The_Squid Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Totally incorrect. The BC society accepted Trinity's program on its content, that's their job. Ontario decided to ignore their job and impose their own form of PC morality. We don't need a law society to do that, anyone here is just as qualified. Or not. BC will be taking another vote. It's likely that they will also pull their support. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-law-society-to-review-twus-accreditation/article18202601/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 This sets a precedent though. Would the Law Society demand that all lawyers believe in all the laws of the Province? If this line of reasoning continues the society could deny a license to practice law to anyone who doesn't believe in same-sex marriage or any of Ontario's laws. This is activism pure and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 This sets a precedent though. Would the Law Society demand that all lawyers believe in all the laws of the Province? If this line of reasoning continues the society could deny a license to practice law to anyone who doesn't believe in same-sex marriage or any of Ontario's laws. This is activism pure and simple. No, not believe in... Where the heck did you get that?? They must obey the law. You do see the distinction, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 No, not believe in... Where the heck did you get that?? They must obey the law. You do see the distinction, right? You can obey the law and not believe in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 You can obey the law and not believe in it. The law doesn't force religions or their institutions to accept secular definitions of marriage as far as I can tell, so that law is being obeyed I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 You can obey the law and not believe in it. Exactly. The law societies are not asking them to believe in the law, only to obey the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Exactly. The law societies are not asking them to believe in the law, only to obey the law. And who's to say they aren't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Exactly. The law societies are not asking them to believe in the law, only to obey the law. If the covenant violates the Charter or is in any other way illegal, why have the law societies not been able to consign it to the dust bin through the courts? The logical conclusion is they have no case so they are now trying to do it outside the court. So, if you have any other reason for maintaining that Trinity is violating the Charter other than just your opinion, let's hear it. While individual professionals may be entitled to impose their personal morals on their work in some cases, professional societies entrusted with maintaining the standards of that profession absolutely can not and still be credible. In no case is this more important than in the law or medicine. As the sage said, opinions are like butt holes, everyone has one. Right now the legal societies are just a bunch of butt holes rushing to put their professionalism in the dumpster in pursuit of a cause. If the Supremes rule against the legal societies the same way they did against College of Teachers, the law societies will have no credibility when it comes to claims of being objective when accrediting schools. From Wikipedia In 1995, Trinity Western launched a teaching certification program, but the British Columbia College of Teachers denied accreditation of the university's program, arguing that the "Responsibilities of Membership" agreement students must sign (replaced in 2009 with the Community Covenant) is discriminatory and that those graduating from Trinity Western's program will discriminate against gay students. The lower courts in British Columbia and, later, the Supreme Court of Canada, ruled in favour of Trinity Western University, stating that there was no basis for the BCCT's decision, and, moreover, that "the concern that graduates of TWU will act in a detrimental fashion in the classroom is not supported by any evidence." The final analysis of the case, as reported by the Factum of the Intervener, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, was that "In the circumstances of this case the Council of the B.C. College of Teachers failed to conduct such an enquiry and erroneously concluded that equality of rights on the basis of sexual orientation trump freedom of religion and association. They do not." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 The law doesn't force religions or their institutions to accept secular definitions of marriage as far as I can tell, so that law is being obeyed I think.I guess if Trinity College were being asked to marry same-sex couples you would have a point. The students' sexuality has nothing to do with their education, so it's not a reasonable demand by the school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 I guess if Trinity College were being asked to marry same-sex couples you would have a point. The students' sexuality has nothing to do with their education, so it's not a reasonable demand by the school. Prove it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 The LSUC were right to deny TWU on this. Discrimination is not something the school should do. Either play fair or dont is what TWU was told. TWU can still carry on, grads will be able to practice law in Ontario , theyll just have to take a minor detour. And it would appear that , like most Christian meatheads who get all butt hurt and cry 'attack on christianity, they could have easily avoided this when they made thier presentation to the society. They sent baby into the lions den Read this, likely change your mind on some of this. http://www.gilbertsondavis.com/index.cfm?id=59658&modeX=BlogID&modeXval=16658&BlogID=16658 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Why don't you prove to me that their sexuality is at all relevant to learning how to be a lawyer. Other law schools don't care and they turn out lawyers that are just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 I guess if Trinity College were being asked to marry same-sex couples you would have a point. No, it's very relevant here as the only part of this where discrimination could apply is that hetero married students are acceptable but others are not. The students' sexuality has nothing to do with their education, so it's not a reasonable demand by the school. The school can demand that people who attend adhere to the rules of their religion. They can refuse Jews, or refuse to hire instructors who "live in sin". I'm really astonished that people seem to be learning this about the law just now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Why don't you prove to me that their sexuality is at all relevant to learning how to be a lawyer. Other law schools don't care and they turn out lawyers that are just fine. Nothing to do with being a lawyer or anything else. It's a school requirement, not an academic one. The only time this has been challenged in court, the SC sided with Trinity. What makes you think the next time will be any different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Can someone who supports the school's actions answer me how this school could have a student sign a "pledge" that they will not engage in regular marital relations with their partner that they legally married and how this is an OK thing to do? How will they enforce it? Spies? Or will they simply deny any married student a place in their school if they are in a same-sex marriage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Can someone who supports the school's actions answer me how this school could have a student sign a "pledge" that they will not engage in regular marital relations with their partner that they legally married and how this is an OK thing to do? "Ok" ? And the questions of enforcing this policy are something else entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) "Ok" ? And the questions of enforcing this policy are something else entirely. A flippant non-answer is the answer? Maybe someone other than MH could tackle that question... Edited April 28, 2014 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted April 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 Barring students for what they believe or what they are would be a violation. I don't understand this statement. This is what the University is doing. They are barring gay students, unless they choose to go 'back in the closet'. How is society progressing when these practices are allowed in Canada. Quite frankly, I don't really care if there are universities in the states that allow this. Trinity University would be the first one in Canada that forces students to sign a covenant such as this. We should be standing up and saying how 'abhorrent' this practice is. Regardless of whether it's legally right or not, it is against public policies in Ontario. This gives them the right to not accredit this institution unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise. This thread is going in circles regarding the legality of the covenant. It will ultimately be left up to the Supreme Court. But when I started this thread, I was thinking more along the lines of 'is this covenant in the best interest of Canadians'. I should have rephrased the title of this thread. This thread has certainly caused some of us to look deeper into 'freedom of religion' and how to balance religion against human rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 A flippant non-answer is the answer? You asked "how is this an OK thing to do" - what does that mean ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 This is a pretty messed up ruling by Ontario. If the graduates meet all the academic requirements, there is no reason to not accredit them. Not accrediting a private institution because of beliefs is ridiculous. The university could believe in the most hateful and bigoted things, but it shouldn't matter. What next? Thought police? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) I don't understand this statement. This is what the University is doing. They are barring gay students, unless they choose to go 'back in the closet'. How is society progressing when these practices are allowed in Canada. Quite frankly, I don't really care if there are universities in the states that allow this. Trinity University would be the first one in Canada that forces students to sign a covenant such as this. We should be standing up and saying how 'abhorrent' this practice is. Regardless of whether it's legally right or not, it is against public policies in Ontario. This gives them the right to not accredit this institution unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise. This thread is going in circles regarding the legality of the covenant. It will ultimately be left up to the Supreme Court. But when I started this thread, I was thinking more along the lines of 'is this covenant in the best interest of Canadians'. I should have rephrased the title of this thread. This thread has certainly caused some of us to look deeper into 'freedom of religion' and how to balance religion against human rights. Where do you get the idea that it is OK for provinces to break the law unless the Supreme Court decides otherwise. The Supreme Court and the BC Human Rights Tribunal have already spanked the BC College of Teachers on this very issue. All Ontario is doing is setting themselves up as a bunch of rubes who don't understand the concept of case law. Private institutions have the right to discriminate. They do it all the time. You say you are a Kerrisdale girl. What do you think your chances would have been of getting into St. Georges or mine into Crofton House? It's fine for schools to discriminate on the basis of gender but don't they dare have any religious convictions. Edited April 29, 2014 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 (edited) I don't understand this statement. This is what the University is doing. They are barring gay students, unless they choose to go 'back in the closet'.You should try reading the actual policy instead of basing your opinion on what critics claim it says. The actual policy says nothing about banning gays. It says that students must not engage in sexual activities outside of a marriage between a man and woman. What this means that a gay person is welcome as long as he/she is celibate. The policy also applies to unmarried heteros as well so it is not directed exclusively at gays. The only people who would have any plausible basis for a complaint would be married gay people but those people could still be open about their orientation and only would have to choose to be celibate while at the school. IMO - a requirement to be celibate is no worse than the requirement to eschew porno, alcohol or drugs. If you want to start arguing that the school is infringing on people's constitutional right to pornography then you would be consistent but silly. Only complaining about the celibacy part silly and hypocritical. A requirement for celibacy is not a violation of anyone's rights. Edited April 29, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 It has nothing to do with individual lawyers and their opinions. The law society is taking a stand against a school that is violating human rights legislation. But they're not. They're a religious school abiding by their own religious requirements. Which is allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 Not true. It's a legal judgement, not a moral one. Law schools must abide by Canadian laws, which makes perfect sense for a law school. If the school didn't abide by Canadian laws, if it violated human rights, it would be cited by some official body and have to mend its ways. That hasn't happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 The LSUC were right to deny TWU on this. Discrimination is not something the school should do. Either play fair or dont is what TWU was told. TWU can still carry on, grads will be able to practice law in Ontario , theyll just have to take a minor detour. Would you care to explain why you feel this is any different from the previous case where the BC College of Teachers tried exactly the same move on TRU and were slapped down by the Supreme Court? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.