Gays, Minorities or Athletes Need Not Apply

[The_Squid]

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

I didn't say they were morally equivalent.

The point is that you can't put your money anywhere you choose to... no right is absolute.

As CC posted earlier:

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.

[Wilber]

I didn't say they were morally equivalent.

The point is that you can't put your money anywhere you choose to... no right is absolute.

As CC posted earlier:

You were the one who used ISIS, Hamas and the KKK as examples, not me.

[The_Squid]

You were the one who used ISIS, Hamas and the KKK as examples, not me.

Yes I did. To make a point that you can't just put your money anywhere you want even if you're dead.

It was in response to someone who said that their money should be allowed to be used for anything they want.

Did you not read the posts?

[Wilber]

Yes I did. To make a point that you can't just put your money anywhere you want even if you're dead.

It was in response to someone who said that their money should be allowed to be used for anything they want.

Did you not read the posts?

Except all the examples you cited were illegal. The judge made her ruling citing "public policy". What public? Who is this "public"? Where is their law written and who made it law?

The problem is, this will now become law because of case law, even though it never saw the light of day in any elected legislature. That's what is scary about this kind of crap coming from our judges.

Let the man try and give his money away, No respectable school will touch it.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Wilber

[cybercoma]

I've written it several times already in this thread. The public policy here is the Ontario Human Rights Code. I've even quoted the legal decisions and explained to Tim why some scholarships are allowed for disadvantaged populations but a scholarship that seeks to further limit opportunities for those who are disadvantaged are not allowed. Any attempt at drawing parallels ignores the social and historical context of these peoples' situations. The courts do not do ignore it and ignoring it is not the spirit of the Human Rights Code. The courts will seek to ameliorate disadvantages. Yet, people without the mental faculties to understand others' situations see ameliorating others' disadvantages as creating disadvantages for themselves, when that's simply illogical nonsense.

Edited April 6, 2016 by cybercoma

[TimG]

The public policy here is the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Except there are many scholarships that violate the human rights code because they have various requirements. For example, restricting to children of PSAC members is discriminatory and not justifiable based on any 'historical context'. The human rights code simply does not apply to private choices. Edited April 6, 2016 by TimG

[Big Guy]

... some scholarships are allowed for disadvantaged populations but a scholarship that seeks to further limit opportunities for those who are disadvantaged are not allowed. ...

Why would you interpret the giving of a scholarship to a white, straight male limit opportunities for those who are disadvantaged?

The end result of this decision was the cancellation of the whole scholarship. Now no student will get the advantage of this financial support. How did that help the disadvantaged?

[cybercoma]

Except there are many scholarships that violate the human rights code because they have various requirements. For example, restricting to children of PSAC members is discriminatory and not justifiable based on any 'historical context'. The human rights code simply does not apply to private choices.

I will direct you yet again to the court documents I posted earlier that explain why you're wrong.

[cybercoma]

Why would you interpret the giving of a scholarship to a white, straight male limit opportunities for those who are disadvantaged?

The end result of this decision was the cancellation of the whole scholarship. Now no student will get the advantage of this financial support. How did that help the disadvantaged?

Because historical oppression has kept those groups out of academia, making them less likely to have the means of going to university both socially in terms of networking and mentors, and also financially. Establishing scholarships that only serve to perpetuate those historical disadvantages (literally blocking them from access to funding) is a violation of those people's rights. It's the perpetuation of a system that oppressed them. Nobody with two brain cells to rub together can say that straight, white people of means have any sort of disadvantage when it comes to post secondary education. For generations they were quite literally the only ones being educated. The scholarship in the OP and the one I linked to in the 1990 decision do nothing to address inequality and disadvantage. They literally seek to perpetuate institutional racism that kept certain groups from higher education for generations. Therefore, as a publicly offered scholarship, they violate the provincial Human Rights Code by letter and spirit, Edited April 6, 2016 by cybercoma

[Big Guy]

Because historical oppression has kept those groups out of academia, making them less likely to have the means of going to university both socially in terms of networking and mentors, and also financially. Establishing scholarships that only serve to perpetuate those historical disadvantages (literally blocking them from access to funding) is a violation of those people's rights. It's the perpetuation of a system that oppressed them. Nobody with two brain cells to rub together can say that straight, white people of means have any sort of disadvantage when it comes to post secondary education. For generations they were quite literally the only ones being educated. The scholarship in the OP and the one I linked to in the 1990 decision do nothing to address inequality and disadvantage. They literally seek to perpetuate institutional racism that kept certain groups from higher education for generations.

May I then assume that your position is that these scholarships, if directed and restricted to minority groups are OK and those directed to specific groups (excluding minorities) is not OK?

And, if student assistance that is offered for free has any conditions which exclude minorities should not be given even if the result is that NO students get assistance? (i.e. minority students get access to it or nobody gets access to it?

[cybercoma]

I have no idea what you're asking me. I haven't taken a position. I'm explaining the judicial reasoning for those of you who clearly don't get it.

[Wilber]

I've written it several times already in this thread. The public policy here is the Ontario Human Rights Code. I've even quoted the legal decisions and explained to Tim why some scholarships are allowed for disadvantaged populations but a scholarship that seeks to further limit opportunities for those who are disadvantaged are not allowed. Any attempt at drawing parallels ignores the social and historical context of these peoples' situations. The courts do not do ignore it and ignoring it is not the spirit of the Human Rights Code. The courts will seek to ameliorate disadvantages. Yet, people without the mental faculties to understand others' situations see ameliorating others' disadvantages as creating disadvantages for themselves, when that's simply illogical nonsense.

So the judge was correct in saying her judgement was due to policy because it had nothing to do with rights. All that happened here was someone's right was removed. No one's right was protected. One has to wonder, if the bequest specified a non white, gay student who must participate in athletics, would the judgement have been the same. Would Royal Trust have even asked a court for a ruling?

Edited April 6, 2016 by Wilber

[Big Guy]

I have no idea what you're asking me. I haven't taken a position. I'm explaining the judicial reasoning for those of you who clearly don't get it.

I shall attempt to understand your position. It appears to, me that your position was that this lower court decision was correct.

I then assume that you (and the lower court) are satisfied with the end result. That result being that there is now no scholarship for any student.

The result indicates that if there is a scholarship available to everyone, or it is available only to visible minorities then it is acceptable. If it is made to only white, heterosexual males then no one should get it?

In an effort to make it even easier to understand, the courts (and your ) position is that:

A scholarship made available to everyone is acceptable.

A scholarship which is restricted to black, gay females is acceptable.

A scholarship which is restricted to white, heterosexual males is not acceptable.

[cybercoma]

So the judge was correct in saying her judgement was due to policy because it had nothing to do with rights. All that happened here was someone's right was removed. No one's right was protected. One has to wonder, if the bequest specified a non white, gay student who must participate in athletics, would the judgement have been the same. Would Royal Trust have even asked a court for a ruling?

No it wouldn't have been the same and I gave you a judge's statements on that earlier in the thread with reference to a 1990 ruling on a similar situation.

[cybercoma]

Big Guy, I'm repeating the same things over and over. The judicial rulings are linked earlier in this thread. Go read them and you'll have your answers.

The reason there's no scholarship in the OP case is that the deceased requested that, knowing that his scholarship may not be legal. Ther wise, the illegal restrictions would be removed and the scholarship would still be available.

Edited April 6, 2016 by cybercoma

[TimG]

Big Guy, I'm repeating the same things over and over. The judicial rulings are linked earlier in this thread.

That you are missing is there is no law that says that one scholarship is discriminatory and another is not. Your entire argument is based on arbitrary interpretations by judges who have their own biases and prejudices. I realize that you like judge made law but that is only because judges in Canada currently share your biases and prejudices. I suspect you would not be a fan of judge made law if judges had different political outlooks.

[cybercoma]

I'm sorry that you don't understand the Ontario Human Rights Code and how it pertains to trusts, but it certainly wasn't written by judges. It was written by legislators.

[Big Guy]

In the USA, the whole idea of busing and affirmative action is being reviewed as to its effectiveness and constitutionality. The idea that inequality imposed do-day to make up for an inequality of the past is also being questioned in Canada.

I hope the trustee (or a third party) appeals to a higher court to get that decision reversed.

[Wilber]

No it wouldn't have been the same and I gave you a judge's statements on that earlier in the thread with reference to a 1990 ruling on a similar situation.

I agree, so this judgement has nothing to do with rights, unless you believe rights are tied to race and sexual orientation and everything to do with a policy that is tied to race and sexual orientation and deliberately mislabeled as a human rights code.

[Bryan]

It's patently insane that a person's opportunities today are being taken away because a judge is taken into account things that happened to other people generations ago. Activist judges like this need to be removed from the bench.

[cybercoma]

No one's opportunities are being taken away. That's nothing but hyperbole.

[Smoke]

No one's opportunities are being taken away. That's nothing but hyperbole.

Thanks for agreeing that opportunities are not being taken away from anyone. So much for the racist "white privilege" idea I guess. Glad you have finally come around to your senses.

[cybercoma]

Thanks for agreeing that opportunities are not being taken away from anyone. So much for the racist "white privilege" idea I guess. Glad you have finally come around to your senses.

You're operating under the mistaken premise that there are equivalency here. A KKK funded scholarship is not the same thing as a scholarship,that helps the poor or helps black students or helps aboriginal students. If you don't understand the historical and social context and why those thjng s are different, then I can't help you. There's only so much explaining that can be done. I can't understand it for you. The court decisions outlined their reasoning clearly and no one has come up with any reasonable criticism of those decisions. Mostly because it would involve denying the historical barriers to higher education for certain groups, which would be akin to denying the holocaust or denying that grass is green and the sky is blue. Edited April 7, 2016 by cybercoma

[Bryan]

No one's opportunities are being taken away. That's nothing but hyperbole.

The scholarships are not being allowed as the deceased originally requested. The opportunity that he was making for that specific demographic is no longer there.

[Bryan]

You're operating under the mistaken premise that there are equivalency here. A KKK funded scholarship is not the same thing as a scholarship,that helps the poor or helps black students or helps aboriginal students. If you don't understand the historical and social context and why those thjng s are different, then I can't help you. There's only so much explaining that can be done. I can't understand it for you. The court decisions outlined their reasoning clearly and no one has come up with any reasonable criticism of those decisions. Mostly because it would involve denying the historical barriers to higher education for certain groups, which would be akin to denying the holocaust or denying that grass is green and the sky is blue.

Historical context is irrelevant. The student today did nothing to the great-great grandparents of the other student.