finds perfectly acceptable. It's too bad, but the world doesn't work like a perfect machine - conflict is a part of life. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted July 22, 2015 Report Posted July 22, 2015 My position is that professional organizations given the responsibility of evaluating professional standards have no business using those powers to indulge in social engineering. Speak out on these issues by all means but keep that separate from their professional duties. By doing so, they undermine any claims of objectivity. That was the opinion of my lawyer, also. I was meeting with him Monday and the topic came up. He participated in some of the conference calls on the subject and he thought the law society was out of line in attempting to extend their powers over academic institutions. He also did not believe the courts should base a decision on the grounds that society's moral standards had changed and maybe the supreme court would change its mind. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 22, 2015 Report Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) Nobody is being asked to eschew their beliefs. It seems to me the issue here isnt that the school will teach religious beliefs, its that they might santion or expell able students who have legal consentual sex. Its no wonder an instituion with that policy would have a hard time getting accredited. One of the points my lawyer raised the other day when discussing this is that we have people who are foreign born, and who go to foreign law schools, who can come here and pass tests and join the bar. Nobody asks questions about the social or political beliefs of their home universities, or, indeed, about their own social, political or religious beliefs. Are there Muslim lawyers in Canada? Sikh lawyers? Orthodox Jewish lawyers? Hindu lawyers? You can damn well bet they don't have much liking for homosexuals. But that doesn't matter. All that matters is you pass the tests. So why are they trying to hold TWU up to a higher standard? Edited July 22, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 22, 2015 Report Posted July 22, 2015 No one is telling anyone what to believe... unlike your strawman... Don't be absurd. This entire case is about telling people what to believe. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
dre Posted July 22, 2015 Report Posted July 22, 2015 One of the points my lawyer raised the other day when discussing this is that we have people who are foreign born, and who go to foreign law schools, who can come here and pass tests and join the bar. Nobody asks questions about the social or political beliefs of their home universities, or, indeed, about their own social, political or religious beliefs. No... only lawyers from Canadian schools are granted automatic access into the articling/licensing process. Foreign trained lawyers cannot just pass tests and join the bar. If your lawyer told you that you should find a better one. Lawyers trained in foreign schools have to obtain a “certificate of equivalency” from the NCA (“National Committee on Accreditation”) in order enter the licensing process, and the only lawyers that have an easy time getting that certificate are lawyers from the US or UK. Are there Muslim lawyers in Canada? Sikh lawyers? Orthodox Jewish lawyers? Hindu lawyers? You can damn well bet they don't have much liking for homosexuals. But that doesn't matter. All that matters is you pass the tests. So why are they trying to hold TWU up to a higher standard? No passing the test isnt all that matters. Foreign legal programs have to be accredited just like Canadian ones do, the only difference is that its a different body that does it. And its not about not liking homosexuals. Its about accrediting a school that could sanction or expell a perfectly able student for criteria that has nothing to do with academics, over engaging in a completely legal and common place activity. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
The_Squid Posted July 22, 2015 Report Posted July 22, 2015 Don't be absurd. This entire case is about telling people what to believe. Nope. It's about a law school's standards. The people who run or attend the school can believe whatever they want. But the school itself must adhere to certain standards. It's not much different than standards for biology classes. Even a religious school must teach a particular curriculum, even if it goes against their crazy beliefs that evolution didn't happen. They can still hold those beliefs, but they must adhere to the curriculum. That is not anything like "telling people what to believe". That is pure hyperbole on your part. Quote
Wilber Posted July 22, 2015 Report Posted July 22, 2015 No passing the test isnt all that matters. Foreign legal programs have to be accredited just like Canadian ones do, the only difference is that its a different body that does it. And its not about not liking homosexuals. Its about accrediting a school that could sanction or expell a perfectly able student for criteria that has nothing to do with academics, over engaging in a completely legal and common place activity. Obviously they aren't vetted by the LSUC. Do you and Squid really think it is a good idea for associations like the LSUC to be dictating to schools what their criteria for expulsion should be? While I don't like the TWU's covenant any more than anyone else here, I think the LSUC and Ontario Supreme court are opening a real can of worms by allowing social issues to override their professional duties. You may like it now because it is a cause you believe in but what happens when one comes along that isn't? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted July 22, 2015 Report Posted July 22, 2015 Nope. It's about a law school's standards. The people who run or attend the school can believe whatever they want. But the school itself must adhere to certain standards. It's not much different than standards for biology classes. Even a religious school must teach a particular curriculum, even if it goes against their crazy beliefs that evolution didn't happen. They can still hold those beliefs, but they must adhere to the curriculum. That is not anything like "telling people what to believe". That is pure hyperbole on your part. Law societies should stick to the law, they are no more qualified to dictate social issues than Joe the barber. Their actions are absolutely about telling people what they should believe. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
The_Squid Posted July 22, 2015 Report Posted July 22, 2015 Law societies should stick to the law, they are no more qualified to dictate social issues than Joe the barber. Their actions are absolutely about telling people what they should believe. How does stating "you must teach evolution" in the case of biology class or "you must not violate students' Constitutional rights" in the case of a law school telling people what they should believe? The Constitution is part of Canada's laws... it's not a document about social issues. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted July 22, 2015 Report Posted July 22, 2015 That is not anything like "telling people what to believe". That is pure hyperbole on your part. Yes it is - it's about telling people to believe homosexual behaviour is acceptable to a religious institution against their charter rights. If you have the right to religious schools then you have the right to mandate behaviour according to religious laws I think. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
The_Squid Posted July 22, 2015 Report Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) Yes it is - it's about telling people to believe homosexual behaviour is acceptable to a religious institution against their charter rights. If you have the right to religious schools then you have the right to mandate behaviour according to religious laws I think. I agree that they can mandate behaviour at the school... but they can't have an accredited law school if they violate Constitutional rights. And, no... it certainly doesn't tell any individual person what to believe. It's actually quite funny that you keep insisting this is the case when clearly they are only talking about school policy. They can still believe whatever they want! Maybe answer the question: How does stating "you must teach evolution" in the case of biology class or "you must not violate students' Constitutional rights" in the case of a law school telling people what they should believe? Edited July 22, 2015 by The_Squid Quote
Wilber Posted July 22, 2015 Report Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) I agree that they can mandate behaviour at the school... but they can't have an accredited law school if they violate Constitutional rights. And, no... it certainly doesn't tell any individual person what to believe. It's actually quite funny that you keep insisting this is the case when clearly they are only talking about school policy. They can still believe whatever they want! Maybe answer the question: How does stating "you must teach evolution" in the case of biology class or "you must not violate students' Constitutional rights" in the case of a law school telling people what they should believe? The school isn't violating constitutional rights, if it were, its covenant would have been ruled unconstitutional long ago and we wouldn't be having this debate. You can keep saying they are violating constitutional rights all you want but the courts have said otherwise. So you are saying that as long as TCU taught evolution in its biology classes, its covenant would be OK? The law curriculum has nothing to do with the covenant. The first concerns producing qualified lawyers and the other dictates student behaviour while attending that school. The LSUC and Ontario SC are trying to make both issues the same and that is just a recipe for chaos because now the precedent has been set, anyone with a social axe to grind can screw around with the system you depend on to provide your professionals, whether it be lawyers, doctors or whatever. This case is absolutely about the LSUC telling TWU what it should think, and misusing its powers to enforce it. Edited July 23, 2015 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Argus Posted July 23, 2015 Report Posted July 23, 2015 Nope. It's about a law school's standards. It has zip to do with the law school's standards and everything to do with self-righteous political correctness. The law school's legal training is not in question. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 23, 2015 Report Posted July 23, 2015 I agree that they can mandate behaviour at the school... but they can't have an accredited law school if they violate Constitutional rights. How many times does it have to be explained to you that a private institution does not have anything to do with the Charter? Constitutional rights are between you and the government. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Bob Macadoo Posted July 23, 2015 Report Posted July 23, 2015 How many times does it have to be explained to you that a private institution does not have anything to do with the Charter? Constitutional rights are between you and the government. Is the LSUC a private institution or is it a legislatively controlled governing body? Seems like TWU wants to become part of the public sphere now. Why can't they just stay "private" teach/govern however they want and issue certificates like any private college (ie Everest)? Graduates then can apply for equivalency evaluation when they get out. Win/win. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted July 23, 2015 Report Posted July 23, 2015 It's actually quite funny that you keep insisting this is the case when clearly they are only talking about school policy. They can still believe whatever they want! It's the institution that has a point of view, and as a religious institution even more so. Again, religious institutions need to discriminate in order to remain religious. They can have policies barring non-Christians from entering, or (IMO) people who engage in non-Christian behavior. Otherwise, they are religious in name only. Maybe answer the question: How does stating "you must teach evolution" in the case of biology class or "you must not violate students' Constitutional rights" in the case of a law school telling people what they should believe? It's not exactly analagous, but in this case a religious school has to teach science fact to meet the provincial curriculum. I don't support religions teaching beliefs as facts, but censoring non-religious behavior is not the same thing. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
The_Squid Posted July 23, 2015 Report Posted July 23, 2015 It's the institution that has a point of view, and as a religious institution even more so. Again, religious institutions need to discriminate in order to remain religious. They can have policies barring non-Christians from entering, or (IMO) people who engage in non-Christian behavior. Otherwise, they are religious in name only. The institution can still believe whatever it wants. But they need to abide by criteria to be accredited as a law school. If that's too difficult, then don't have a law school. There is no right to own and operate a law school, as far as I know... It's not exactly analagous, but in this case a religious school has to teach science fact to meet the provincial curriculum. I don't support religions teaching beliefs as facts, but censoring non-religious behavior is not the same thing. It certainly is analogous. Both deal with religious schools needing to uphold certain standards that go against the beliefs of their religious institution. Quote
The_Squid Posted July 23, 2015 Report Posted July 23, 2015 How many times does it have to be explained to you that a private institution does not have anything to do with the Charter? Constitutional rights are between you and the government. Do you not read posts? You seem to miss a lot of context... Here is what I quoted several pages ago to try and clear up your confusion: http://www.thestar.c...university.html ...while TWU is not subject to the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Law Society is. The court found that although the Law Society’s decision interfered with the right to religious freedom, it ultimately applied a proper balancing of Charter rights and came to a reasonable conclusion. The Law Society is beholden to the Constitution. Quote
Wilber Posted July 23, 2015 Report Posted July 23, 2015 Is the LSUC a private institution or is it a legislatively controlled governing body? Seems like TWU wants to become part of the public sphere now. Why can't they just stay "private" teach/govern however they want and issue certificates like any private college (ie Everest)? Graduates then can apply for equivalency evaluation when they get out. Win/win. 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. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Argus Posted July 23, 2015 Report Posted July 23, 2015 The Law Society is beholden to the Constitution. Yes, which means they cannot violate the constitution. It does not mean they have any authority to prevent others from doing so. And in any case, since TWU is not subject to the constitution, they can hardly violate it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
The_Squid Posted July 23, 2015 Report Posted July 23, 2015 Yes, which means they cannot violate the constitution. It does not mean they have any authority to prevent others from doing so. And in any case, since TWU is not subject to the constitution, they can hardly violate it. You should probably read the judgement... Quote
Argus Posted July 24, 2015 Report Posted July 24, 2015 You should probably read the judgement... I think you should probably read the constitution. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.