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

[Michael Hardner]

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

Also he can't teach at a Catholic high school, or work for a Christian, Jewish, Islamic institution and can be prohibited to work for them as supported by the Charter. This has been reiterated several times and here you are talking about how this violates the charter. Either I'm confused or you're not reading these replies.

[The_Squid]

Also he can't teach at a Catholic high school, or work for a Christian, Jewish, Islamic institution and can be prohibited to work for them as supported by the Charter. This has been reiterated several times and here you are talking about how this violates the charter. Either I'm confused or you're not reading these replies.

And none of those places have accreditation to give out law degrees. This is criteria from the law societies. No discrimination allowed if you want accreditation.

Edit: I'm not so sure that a private school would be allowed to discriminate against a gay teacher. Can you cite exceptions to having to follow the Charter for religious schools? They certainly wouldn't be allowed to discriminate against gay students.

Edited April 26, 2014 by The_Squid

[Michael Hardner]

And none of those places have accreditation to give out law degrees. This is criteria from the law societies. No discrimination allowed if you want accreditation.

So, if you execute your charter rights with regards to your religion we won't allow you to practice law.

Edit: I'm not so sure that a private school would be allowed to discriminate against a gay teacher. Can you cite exceptions to having to follow the Charter for religious schools? They certainly wouldn't be allowed to discriminate against gay students.

They can and do discriminate against gay people - and I'm talking about public schools not private schools.

[Michael Hardner]

More here:

http://www.oneschoolsystem.org/fast-facts.html

They can also discriminate against non-Catholics.

[The_Squid]

So, if you execute your charter rights with regards to your religion we won't allow you to practice law.

No. A law school may not violate the Charter. Otherwise, no accreditation.

They can and do discriminate against gay people - and I'm talking about public schools not private schools.

Ontario is rather bizarre with its Catholic public schools... However, your link refers to non-Catholics. I can see why you wouldn't want to hire an atheist teacher if you are a Catholic school.

Can they violate the charter if their Catholic teacher is gay? Can they kick out a gay or non-Catholic student?

Edited April 26, 2014 by The_Squid

[Michael Hardner]

And more from the legal side here:

http://lawofwork.ca/?p=1909

Apparently some have tried to challenge these but haven't succeeded.

[Michael Hardner]

No. A law school may not violate the Charter. Otherwise, no accreditation.

There are exemptions, though, as I have pointed out.

Cite?

Already posted.

[The_Squid]

There are exemptions, though, as I have pointed out.

Not if you want to hand out law degrees. This is, apparently, a time where you do not get an exemption to violate someone's Charter rights.

[Michael Hardner]

This is, apparently, a time where you do not get an exemption to violate someone's Charter rights.

Yes, it seems so.

[The_Squid]

Yes, it seems so.

So this isn't a case of law societies discriminating against the religion of a school, but a case of not allowing an exception for that organization to discriminate against others.

That's a very big difference.

[Bryan]

So this isn't a case of law societies discriminating against the religion of a school, but a case of not allowing an exception for that organization to discriminate against others.

That's a very big difference.

That is exactly the same thing, there is no difference. The school's religion has them offering one of the only refuges a christian person has to be able to study for their chosen profession in a non-hostile environment, and the law society is trying to take that away from them. It's clear and blatant discrimination on the law society's part.

[The_Squid]

That is exactly the same thing, there is no difference. The school's religion has them offering one of the only refuges a christian person has to be able to study for their chosen profession in a non-hostile environment, and the law society is trying to take that away from them. It's clear and blatant discrimination on the law society's part.

Nope. Not the same thing at all. Not even close.

Not allowing an organization to discriminate is not discriminating against that organization. That makes no sense!

[Michael Hardner]

So this isn't a case of law societies discriminating against the religion of a school, but a case of not allowing an exception for that organization to discriminate against others.

That's a very big difference.

You seemed to stumble upon the basic fact that religious discrimination is common, and allowed, and publicly funded thanks to me. So thanks for the pedagogy, ie. explaining the big differences to me, and in turn - you're welcome for me explaining the basics of these cases to you, allowing you to come to that discovery.

[Bryan]

Squid, YOU make no sense. They have a constitutional right to their religion. They are practicing it in accordance to the law. People who do not subscribe to that are free to go to any of the other schools that don't follow those tenets. They are not being discriminated against, they are being given OPTIONS. Options the law society is trying to TAKE AWAY from the christian students who DO want that atmosphere.

[The_Squid]

No Bryan. Not allowing discrimination is not discrimination against the one doing the discrimination in the first place.

If a law society says that a law school may not violate the Charter to be accredited, that isn't discrimination.

[Bryan]

If a law society says that a law school may not violate the Charter to be accredited, that isn't discrimination.

They are not violating the charter, that's why it IS discrimination.

[Michael Hardner]

If there were a religious Muslim university in Canada that was accredited to grant law degrees, would the Law Society of Upper Canada have reached the same judgment ?

"No graduate from Mount Safa Law School will be accredited to pursue a law practice in Ontario"

We can only speculate, I know, but what do you think ?

[The_Squid]

If there were a religious Muslim university in Canada that was accredited to grant law degrees, would the Law Society of Upper Canada have reached the same judgment ?"No graduate from Mount Safa Law School will be accredited to pursue a law practice in Ontario"We can only speculate, I know, but what do you think ?

I hope that if the Muslim school had the same policy as Trinity Western that the same decision would have been made. I'm guessing it would have been made quicker and more law societies joining in. And rightly so.

Edited April 26, 2014 by The_Squid

[Bryan]

Good thing Trinity doesn't say "no gays need apply".

[Wilber]

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.

They are discriminating against their students by not allowing them to practice for ideological reasons that have nothing to do with their qualifications to practice law.

Not accrediting a school because of your ideology is discrimination. Just because you happen to agree with that ideology doesn't make it right. Law societies are supposed to uphold the standards of the law profession and you don't do that by persecuting people by making moral judgments concerning things that are legal. You would think lawyers of all people would grasp that.

[The_Squid]

They are not violating the charter, that's why it IS discrimination.

Let's see if we can agree on something as a foundation.

Discrimination against gay people, simply for being gay and no other reason, is a violation of the Charter. Can we agree that this is a fact?

[The_Squid]

Not accrediting a school because of your ideology is discrimination.

Not accrediting a school because the criteria is that a school must adhere to the Charter, is not discrimination.

What "ideology", other than following the law, is the law society following?

[Wilber]

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.

Then act like bloody lawyers and let the courts decide whether it violates the charter because what they are doing may violate it for all we know.

[The_Squid]

Good thing Trinity doesn't say "no gays need apply".

A married gay man or woman is not allowed into the school... because of their gayness.

[Wilber]

Not accrediting a school because the criteria is that a school must adhere to the Charter, is not discrimination.

What "ideology", other than following the law, is the law society following?

Well lets just get rid of the courts all together and just let law societies decide who violates the charter. No need for a Supreme Court, they have already got it all figured out.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Wilber