Gays, Minorities or Athletes Need Not Apply

[TimG]

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?

The appeal court disagrees on another case. The Charter exists to protect people from *government* actions. It does not exist to protect people from private actions. His estate he can do what he wants.

Would the university even want a scholarship like that advertised?

Who cares? It is a choice the university can make if it wants. Scholarships are offered independently from universities all of the time.

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.

The principle of 'testamentary freedom' should still apply. In this case there is even a statistical argument to be made that white straight males need encouragement to go to university since they are minority in most programs today. Edited April 5, 2016 by TimG

[The_Squid]

The Charter exists to protect people from *government* actions. It does not exist to protect people from private actions. His estate he can do what he wants.

Once universities are involved, then the Charter will apply.

[TimG]

Once universities are involved, then the Charter will apply.

No university involvement required. They can do what many other scholarships do and require that people apply directly to institution offering the scholarship. Edited April 5, 2016 by TimG

[The_Squid]

No university involvement required. They can do what many other scholarships do and require that people apply directly to institution offering the scholarship.

And if he gave it to someone who was willing to dish it out to promsing members of the KKK wishing to further their education, then he could do that.

But the company in question is not obligated to fulfil his bigoted wishes. That's all the court said...

[TimG]

But the company in question is not obligated to fulfil his bigoted wishes. That's all the court said...

Now you are making crap up. There is nothing in is will that says the universities need to administer or even advertise the scholarship. This decision was based on the bigotry of the sitting judge who thinks that discrimination is fine when it comes to scholarships as long as it discrimination against people that the judge thinks deserves to be discriminated against.

[cybercoma]

This decision was based on the bigotry of the sitting judge who thinks that discrimination is fine when it comes to scholarships as long as it discrimination against people that the judge thinks deserves to be discriminated against.

Your position is based on a false equivalency that discrimination against straight white people carries the same effect as discrimination against people of colour and people in the LGBTQ community. If you actually want to know why the court reached this decision you need to read the court documents and go back to the case that underpinned their decision. In that case, one of the appeals judges wrote (emphasis added)

It will be necessary in each case to undertake an equality analysis like that adopted by the Human Rights Commission when approaching ss. 1 [am. 1986, c. 64, s. 18(1)] and 13 of the Human Rights Code, 1981 and that adopted by the courts when approaching s. 15(2) of the Charter. Those charitable trusts aimed at the amelioration of inequality and whose restrictions can be justified on that basis under s. 13 of the Human Rights Code, 1981 or s. 15(2) of the Charter would not likely be found void because they promote, rather than impede, the public policy of equality. In such an analysis, attention will have to be paid to the social and historical context of the group concerned (see Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, 1989 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143, 36 C.R.R. 193, 34 B.C.L.R. (2d) 273, 25 C.C.E.L. 255, 10 C.H.R.R. D/5719, 56 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 91 N.R. 255, [1989] 2 W.W.R. 289, at pp. 152-53 S.C.R., pp. 201-02 C.R.R., per Wilson J. and p. 175 S.C.R., p. 228-29 C.R.R., per McIntyre J.) as well as the effect of the restrictions on racial, religious or gender equality, to name but a few examples.

Not all restrictions will violate public policy, just as not all legislative distinctions constitute discrimination contrary to s. 15 of the Charter (Andrews, supra, pp. 168-69 S.C.R., p. 223 C.R.R., per McIntyre J.). In the indenture in this case, for example, there is nothing contrary to public policy as expressed in the preferences for children of "clergymen", "school teachers", etc. It would be hard to imagine in the foreseeable future that a charitable trust established to promote the education of women, aboriginal peoples, the physically or mentally handicapped, or other historically disadvantaged groups would be void as against public policy. Clearly, public trusts restricted to those in financial need would be permissible. Given the history and importance of bilingualism and multiculturalism in this country, restrictions on the basis of language would probably not be void as against public policy subject, of course, to an analysis of the context, purpose and effect of the restriction.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1990/1990canlii6849/1990canlii6849.html

Your arguments seek to ignore the "social and historical context" of the groups involved and that's why you either can't or refuse to understand why poor kids, aboriginal children, people who are gay and other minorities can be targeted for scholarships, whilst a scholarship that targets straight, white students is against the Human Rights Code. For some reason, you don't see how giving disadvantaged populations opportunities is fostering equality. Instead you spin it as disadvantaging privileged populations, which is ridiculous. Edited April 5, 2016 by cybercoma

[TimG]

you spin it as disadvantaging privileged populations, which is ridiculous.

People living today experience discrimination. People long dead don't care. The historical record is quite irrelevant when it comes to determining what is discriminatory today. That said, I am aware of the mythology invented by groups like the HRT where they decide who deserves to be discriminated against based on the prejudices of the people sitting on the tribunal. This is what I claim the judge in this case is doing.

That said, the historical record could be useful for governments when they prioritize spending tax money on programs. What governments should not do is tell private citizens that do not share their belief in the myth of 'genetically defined privilege' that they must follow the same arbitrary rules.

For example, a scholarship limited to children of PSAC members is extremely exclusionary given how privileged a typical government worker is but that real privilege does not violate public policy according to this judge. OTOH the hypothetical privilege that a white male living today may or may not experience does violate the judge's prejudices.

It is absurd.

Edited April 5, 2016 by TimG

[betsy]

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.

You're missing the point, Squid. Funding a recognized terror group like Hamas, is a crime.

You can do what you want with your money.....as long as you're not committing a crime.

Edited April 5, 2016 by betsy

[cybercoma]

First of all, Tim, privilege is not a myth. It's backed up study after study showing that some people have far greater barriers to different things, in this case scholarships and opportunities to go to college.

Secondly, this is not a "private individual" doing what they want with their money. It is a trust that has to be administered in accordance with public policy, as it's a publicly offered scholarship. The Human Rights Code indeed applies.

You asked why it doesn't apply equally and I gave you the court's reasoning from literally 26 years ago. Equality doesn't mean everyone gets the same sized box to stand on and that's the principle that the court operates under. They seek to even out disadvantage. That's what the court considers "fair."

Whether you believe that disadvantage exists or not is as irrelevant as whether or not you believe gravity exists or anthropomorphic global warming exists. Those whose life's work is to study these have categorically proven that they exist and reality does not need your approval. Furthermore, it's patently absurd to actually have the gall to complain that straight white people, all else being equal (eg, wealth and ability), are somehow disadvantaged when it comes to going to university and getting scholarships.

Anyway, I don't give a toss to argue the idea with you because history has shown that you will only double down on your personal ideology that there is no reality. You asked why some scholarships violate the Human Rights Code, while others that seem to target disadvantaged groups don't. I gave you that answer from the court's own words.

Oh and by the way, there are scholarships that specifically target men in the humanities for example, since women dominate the field. That's an example of a traditionally privileged group actually being disadvantaged in a certain context. Of course, you're dead set on arguing against context and history, so maybe you would rob men of these encouragements to pursue fields that are mostly taken up by women.

[cybercoma]

You're missing the point, Squid. Funding a recognized terror group like Hamas, is a crime.

You can do what you want with your money.....as long as you're not committing a crime.

Violating the Ontario Human Rights Code is a crime.

[TimG]

First of all, Tim, privilege is not a myth. It's backed up study after study showing that some people have far greater barriers to different things, in this case scholarships and opportunities to go to college.

Mine enough data and you find ways to rationalize any conclusion you want. The only barrier to attending college is money. Students from poor families often lack the resources necessary to compete for university spaces and this affects enrollment even if tuition is covered. That said the majority of students in university today are women so there is no credible argument that women, as a group face barriers to get into and graduate from university.

Secondly, this is not a "private individual" doing what they want with their money. It is a trust that has to be administered in accordance with public policy

Trusts can be set up for any number of private reasons. There is no requirement that a trust implement a public policy objective if it is funded by private money and not claiming charitable status.

You asked why some scholarships violate the Human Rights Code, while others that seem to target disadvantaged groups don't. I gave you that answer from the court's own words.

The question was a rhetorical one. Whether the court has rationalized their arbitrariness does not make the court's position any less arbitrary. People should be free to do what they want with their own money. Edited April 5, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Mine enough data and you find ways to rationalize any conclusion you want.

There it is. No point discussing anything with someone who lives in an alternative reality, dismissing facts that are relevant to their arguments. I've answered your original question already. There's nothing else I'm interested in discussing with you, especially since your position is intellectually dishonest. You're not interested in hearing the reasons and will not allow for your arguments to be falsified. Instead, as you demonstrate yet again, you fall back on the alternate reality, radical skepticism ideology you hold dear. There's simply no such things as facts to you and anything that disagrees with your position is "made up" or you dismiss it in other irrational ways. I refuse to belabour an argument with someone who believes their own lies, even when facts are presented to expose them. Edited April 5, 2016 by cybercoma

[Big Guy]

Affirmative action policy and/or Gender equality policies are excused on the philosophy that "Creating inequalities in the present to make up for the inequalities of the past is acceptable".

I personally disagree with that philosophy. That is another attempt at social engineering where a government decides to artificially effect the natural evolution of the progress of a society. I do not believe that it works. As examples, I suggest forced school busing for integration of blacks and gender preferences in hiring.

While these programs may result in the achievement of artificial goals they create more resentment and antagonism between groups.

[TimG]

dismissing facts that are relevant to their arguments.

My point is you don't have facts. You have opinions which select the data necessary to support the opinion. The same data can be used to support multiple opinions and which opinion someone prefers is a question of ideology rather than knowledge. In your case, your ideology leads to prefer to see privilege as a genetic trait because it supports your oppressor-victim view of the world. For me the only casual basis for privilege that makes any rational sense is money and any correlation found with other attributes is simply because these other attributes are a proxy for money.

Both views are opinions and not facts. It is possible to find data to support both views.

You need to get over your arrogant assumption that you can declare a debate over simply because you have decided that your opinions are facts.

[cybercoma]

My point is you don't have facts.

Then you should brush up on the difference between opinion and fact, then go back and have someone else read my posts to you. Maybe they can explain the parts that are whizzing over your head.

[The_Squid]

I do not believe that it works. As examples, I suggest forced school busing for integration of blacks and gender preferences in hiring.

While these programs may result in the achievement of artificial goals they create more resentment and antagonism between groups.

So you think whites should have kept the front of the bus, the cleaner bathroom stalls and good schools for themselves because they would resent it if black people were allowed there?

LOL

Sheer lunacy!! WTF Big Guy? That's just weird!

[Big Guy]

So you think whites should have kept the front of the bus, the cleaner bathroom stalls and good schools for themselves because they would resent it if black people were allowed there?

LOL

Sheer lunacy!! WTF Big Guy? That's just weird!

Thank you for your interesting opinion. Unfortunately, the majority of experts in education suggest that school busing did not and does not work. One reference can be found here:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/school-busing-civil-rights-121077

Actually, if you Google "School busing does not work" then you will find hundreds of other similar opinions.

You obviously have jumped a few steps to read my post as:"Whites should have kept the front of the bus, the cleaner bathroom stalls and good schools for themselves because they would resent it if black people were allowed there?"

On the contrary, I believe that in time, all schools would have become integrated without government intervention and without social architects and with the cooperation of the two races. Most social anthropologists agree that forced integration of blacks and whites through busing black students into white areas caused resentment between the races and has resulted in the growing animosity between the races that is evident to-day.

You may disagree but to call the concept weird, is just .... weird.

[betsy]

Violating the Ontario Human Rights Code is a crime.

Leaving your money to a specified group......Is that a violation of the human rights code?

What could be a violation of human right....is to not respect the wishes of the deceased as to whom he'd want to

leave his money. The Government has no right to his property or money....unless we've really gone down that far in stepping on rights.

Edited April 5, 2016 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Leaving your money to a specified group......Is that a violation of the human rights code?

What could be a violation of human right....is to not respect the wishes of the deceased as to whom he'd want to

leave his money. The Government has no right to his property or money....unless we've really gone down that far in stepping on rights.

The court's decision is linked in the article in the OP. From that decision you can read the 1990 decision that it's based on.

But for your edification, establishing a scholarship is not gifting money or giving it away. It's a public offering that needs to satisfy the Human Rights Code where it is administered. It's the exact same as the restrictions paced on businesses open to the public.

[betsy]

The court's decision is linked in the article in the OP. From that decision you can read the 1990 decision that it's based on.

But for your edification, establishing a scholarship is not gifting money or giving it away. It's a public offering that needs to satisfy the Human Rights Code where it is administered. It's the exact same as the restrictions paced on businesses open to the public.

At least, the judge didn't rule that the scholarship must be established in contrary to the deceased wishes.

The money that was set aside for the scholarships will now go toward other charitable trusts listed in Priebe’s will, the ruling stated.

Edited April 5, 2016 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Of course, but that's only because the deceased knew there was a good chance the scholarship would be illegal and accordingly stipulated how the money was to be used in the event that his "wishes" were not legal. The 1990 case removed the racist stipulations on the scholarship which opened it up because that one had no alternative written into the trust.

[Wilber]

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

It seems funding straight white people comes under the same category as funding ISIS now.

[Bonam]

It seems funding straight white people comes under the same category as funding ISIS now.

You have to remember that straight white males are the source and cause of all evil and misfortune that has ever been or ever will be in the world, and then it makes sense.

[Wilber]

You have to remember that straight white males are the source and cause of all evil and misfortune that has ever been or ever will be in the world, and then it makes sense.

Females to apparently.

Is the next step making contributions to schools like Trinity Western illegal? Where does this kind of nonsense end? Frankly I think this guy was a schmuck but I find rulings like this somewhat frightening for the places they can lead.

Schools are free to refuse the money and I wouldn't criticize any that did, but making it law is Orwellian IMO.

[Wilber]

I would also ask the judge, since when did "public policy" become the law of the land?