TWU law school snub
- Thread starter gerryh
- Start date
Them making that choice is discriminatory against people they have never met and have no idea about based solely on the school they attend. As you say, one of their attributes. The LSUC has no idea of the education or personal beliefs or moral character of anyone from TWU. If they could point to a specific factor in a specific person that gives them not enough character to become a lawyer (like a lawyer is required to have moral character to begin with) then they may refuse that individual entry to the association but that is not what they are doing. What they are doing is the exact definition of illegal discrimination in Canada and most of the world. They refuse to accept individuals based upon a group characteristic.
Funny how you can justify your own discrimination by claiming those you discriminate against are the ones discriminating against others (this tactic was used quite well by the Nazis) yet those you accuse have NEVER been challenged by any student or civil liberties association or govt agency as discriminatory.
Guess your are just an anti-christian hypocrite!
PS: maybe if you calm down and pull your head from your a$$ you will remember how to properly use the quote function.
That is 100% within their rights. They have always required that you attend an accredited law school in order to be called to the bar. This is nothing new.
Once you finish your degree at an accredited law school, you still need to pass all of the personal requirements too. You are confusing two very different processes.
The fact that TWU discriminates against gay people is a matter of fact. It is in their rules. Rules affect gay people differently than straight people.
So yes, the LSUC and the NS Law Society are choosing not to accredit them because they disagree with that rule.
Why are you still disputing basic facts at this point?
In exactly what way did I misuse the quote function in that post?
Funny that you don't actually dispute your long list of statements that show your lack of understanding of the law.
Wrong as usual....The LSUC does not enjoy the same exemption from discrimination as TWU. That is what the case is about according to you and also a good reason why the SCOC will rule against them as it did the BCTF.
The school is accredited in 8 provinces. The LSUC has yet to reconcile how they will deal with the freedom of movement agreement between law societies in Canada. This could lead to a removal of that agreement with respect to ONT and NB by all the other provinces as it would no longer be reciprocal. Then your discriminatory lawyers can only practice in their own province and that might be a good thing....keeping Ontarians in Ontario ya know!
Makes you wonder how these f*ckers became lawyers in the first place then when they seem to believe the way to deal with something they do not agree with is to launch a discriminatory campaign against it...Zieg-Heil Ontario
You keep on about this but under the law they do not. They cannot be sued or fined or jailed. They cannot be brought before any human rights panel. The LSUC on the other hand is quite different. They in fact are discriminating under the law and I am not ready to believe in a bunch of lawyers who do not follow the law.
If you had educated yourself or read some of the references on this thread you would see that it is a covenant based upon personal integrity, not a rule. Nobody has ever been kicked out, nobody has ever been brought before a disciplinary committee, the worst thing is they will have a group prayer for the offender and tell them they love them.
Why do you keep distorting facts and making up lies about things you know nothing about. You keep arguing this isn't a legal issue even when it is at the SCOC. :roll:
Why would I dispute my own posts? I find it funny how you keep referring to the law while claiming this isn't about the law. You keep claiming the HRC isn't bound by the Charter and that is f*cking hilarious.
Please do keep it up though pal, I am without tv at this time and you keep me amused. ;-)
very difficult to pinch-off e-verbal diarrhea.
maybe the doofus is in need of e-immodium.
Lol, are you serious? You are claiming it is wrong to say that professional organizations are allowed to discriminate against people based on the school they attend?
If they were not allowed to do that, why do we have this accreditation process in the first place?
This is why I keep telling you you have no comprehension of the law.
The law doesn't define what discrimination is. The law defines what kinds of discrimination are illegal. Just because this type of discrimination is permissible by BC law(not by Ontario law mind you), doesn't change the fact that it is discrimination.
How many times do you need to hear basic facts like this before you move on?
Lol, I posted those links myself. The rules clearly state that you can be expelled and even banned from the school for breaking the covenant.
"If a student, in the opinion of the University, is unable, refuses or fails to live up to their commitment, the University reserves the right to discipline, dismiss, or refuse a student’s re-admission to the University."
https://twu.ca/studenthandbook/university-policies/student-accountability-process.html
If they don't plan on expelling people for being gay, they should take that out of the rules or clearly state how they would treat someone who was found to be living a gay lifestyle.
Lol, again, complete and utter lack of comprehension. Just because it isn't about the laws that you are fixated doesn't mean that other laws don't apply.
No worries, you can apologize and eat some crow & humble pie after the SCOC ruling goes against your opinion.
Pity
Fricken awesome DaS!!!!
I agree, it's blatant discrimination, part of the war on Christianity. But there's two competing set of laws,
Ontario appeal court upholds decision not to accredit evangelical law school
Trinity Western University's "community covenant" bans sex outside heterosexual marriage, raising LGBTQ discrimination questions.
Ontario’s top court delivered a strong affirmation of LGBTQ rights on Wednesday when it upheld a decision not to accredit an evangelical Christian law school.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC), which regulates lawyers in Ontario, was entitled in 2014 to deny accreditation to Trinity Western University’s proposed law school over its “community covenant,” which students must abide by and prohibits sex outside of heterosexual marriage.
“My conclusion is a simple one,” wrote Justice James MacPherson for a unanimous three-judge panel. “The part of TWU’s community covenant in issue in this appeal is deeply discriminatory to the LGBTQ community, and it hurts.”
MacPherson wrote that the decision not to accredit does infringe on TWU’s right to freedom of religion, but not to the point where it must be overturned.
“The LSUC’s decision not to accredit TWU does not prevent the practice of a religious belief itself; rather it denies a public benefit because of the impact of that religious belief on others — members of the LGBTQ community.
The 50-page judgment, released just days before Pride weekend in Toronto, was praised by the legal regulatory body and LGBTQ groups.
TWU’s covenant tells LGBTQ students “you’re not wanted here,” said Paul Jonathan Saguil, one of the lawyers who represented groups Out on Bay Street and OUTlaws, which include LGBTQ professionals and law school students.
The Law Society was pleased the court found that the regulatory body acted fairly and reasonably, said its newly elected treasurer, Paul Schabas.
“It's significant that the court identified specifically that the Law Society has an important role to play in promoting a diverse profession, and that this is part of its public interest mandate,” he said.
Schabas voted against accreditation in 2014 in a 28-21 vote among the body’s “benchers,” who decide on policy. Trinity Western then applied to a lower court for judicial review of the decision, but the case was dismissed, leading to the Court of Appeal challenge.
“My position was largely similar to what the courts have articulated, which is that we have an obligation to not discriminate,” said Schabas.
“By accrediting Trinity Western, and in other words letting them into our licensing process, we would be effectively adopting a discriminatory path to licensing.”
The B.C.-based university is currently challenging similar decisions in the courts in Nova Scotia and British Columbia. The school said in a statement Wednesday that it would seek leave to appeal the Ontario ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.
“The community covenant is a core part of defining the TWU community as distinctly Christian,” said university spokesperson Amy Robertson.
“We are not making a statement about LGBTQ people; we are making a statement about traditional Christian marriage, which is sacred to us. The same covenant calls for all members of the TWU community to respect the dignity of others regardless of their background.”
Saguil, who is openly gay and also a member of Out on Bay Street’s board of directors, said the covenant can be especially damaging to those who are still learning about themselves, mentioning that he personally didn’t fully come out until law school.
“This is a formative time for a lot of people,” he said.
“We want the best lawyers and law students, but when you’re considering merit, discriminatory considerations have nothing to do with it,” he continued. “It doesn’t make you a better or weaker lawyer or law student because of who you love, who you go to bed with or who you date.”
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...n-not-to-accredit-evangelical-law-school.html
Trinity Western University's "community covenant" bans sex outside heterosexual marriage, raising LGBTQ discrimination questions.
Ontario’s top court delivered a strong affirmation of LGBTQ rights on Wednesday when it upheld a decision not to accredit an evangelical Christian law school.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC), which regulates lawyers in Ontario, was entitled in 2014 to deny accreditation to Trinity Western University’s proposed law school over its “community covenant,” which students must abide by and prohibits sex outside of heterosexual marriage.
“My conclusion is a simple one,” wrote Justice James MacPherson for a unanimous three-judge panel. “The part of TWU’s community covenant in issue in this appeal is deeply discriminatory to the LGBTQ community, and it hurts.”
MacPherson wrote that the decision not to accredit does infringe on TWU’s right to freedom of religion, but not to the point where it must be overturned.
“The LSUC’s decision not to accredit TWU does not prevent the practice of a religious belief itself; rather it denies a public benefit because of the impact of that religious belief on others — members of the LGBTQ community.
The 50-page judgment, released just days before Pride weekend in Toronto, was praised by the legal regulatory body and LGBTQ groups.
TWU’s covenant tells LGBTQ students “you’re not wanted here,” said Paul Jonathan Saguil, one of the lawyers who represented groups Out on Bay Street and OUTlaws, which include LGBTQ professionals and law school students.
The Law Society was pleased the court found that the regulatory body acted fairly and reasonably, said its newly elected treasurer, Paul Schabas.
“It's significant that the court identified specifically that the Law Society has an important role to play in promoting a diverse profession, and that this is part of its public interest mandate,” he said.
Schabas voted against accreditation in 2014 in a 28-21 vote among the body’s “benchers,” who decide on policy. Trinity Western then applied to a lower court for judicial review of the decision, but the case was dismissed, leading to the Court of Appeal challenge.
“My position was largely similar to what the courts have articulated, which is that we have an obligation to not discriminate,” said Schabas.
“By accrediting Trinity Western, and in other words letting them into our licensing process, we would be effectively adopting a discriminatory path to licensing.”
The B.C.-based university is currently challenging similar decisions in the courts in Nova Scotia and British Columbia. The school said in a statement Wednesday that it would seek leave to appeal the Ontario ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.
“The community covenant is a core part of defining the TWU community as distinctly Christian,” said university spokesperson Amy Robertson.
“We are not making a statement about LGBTQ people; we are making a statement about traditional Christian marriage, which is sacred to us. The same covenant calls for all members of the TWU community to respect the dignity of others regardless of their background.”
Saguil, who is openly gay and also a member of Out on Bay Street’s board of directors, said the covenant can be especially damaging to those who are still learning about themselves, mentioning that he personally didn’t fully come out until law school.
“This is a formative time for a lot of people,” he said.
“We want the best lawyers and law students, but when you’re considering merit, discriminatory considerations have nothing to do with it,” he continued. “It doesn’t make you a better or weaker lawyer or law student because of who you love, who you go to bed with or who you date.”
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...n-not-to-accredit-evangelical-law-school.html
That would also include heterosexual sex, but I guess that doesn't matter to the LSUC who are full of nothing but useless f*cks anyway.
This is why the ruling is unconstitutional. The LSUC isn't crying about heterosexual students who are "forbidden" from having sex outside of marriage. So what is the deal? Is the LSUC and Ontario Court of Appeals suggesting that the LGBTQ community are utterly incapable of keeping it in their pants?