TWU law school snub

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
66

Ezra Levant ‏@ezralevant

http://www.CharterOfValues.ca


Two Canadian law societies – secretive committees of lawyers in each province – have decided to blacklist all students from a Christian law school in B.C. called Trinity Western University (TWU), because of that school’s Christian student code of conduct.

None of those students – no matter how smart, no matter how hard-working, no matter how honest – will be allowed to practice law.
It’s anti-Christian bigotry that would be unthinkable if it targeted Black, Jewish, Muslim or gay students.

TWU’s law school is fully accredited, just like the University of Toronto or Osgoode Hall. But because its students live by Christian values, bigots at law societies across Canada have voted to ban its graduates from TWU from practicing law in their provinces.

It’s the modern equivalent of a “No Blacks Allowed” sign on a restaurant in the 1960’s in the Deep South.




Ontario’s law society voted 28 to 21 to ban any TWU students from working. In Nova Scotia, one single bigot was all it took: they voted 10 to 9 to ban these Christian students.

It’s a shocking attack on freedom of religion, that’s clearly contrary to the promise of freedom of religion in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You’d think law societies would care about that.


There is no doubt that these secretive law societies are breaking the law. When anti-Christian bigots at the B.C. teacher’s college tried to do the same thing years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada smacked them down, saying anti-Christian discrimination is unacceptable in a modern society. Apparently these law society bigots think they’re above the law.

It’s bullying at its worst. These anti-Christian extremists in Ontario and Nova Scotia aren’t even punishing TWU. They’re punishing individual law students they haven’t even met yet, simply for choosing to attend a Christian law school.


What’s next? If they can ban lawyers based on the Christian views of their law school, can they ban individual lawyers who believe in Christianity too?


Ironically, these same law societies were up in arms about Quebec’s proposed Charter of Values that would have banned government employees from wearing ostentatious religious symbols, like Sikh turbans or Muslim veils. That idea was defeated in April’s Quebec election. But now the bigots at the law societies want their own Charter of Values – but only targeting Christians. It’s a national disgrace.

There is something deeply wrong when the people who are supposed to be guardians of our civil rights are the ones destroying them. Freedom of religion is so important, our Constitution even calls it a “fundamental freedom”.

The law societies in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, PEI, Newfoundland and Nunavut know this – they’ve voted to approve graduates from TWU. Not every law society is as bigoted as the ones in Ontario and Nova Scotia.

Sign the petition against anti-Christian bigotry in Canada’s law societies. We’ll send the petition to the hateful bullies in Ontario and Nova Scotia. And we’ll send it to the law societies that have yet to vote, to let them know we’re watching.

This isn’t just about Christian students at TWU. It’s about whether we allow our entire legal system to be hijacked by extremist bigots, who are keeping an illegal enemies list of religions they don’t like.




Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

2(b) Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.




Sign the Petition!

TheRealBigots Campaign







Ezra Levant ‏@ezralevant

If you're a gay activist who thinks @TrinityWestern is a more pressing crisis than sharia gay-hanging in Arabia #YouJustMightBeAntiChristian
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Why are you still pretending that you know anything about the law? Every specific thing you have mentioned regarding the law has been categorically wrong.



No. While sex is obviously a normal and healthy part of life, It is a personal choice. It is ridiculous for an institution to try to dictate the sex lives of adults, and even more ridiculous when they impose rules differently on people based on their sexual orientation. Straight people can have sex if they are married. A married gay person would still be breaking the rules if they had sex with their spouse.

Every specific thing you have mentioned regarding the law has been categorically wrong.
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
Every specific thing you have mentioned regarding the law has been categorically wrong.

Lol, like how the charter of rights and freedoms only applies between the government and citizens?

Or how the supreme court can in fact hear cases about provincial legislation?

What exactly have I said that is wrong?

I people can take one thing away from this thread, can it be understanding what the hell the charter of rights and freedoms is?



Why do you have such a hard on for this guy?
 
Last edited:

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
66
Lol, the best you can come up with is a typo?

It's not a competition kid and you're not worthy of my steady attention...just pointing out that you're an idiot for not being able to figure out the quote function after all this time during your bouts of postarrhea.

As far as your lousy spelling and grammar, I suggest using the 'preview' function before you rush to post. It will save you further embarrassment.

Have a really nice day.
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
Why not? You keep arguing it is discrimination when by legal definition it isn't. Kinda makes you look like a fool.

Read

Lol, seriously? How many times does this need to be explained to you?

"Discrimination" is not a crime.

There are laws that make some forms of discrimination in some circumstances illegal.

The law in BC in no way says that the school is not discriminating based on sexual orientation, the law simply says that they are allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation because they claim it to be a religious belief.

You are arguing this point against nobody, since nobody has claimed that what TWU is doing is illegal. The law societies have always explicitly said that they oppose this on moral and ethical grounds, not that they think what they are doing is illegal. Just because you are legally allowed to do something doesn't mean other people are forced to support it.
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
It's not a competition kid and you're not worthy of my steady attention...just pointing out that you're an idiot for not being able to figure out the quote function after all this time during your bouts of postarrhea.

As far as your lousy spelling and grammar, I suggest using the 'preview' function before you rush to post. It will save you further embarrassment.

Have a really nice day.

Lol, who is embarrassed?

I'd be embarrassed to be you right now. You are pretty pathetic.

"You are wrong, but I can't tell you why, because.....I'm busy, yeah, but you are wrong!"
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Lol, like how the charter of rights and freedoms only applies between the government and citizens?

Or how the supreme court can in fact hear cases about provincial legislation?

What exactly have I said that is wrong?

OKAY, you asked for it...

A little case history:

https://suite.io/laura-steiner/2fdd22b

Those are Quebec PROVINCIAL laws.............ruled unconstitutional by the SCOC.

Oh and a lesson on Constitutional law.

Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the Courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_constitutional_law
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
OKAY, you asked for it...

A little case history:

https://suite.io/laura-steiner/2fdd22b

Those are Quebec PROVINCIAL laws.............ruled unconstitutional by the SCOC.

Oh and a lesson on Constitutional law.

Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the Courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_constitutional_law

In what way do you think this contradicts what I said?

This is what you said

Excuse me??

The Supreme Court of Canada does not adjudicate provincial legislation.

So it seems like you are just proving yourself wrong.
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
He is referring to your ridiculous notion of the reach of the Charter.

Exactly what did he say that refutes my stated facts about the charter?

The charter only applies between the government and the people, as pointed out in his post.

"All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect."

Notice how it only talks about laws, which are imposed by the government, and says nothing about rules at private universities, or restaurants, or any other non government institution or actor. If a law is discriminatory, that might be a charter violation. If a policy at a private school is discriminatory, that would be taken up with the relevant human rights code.

Again, this is not philosophical, this is a basic fact about the laws of our country.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,168
14,476
113
Low Earth Orbit
Exactly what did he say that refutes my stated facts about the charter?

The charter only applies between the government and the people, as pointed out in his post.

"All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect."

Notice how it only talks about laws, which are imposed by the government, and says nothing about rules at private universities, or restaurants, or any other non government institution or actor. If a law is discriminatory, that might be a charter violation. If a policy at a private school is discriminatory, that would be taken up with the relevant human rights code.

Again, this is not philosophical, this is a basic fact about the laws of our country.
When you are so narrow minded, it's not hard for you to miss the meat and potatoes. Everybody works under the laws under the umbrella of the Feds.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,641
9,660
113
Washington DC
Exactly what did he say that refutes my stated facts about the charter?

The charter only applies between the government and the people, as pointed out in his post.

"All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect."

Notice how it only talks about laws, which are imposed by the government, and says nothing about rules at private universities, or restaurants, or any other non government institution or actor. If a law is discriminatory, that might be a charter violation. If a policy at a private school is discriminatory, that would be taken up with the relevant human rights code.

Again, this is not philosophical, this is a basic fact about the laws of our country.
I think that's correct. I'm not an expert on Canadian law, but that tracks our Constitution/statutory law split.

A law that is found discriminatory is struck down as unConstitutional.

A private policy that's found improperly discriminatory is illegal under our Civil Rights Acts.
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
I think that's correct. I'm not an expert on Canadian law, but that tracks our Constitution/statutory law split.

A law that is found discriminatory is struck down as unConstitutional.

A private policy that's found improperly discriminatory is illegal under our Civil Rights Acts.

Pretty much, except there is no civil rights act in Canada, it is the human rights codes in various provinces or the canadian human rights act for nationally regulated organizations(banks, railways, etc).

When you are so narrow minded, it's not hard for you to miss the meat and potatoes. Everybody works under the laws under the umbrella of the Feds.

That is certainly correct. I never said that we are all not affected by the charter. The charter simply applies when the issue is between you and the government.

If the issue is being caused by the law, say it affects people of a certain race disproportionately, then that is a charter violation.

If the issue is caused by something other than the law, for example, a private restaurant that wont serve black people, then it is a human rights code issue.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
I really dislike comments like this. Standing up for equal treatment shouldn't be viewed as some partisan political movement.

People complain about a particular group being "in their face", but it just happens to be the exact same group that they are explicitly discriminating against in their rules.

It is not like this is some roving band of activists looking for people to attack. The school is the one who decided to put this rule on their books, and the school is the one who decided to go out to these law societies and seek their approval.

I think we have come far enough to recognize that nobody should be discriminated against simply because of intrinsic aspects of who they are. No matter which group you choose to discriminate against, you should feel like people are "in your face" about it, since enough people realize that is wrong.

Just my impression. Gay people should be equal before the law. And bisexuals. And transgenders. And any other sexual orientation that hasn't been thought of yet but involves consenting adults. I just think they should slow it down a bit, let people get used to the idea.

We disciminate against people because of their "intrinsic aspects" all the time. Pedophilia is likely a sexual orietnation, recent research suggests. But we actively discriminate against them. I personally discriminate against azzholes, even though I'm pretty sure that they were born that way and it was not a lifestyle choice.
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
Just my impression. Gay people should be equal before the law. And bisexuals. And transgenders. And any other sexual orientation that hasn't been thought of yet but involves consenting adults. I just think they should slow it down a bit, let people get used to the idea.

People have known about gay people for a long time, exactly how many more years should people be allowed to discriminate against them for?

I really don't think "slow down" applies here. The law society isn't trying to advance anything, they are trying to prevent a step backwards. Right now there are no law schools the restrict access based on sexual orientation, and they simply want to keep it that way.

We disciminate against people because of their "intrinsic aspects" all the time. Pedophilia is likely a sexual orietnation, recent research suggests. But we actively discriminate against them. I personally discriminate against azzholes, even though I'm pretty sure that they were born that way and it was not a lifestyle choice.

Ugg, you seem so reasonable but you keep dropping these standard lines that all the homophobic people use to try to legitimize their views.

People always try to bring up pedophilia when talking about homosexuality to try to associate the two. They are not the same thing. You even mentioned the key difference, consenting adults.

The new research you are talking about can certainly be useful in term of finding ways to treat pedophiles, but obviously we need to restrict actions that victimize other people, which is implicitly the case in instances where someone is too young to provide consent.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
People have known about gay people for a long time, exactly how many more years should people be allowed to discriminate against them for?

According to you forever. You claim discrimination doesn't fall under the law which has to be true if it doesn't fall under the Charter which governs all laws in Canada ergo the human rights commision is useless because it has no legal standing so I can discriminate against whomever I please for as long as I want. Personally I only discriminate against stupid so you are in trouble....but not because you're gay.