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

[The_Squid]

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.

You have it backwards. They don't need the courts to set their accreditation standards. If a school feels that this was not done fairly, it would be up to the school to take it before the courts.

[Argus]

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?

You seem confused about what the Charter is. It binds government, not anyone else. Trinity College is a private institution, as are the Law societies. The fact the judges have written gay discrimination into the Charter despite them being deliberately excluded by those who wrote it is irrelevant.

[Wilber]

You have it backwards. They don't need the courts to set their accreditation standards. If a school feels that this was not done fairly, it would be up to the school to take it before the courts.

I think they will and the law society will look like idiots if they lose. Trinity has had this covenant for years and it has never been successfully challenged in court. That tells me it doesn't violate the charter and that you and the law society are full of it when you say it does.

[Bryan]

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?

No. Religious institutions have an absolute constitutional right to their moral codes of ethics. Those codes of ethics include many behaviours that are otherwise anyone's right to engage in, in any other setting, if they should choose to do that.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Bryan

[TimG]

No. Religious institutions have an absolute constitutional right to their moral codes of ethics. Those codes of ethics include many behaviours that are otherwise anyone's right to engage in, in any other setting, if they should choose to do that.

Trinity also asks students to give up their constitutional right to pornography. Why isn't anyone upset about that?

[The_Squid]

You seem confused about what the Charter is. It binds government, not anyone else. Trinity College is a private institution, as are the Law societies. The fact the judges have written gay discrimination into the Charter despite them being deliberately excluded by those who wrote it is irrelevant.

I should say human rights act then.

So a restaurant, or a school, cannot say no to serving dark skinned people based upon human rights legislation. They cannot discriminate for various reasons.

Edited April 26, 2014 by The_Squid

[Michael Hardner]

Oh. So a restaurant can say no to serving dark skinned people. I didn't know that.

Presumably, if there were a religion that discriminated on the basis of race ... then we'd be in quite a pickle. Reasonable accommodation is a messy thing, and the fighting is necessary - even entertaining for some of us.

[The_Squid]

Trinity also asks students to give up their constitutional right to pornography. Why isn't anyone upset about that?

No one has a right to pornography....

People do have a right not to be discriminated against.

[Michael Hardner]

People do have a right not to be discriminated against.

Yes, within some limits - and you don't seem to have enough if a grasp of the complexities to discuss it at the next level. If you just think it's wrong, then say that but don't just make blanket statements as it slows down the discussion IMO.

[The_Squid]

Yes, within some limits - and you don't seem to have enough if a grasp of the complexities to discuss it at the next level. If you just think it's wrong, then say that but don't just make blanket statements as it slows down the discussion IMO.

Lol

I was responding to the indepth comment about peoples right to pornography. So please refrain from the "next level" attempted insult.

The bottom line is that the law society making criteria for law schools does not equate to discrimination, however you'd like to slice it.

[TimG]

No one has a right to pornography....

Sure they do. The university has no business telling people that they cannot view legal media. Yet you seem to be OK with discriminating against porn users? Why the double standard? Edited April 27, 2014 by TimG

[Wilber]

Lol

I was responding to the indepth cimpunitymment about peoples right to pornography. So please refrain from the "next level" attempted insult.

The bottom line is that the law society making criteria for law schools does not equate to discrimination, however you'd like to slice it.

So there is no way a law society can discriminate? They can use whatever criteria they want with impunity.

[Argus]

No one has a right to pornography....

People do have a right not to be discriminated against.

Who says we don't have a right to pornography? Freedom of speech and expression don't mean anything to you?

[Argus]

So there is no way a law society can discriminate? They can use whatever criteria they want with impunity.

Not in the case where they're barring people from practicing their profession. They need to have legal justification, and the only justification that is likely to hold up in court is that those people aren't able to practice law effectively due to lack of knowledge or ability. Which is not the case here.

[cybercoma]

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.

And I don't agree with the Ontario Catholic School Board. There was a recent posting for a sign language interpreter for a student at one of the schools and one of the qualifications was a reference from clergy to show you have an active standing in the Church. We're talking an interpreter position, something that's in short supply at the best of times. It's pretty ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous in general that the Catholic school boards still exist.

[cybercoma]

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

All I said was that the Law Societies are taking a stand against what they see as a human rights issue. I can't say that I agree with their approach. I think they should be going after the school's accreditation instead.

[cybercoma]

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...

Students don't even have to be Catholic to go to Catholic high schools any more.

[WestCoastRunner]

Christians in Canada can believe as they like but their beliefs (based on the bible) and the University to discriminate based upon these beliefs are discriminatory. They have created a barrier to everyone attending or wanting to attend the university. NS and Ontario have indicated that prejudicial beliefs have no place in Canadian society. We are a progressive country, let's not move backwards.

[cybercoma]

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.

Schools provide a public service: education. It's not the same thing at all as getting a job with churches and church equivalents in other religions. You can reiterate it as many times as you like. Those that provide a public service must abide by human rights legislation in their provinces and federally.

[cybercoma]

one of the only refuges a christian person has to be able to study for their chosen profession

This is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever seen on this forum. A christian student can study wherever the hell they want. Your post is not only wrong, it's absolutely appalling that you would somehow twist this into a case for discriminating against Christians when the school's rules are clearly discriminating against gay and lesbian students. It's ridiculous that you don't see that. Christians are not oppressed anywhere in Canada. They're free to study at any school they want including Trinity. It's the gay students that have their choices limited and are facing restrictions that others don't have. In response, the Law Societies have decided to punish Trinity for their discrimination. Turning this around and crying the Christians have no place to study is not only wrong but painfully ignorant.

[cybercoma]

Squid, YOU make no sense. They have a constitutional right to their religion.

No one's stopping them from practicing their religion. They're refusing to acknowledge degrees from a school that practices discrimination that violates human rights legislation in every province.

[cybercoma]

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 ?

Dishonest tactic out of you. This isn't about the Trinity being Christian. It's about the discrimination against gay students. If a Muslim school did the same thing, let's hope the Law Societies would respond in kind.

[WestCoastRunner]

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

That is pretty much what they have said. There is no difference.

[Michael Hardner]

And I don't agree with the Ontario Catholic School Board.

Understood. If people on here were just saying "I don't agree with this" then I would be onside with that argument. I find the public funding of one religion to be troublesome at best myself.

However, that's not the same thing as arguing that it's illegal or boycotting an institution that is exercising a legal right.

This is a tricky discussion, and I'm trying to get those who drag their feet on these discussions to do a little better than to just post "It's discrimination !". We already know that.

[Michael Hardner]

Schools provide a public service: education. It's not the same thing at all as getting a job with churches and church equivalents in other religions.

How about getting job with said schools or hospitals, or going to said schools ?

You can reiterate it as many times as you like. Those that provide a public service must abide by human rights legislation in their provinces and federally.

Yes - human rights legislation which allows for some types of religious discrimination.