Gays, Minorities or Athletes Need Not Apply

[cybercoma]

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.

Sorry, but if he had not stipulated that the scholarship money go to charity, there would still be a scholarship with revised conditions. It was his wish that either he could discriminate against people who are gay and people of colour or he would not have a scholarship trust whatsoever. The court followed his request.

[cybercoma]

Historical context is irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what you think. The courts and society have decided that it does. More importantly, you're completely ignorant to how a history of oppression creates barriers for certain groups

of people entering higher education. I already mentioned wealth and connections being two parts of that but there's also cultural capital limitations as well.

Again, it doesn't matter what you believe. These barriers are demonstrably true and no university in their right minds are going to perpetuate systemic oppression.

Edited April 7, 2016 by cybercoma

[Wilber]

It doesn't matter what you think. The courts and society have decided that it does. More importantly, you're completely ignorant to how a history of oppression creates barriers for certain groups

of people entering higher education. I already mentioned wealth and connections being two parts of that but there's also cultural capital limitations as well.

Again, it doesn't matter what you believe. These barriers are demonstrably true and no university in their right minds are going to perpetuate systemic oppression.

It doesn't matter what you think. The courts and society have decided that it does. More importantly, you're completely ignorant to how a history of oppression creates barriers for certain groups

of people entering higher education. I already mentioned wealth and connections being two parts of that but there's also cultural capital limitations as well.

Again, it doesn't matter what you believe. These barriers are demonstrably true and no university in their right minds are going to perpetuate systemic oppression.

Where in our education system is there oppression and barriers to certain groups?

Edited April 7, 2016 by Wilber

[Bryan]

These barriers are demonstrably true

No they're not. It's an idiotic myth.

[Bryan]

Sorry, but if he had not stipulated that the scholarship money go to charity, there would still be a scholarship with revised conditions. It was his wish that either he could discriminate against people who are gay and people of colour or he would not have a scholarship trust whatsoever. The court followed his request.

That's a very different position than what I responded to:

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

Now you're just rationalizing why the opportunity was taken away.

[cybercoma]

Where in our education system is there oppression and barriers to certain groups?

You're kidding, right?

[cybercoma]

Feel free to look into it yourselves, if you actually want to know because it's pretty clear you guys don't know and more importantly don't care. Nevertheless, here's a good place to start your quest of self enlightenment:

2011 Senate committee report on barriers to PSE

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/411/soci/rep/rep06dec11-e.pdf

Hell, you don't even have to look beyond the index to see that it's organized by the social characteristics of the students.

But yeah.... Probably just lies perpetuated by a Conservative senate.

Edited April 7, 2016 by cybercoma

[Bryan]

Anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, who thinks that there are any barriers whatsoever to accessing post-secondary education in this country beyond actually affording it has either never actually attended post-secondary school, or is just repeating nonsense that they heard thirdhand.

[Wilber]

You're kidding, right?

Where in our education system today is there oppression and barriers to certain groups?

[Wilber]

Feel free to look into it yourselves, if you actually want to know because it's pretty clear you guys don't know and more importantly don't care. Nevertheless, here's a good place to start your quest of self enlightenment:

2011 Senate committee report on barriers to PSE

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/sen/committee/411/soci/rep/rep06dec11-e.pdf

Hell, you don't even have to look beyond the index to see that it's organized by the social characteristics of the students.

But yeah.... Probably just lies perpetuated by a Conservative senate.

I don't see anything in that report that points to oppression or society imposed barriers. In fact, most of the recommendations involved giving special treatment to FN students in order to reduce dropout rates and increase post secondary education rates. I don't dispute that something needs to be done in this area but I don't call not giving something extra to a group, oppression or putting up barriers

In fact, Canada ranks #1 in the world when it comes to the percentage of its population holding university degrees and in 2014 it was #5 when it came to all types of post secondary education.

My oldest grandson starts engineering at UBC in the fall and last month he was part of a team representing his high school at a physics competition at UBC. They placed 5th out of 50 teams. He referred to himself as the token white guy on his team. He was joking of course, all of them earned the right to be on the team, but he was the only white guy.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Wilber

[Lessery]

It is undeniable that a question about alternative sexual orientations is highly controversial. But the society cannot turn a blind eye to it anymore. It’s really complicated question, so you could check this article and figure it out. The most important thing on this matter is a personal awareness. In a word, we should aim for the ethics and understanding that everyone is different.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Lessery

[Queenmandy85]

The Court ruled that the bequest went against Public Policy, not that it was illegal. When you die, the assets you had no longer belong to you because you are dead. I am not a lawyer but it appears to me that in view of the fact that it is the Court that disburses those assets, the assets revert to the Crown and it is the Crown that decides who gets what. If someone dies intestate with no claims on the bequest, the assets do go to the Crown. In this case, the Court determined the will was contrary to public policy and few people would disagree.

[taxme]

On 4/3/2016 at 5:46 PM, Big Guy said:

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.

We the people need to start telling our politicians and government to mind their own dam business. Anything left to anyone by whom ever should be legal and allowed to proceed without the state butting in. This is creating a precedent that will start to affect everyone and their wills and who they want to leave their money or property too. This is communism, plain and simple. It is getting to the point that we the people will not be allowed to do anything until we check with a judge first. Canada is going to communist hell, and Canadians are letting it happen. A dam shame indeed.  

[taxme]

On 5/6/2017 at 8:14 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

The Court ruled that the bequest went against Public Policy, not that it was illegal. When you die, the assets you had no longer belong to you because you are dead. I am not a lawyer but it appears to me that in view of the fact that it is the Court that disburses those assets, the assets revert to the Crown and it is the Crown that decides who gets what. If someone dies intestate with no claims on the bequest, the assets do go to the Crown. In this case, the Court determined the will was contrary to public policy and few people would disagree.

It is your lawyer that gets to disperse your money and assets, not the state. The state is getting itself involved with too much of our private lives. This is dangerous for all who believe in freedom to choose. 

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, taxme said:

It is your lawyer that gets to disperse your money and assets, not the state. The state is getting itself involved with too much of our private lives. This is dangerous for all who believe in freedom to choose. 

Sorry, you seem to have a lot of confusion as to our legal system. It is not your lawyer who disperses your assets after death. It is the courts. Look up the term "probate" some time.

[taxme]

On 4/3/2016 at 5:55 PM, TimG said:

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.

It would appear today as though all Canadian judges in Canada have to lean towards the leftist liberal leaning pro-minority lamp post. if one is straight, Caucasian, and christian conservative than you are the enemy of the people. Our politicians are starting to show this more and more every day. Our elected political dictators are now going to tell us all as to how things will be done whether we like it or not. We are the slaves, politicians are the slave owners. Sound familiar to you? 

[taxme]

10 minutes ago, Omni said:

Sorry, you seem to have a lot of confusion as to our legal system. It is not your lawyer who disperses your assets after death. It is the courts. Look up the term "probate" some time.

Confused? Really now. The court may get to disperse the goodies but they should be dispersing those goodies according to how the deceased person has willed the money and assets to be dispersed.

Why do I always get the impression here that you always despise freedom? Who's dam money is it anyway? The deceased person's money and assets or the governments money and assets? Can you not see that this is communism plain and simple? So, if the deceased person is not of the left political bent, then is his/her money and assets now to be forfeited and taken by the courts. Wake up for gawds sake. 

Edited May 15, 2017 by taxme

[Omni]

8 minutes ago, taxme said:

Confused? Really now. The court may get to disperse the goodies but they should be dispersing those goodies according to how the deceased person has willed the money and assets to be dispersed.

Why do I always get the impression here that you always despise freedom? Who's dam money is it anyway? The deceased person's money and assets or the governments money and assets? Can you not see that this is communism plain and simple? So, if the deceased person is not of the left political bent, then is his/her money and assets now to be forfeited and taken by the courts. Wake up for gawds sake. 

Are you now under the impression that his money has been taken by the courts? They're not. But maybe he should have simply identified a number of people who fit his designation, and named them in his will. 

[taxme]

10 minutes ago, Omni said:

Are you now under the impression that his money has been taken by the courts? They're not. But maybe he should have simply identified a number of people who fit his designation, and named them in his will. 

Maybe? Maybe not? I have no idea because I am not following as to what is going on. But what we have been given so far is that the extreme far leftist courts are involved in as to who gets what. But keep me posted will you?  

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, taxme said:

Maybe? Maybe not? I have no idea because I am not following as to what is going on. But what we have been given so far is that the extreme far leftist courts are involved in as to who gets what. But keep me posted will you?  

Correct, it seems you have no idea, so why keep posting? A little research might help ya.

[taxme]

44 minutes ago, Omni said:

Correct, it seems you have no idea, so why keep posting? A little research might help ya.

So, why do you keep posting? Well, it is obvious from your reply that you know nothing about the story also? All I was doing was just giving my opinion which you believe that I should not have the right to do so, eh? As far as I am concerned , you never do any proper research on anything yourself. All you do is repeat what you read, and try to get the rest of us to believe what you read is the absolute God's truth. And yourself being a liberal, I will never believe anything a liberal says. This conservative will continue to attack and challenge your liberal far left extremist opinions and points of view. You have still not learned yet that you are dealing with a real and true non-politically correct conservative, and not with your average I don't know anything about anything political Canadian. Those types only just vote every four or five years and forget about politics until the next election. A country will always be in trouble with people like that. But hey. 

Edited May 15, 2017 by taxme

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, taxme said:

what you read is the absolute God's truth.

I don't believe in God/gawd I notice you use both spellings, which do you prefer?

[taxme]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

I don't believe in God/gawd I notice you use both spellings, which do you prefer?

Both, obviously. I am an agnostic. Better to be safe than be sorry. 

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, taxme said:

Both, obviously. I am an agnostic. Better to be safe than be sorry. 

Not really.  If there is a God, it knows you doubted.

[taxme]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Not really.  If there is a God, it knows you doubted.

No way, man. I have my bases covered.