Gays, Minorities or Athletes Need Not Apply

[Big Guy]

An Ontario judge declared a doctor’s last will and testament void earlier this month over his wish to create a scholarship available for “a hard-working, single, Caucasian white girl who is not a feminist or lesbian.” He also stipulated the trustee of his estate create another scholarship only available to white, single, straight men. His will set other stipulations as to career etc. and excluded anyone playing intercollegiate sports.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02/22/victor-priebe-will-discriminatory-scholarships_n_9292548.html

His trustee, Royal Trust Corp., had brought the will to Ontario Superior Court for advice and direction to determine if they were legally obligated to fulfill Priebe’s last wishes. Justice Alissa Mitchell wrote she has “no hesitation” calling Priebe’s desired use of his estate to be in violation of “public policy.” His wishes discriminate on the grounds of race, religion and sex, she wrote in her decision.

The money that was set aside for the scholarships will now go toward other charitable trusts listed in Priebe’s will, the ruling stated. No awards or bursaries in his name will be created.

While I disagree with discrimination in refusing someone something they are entitled to because of race, religion, or gender, I do not believe that government can refuse the wishes of what a person wants done with their money after they die.

The government already discriminates against some people by allowing only minorities to be eligible for certain supports under the guise of “Affirmative Action” or “Gender Equality” or ...

I believe that any individual has the right to will any of his assets to anyone as long as the bequest is not illegal. This decision is obviously meant to satisfy political correctness at the cost of a persons rights. It is a bad decision and I hope it is appealed – if there is an entity which has an interest in the case to file the appeal.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Big Guy

[TimG]

Judges have no business applying their morality to someone's will and testament.

The only thing that should matter is if the document was prepared properly and the person was competent at time of signing. This should get overturned on appeal like this one:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/judge-should-not-have-rejected-alleged-racist-will-appeal-court

Of course that ignores the insufferable hypocrisy of the judges position that scholarships that favor minorities are fine but scholarships that favour a majority group is racist.

Edited April 4, 2016 by TimG

[The_Squid]

If it's deemed not legal, then it's not legal.

When I die, I want to leave my money to ISIS... that's OK, right? Hey, it's my money....

[TimG]

When I die, I want to leave my money to ISIS... that's OK, right? Hey, it's my money....

You should be entitled to do whatever you want with your money. The only exception would be related to financial obligations that one has to spouse and children. Edited April 4, 2016 by TimG

[The_Squid]

You should be entitled to do whatever you want with your money.

Wrong... when we're alive, we're not allowed to fund ISIS... it doesn't suddenly become legal when we die.

[TimG]

Wrong... when we're alive, we're not allowed to fund ISIS... it doesn't suddenly become legal when we die.

I doubt ISIS has a bank account to accept donations. It gets money from charities which claim to be helping people but are really just fronts for ISIS.

Also it is not illegal to offer a scholarship that targets students with specific criteria. i.e. you can offer a scholarship to a student from a specific town or who is involved in specific extra-curricular activities. You can even offer scholarships that specify race, gender and sexual orientation. The issue is this particular judge is applying their moral judgement instead of the law.

Edited April 4, 2016 by TimG

[The_Squid]

I doubt ISIS has a bank account to accept donations. It gets money from charities which claim to be helping people but are really just fronts for ISIS.

You missed tha point. Whether they have a bank account or not is irrelevant.

[Big Guy]

What would have been the judicial decision if the individual had left his money to create a scholarship for a black male who is also gay?

[betsy]

If it's deemed not legal, then it's not legal.

When I die, I want to leave my money to ISIS... that's OK, right? Hey, it's my money....

That's not an appropriate comparison. ISIS is a terror organization, and it's a crime to be giving financial support to it.

Instead, you could perhaps choose to leave your money to Muslims. You can stipulate, non-Muslims need not apply.

As long as it's not a crime, you should be able to leave your money to whoever you want to.

I think, the testament had caught the ire of a liberal judge because it specifically stated that "gays, minorities,"

need not apply.

Edited April 4, 2016 by betsy

[The_Squid]

That's not an appropriate comparison. ISIS is a terror organization, and it's a crime to be giving financial support to it.

Instead, you could perhaps choose to leave your money to Muslims. You can stipulate, non-Muslims need not apply.

You can leave your money to anyone or stipulate it be used in any way as long as it is legal. So my example was spot-on.

As long as it's not a crime, you should be able to leave your money to whoever you want to.

I agree.

I think, the testament had caught the ire of a liberal judge because it specifically stated that "gays, minorities,"

need not apply.

And it's not legal to discriminate based on several criteria including sexual orientation. So, yes, it's illegal to discriminate that way. Just like it's illegal to support a terrorist organization.

There are plenty of scholarships that go just to men or just to women. But specifying "no gays" is discriminatory and not allowed.

Edited April 4, 2016 by The_Squid

[TimG]

But specifying "no gays" is discriminatory and not allowed.

But specifying "no-straight" people or "no-whites" or "no-men" is allowed. This is called selective application of the law. If all discriminatory scholarships were illegal then you would have a point. But since they allow some discrimination they must allow all.

[The_Squid]

But specifying "no-straight" people or "no-whites" or "no-men" is allowed. This is called selective application of the law. If all discriminatory scholarships were illegal then you would have a point. But since they allow some discrimination they must allow all.

Please show me a scholarship that says "no straight males"... Or show me a scholarship that specifies anyone may apply except for white people... I doubt either of those exists.

Men only or women only scholarships happen all the time. (football scholarships certainly don't go to women)

I want to leave my money for a men's rugby scholarship at a high-school... but I don't want any gays applying. Is that OK?

[TimG]

Please show me a scholarship that says "no straight males"...

http://bill7award.ca/apply

The Bill 7 Award is open to individuals who meet ALL of the following criteria: individuals who are attending or accepted by a Post-Secondary Educational Institution in the Province of Ontario; who have demonstrated financial need; who are pursuing their FIRST post-secondary program of study; and who identify as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender, transsexual, two-spirited, and/or queer (LGBTTTQ2S).

Or show me a scholarship that specifies anyone may apply except for white people...

http://nupge.ca/sites/nupge.ca/files/documents/cover_visible_minorities_english.pdf

All visible minority children / grandchildren (including foster children / grandchildren) of National Union of Public and General Employees current / retired members who plan to enter the first year of a Canadian public, post-secondary education institution full-time in 2015 / 2016 are eligible to apply.

Men only or women only scholarships happen all the time.

Yet that discriminates against men or women. I guess they are illegal. Why isn't the law enforced?

[The_Squid]

I noticed you failed to answer the question I posed....

I want to leave my money for a men's rugby scholarship at a high-school... but I don't want any gays applying. Is that OK?

Yet that discriminates against men or women. I guess they are illegal. Why isn't the law enforced?

Clearly it's not illegal.

Edited April 4, 2016 by The_Squid

[Bob Macadoo]

UWO & UWindsor could reject the offer.....universities reject scholarship donations all the time based on stipulations put on the money. The court shouldn't have quashed it, let the universities denounce the money publically if they wish......

[TimG]

I noticed you failed to answer the question I posed....

And you ignored the fact that discriminatory scholarships do exist and are allowed.

I want to leave my money for a men's rugby scholarship at a high-school... but I don't want any gays applying. Is that OK?

Why is that different from the Bill7 Scholarship which says no non-gays allowed?

Clearly it's not illegal.

Which is my point. Discriminatory scholarships are quite common and the judge had no basis for rejecting the man's will. Edited April 4, 2016 by TimG

[Big Guy]

Please show me a scholarship that says "no straight males"... Or show me a scholarship that specifies anyone may apply except for white people... I doubt either of those exists.

...

There are thousands of examples of scholarships for visible minorities, handicapped, females only etc.

[The_Squid]

There are thousands of examples of scholarships for visible minorities, handicapped, females only etc.

So should a male only scholarship be allowed to say "no gays"?

[betsy]

I noticed you failed to answer the question I posed....

I want to leave my money for a men's rugby scholarship at a high-school... but I don't want any gays applying. Is that OK?

Clearly it's not illegal.

That's the key word. MY money!

My last will and testament regarding to whom I want give my money should be respected! I may have my own personal reason why I'd exclude gays and minorities. It's still MY money!

But in this topsy-turvy world we now live in - especially where there's double standard - I don't know if that even means anything anymore.

Edited April 5, 2016 by betsy

[The_Squid]

That's the key word. MY money!

My last will and testament regarding to whom I want give my money should be respected! I may have my own personal reason why I'd exclude gays and minorities. It's still MY money!

But in this topsy-turvy world we now live in - especially where there's double standard - I don't know if that even means anything anymore.

I want my money to buy weapons for Hamas.

Is that OK?

[betsy]

Forcing this kind of issue down people's throat isn't doing gays any favor.

Extreme political correctness is paving the way to the opposite extreme.

In my old posts decades ago.....I spoke about the swinging pendulum. From one extreme to the other.

We might see the day that things will swing to the far right. Just look at Europe.....there is now a growing welcome for it.

Edited April 5, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

I want my money to buy weapons for Hamas.

Is that OK?

Hamas is a recognized terrorist group. No comparison.

Edited April 5, 2016 by betsy

[The_Squid]

Hamas is a recognized terrorist group. No comparison.

So I can't do anything I want with my money???

You want to discriminate in death in a way you wouldn't be allowed to discriminate in life. Too bad.

Edited April 5, 2016 by The_Squid

[Moonlight Graham]

Judges have no business applying their morality to someone's will and testament.

The only thing that should matter is if the document was prepared properly and the person was competent at time of signing.

Well, someone's will and testament is a legal document. I would think the law should apply to it. If it's clearly unlawful, like violating the Charter, then why not? He's clearly a racist, homophobic old crank, I would have no problem applying Charter rights to his will. Would the university even want a scholarship like that advertised?

This should get overturned on appeal like this one:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/judge-should-not-have-rejected-alleged-racist-will-appeal-court

Those are 2 very different cases. The link above shows the court inferring the dead man's will had some kind of racial agenda based on the daughter's affidavit, which isn't clear at all and isn't really relevant. The OP case is quite clearly outlined as having a racial and homophobic preference explicit in the will itself.

Of course that ignores the insufferable hypocrisy of the judges position that scholarships that favor minorities are fine but scholarships that favour a majority group is racist.

Well I agree with that.

[The_Squid]

He could give the money to anyone he wants... white and straight.

If he gives it to a university for a scholarship, then the Charter would have to apply.