TWU law school snub
- Thread starter gerryh
- Start date
Question: Would sex between two men be a violation of this provision in the Community Covenant?
Does that say homosexuality?
Where does it state an instant expulsion?
If a student fails to maintain his or her commitment to the Community Covenant and/or policies and guidelines of the University as outlined in the Student Handbook, Academic Calendar and TWU website, an accountability process exists that is structured around the goal of bringing the student back into relationship with the community while contributing to the student’s personal and spiritual growth. Initial and/or minor violations may be dealt with through a discussion process facilitated by Student Life staff. Subsequent and/or more serious breaches of the Community Covenant may be dealt with in a formal process overseen by the Director of Community Life or Associate Provost. Such cases may be referred to a Community Council or the University’s Accountability Committee, consisting of faculty, staff and students, for resolution.
In every instance, the University seeks to prayerfully and objectively assess what has occurred, demonstrate care and acceptance for the individual involved, help build understanding and commitment to community responsibilities, and encourage the individual to accept accountability for his or her behaviour as a member of the TWU community. 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.
Nope. Not in there.
as·sump·tion
əˈsəm(p)SHən/
noun
1.
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof
Where does it state an instant expulsion?
If a student fails to maintain his or her commitment to the Community Covenant and/or policies and guidelines of the University as outlined in the Student Handbook, Academic Calendar and TWU website, an accountability process exists that is structured around the goal of bringing the student back into relationship with the community while contributing to the student’s personal and spiritual growth. Initial and/or minor violations may be dealt with through a discussion process facilitated by Student Life staff. Subsequent and/or more serious breaches of the Community Covenant may be dealt with in a formal process overseen by the Director of Community Life or Associate Provost. Such cases may be referred to a Community Council or the University’s Accountability Committee, consisting of faculty, staff and students, for resolution.
In every instance, the University seeks to prayerfully and objectively assess what has occurred, demonstrate care and acceptance for the individual involved, help build understanding and commitment to community responsibilities, and encourage the individual to accept accountability for his or her behaviour as a member of the TWU community. 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.
Nope. Not in there.
as·sump·tion
əˈsəm(p)SHən/
noun
1.
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof
FACT: It would be within the rights of Trinity Western University under its current policy framework, if a student refused a request to stop having gay sex (and therefore acting with disregard for the Community Covenant), for the University to expel the student from the University. Lawyers, rights groups, and folks in post-secondary education know this to be true. Your nonsensical denial of it only shows that either (a) you cannot read, or (b) you're blind to the issue.
You can't kick somebody out of school for being gay but you can for drugs, alcohol, threating, violence, and sh-tload of other reason but they can't kick somebody out for being gay. PERIOD.
You can't sign your Rights away.
That is so incredibly disingenuous.
What happened when "They went through the same thing with their faculty of education back in the 90's."?
HMMMM?????
Let me fill you in. It went to the Supreme Court. The court found IN FAVOUR of the University and forced the BC College of Teachers to accept TWU graduates.
THAT is called a "precedent". It is blatantly obvious that other professional organizations have to abide by the ruling of the SCOC, and that should be 1000 times more obvious to a organization of lawyers.
Which makes the "pushback" that you find righteous exactly the opposite.....it is a ploy by scumbag lawyers to punish TWU for having moral standards by forcing them to spend a truckload of cash running this through the courts yet again.
Using the institutions of law to punish a person or organization that is clearly in the right is obviously wrong. Forcing the university to defend its position in court when it has already won is wrong. Not much wonder that persecution by prosecution is becoming a favourite tactic of scumball prosecutors that don't like the law as it stands, and use the system to punish those of whom they disapprove..
It is outrageous.
LOL!!
Yep. On-line polls are REAL accurate, and the Ministry of Truth is absolutely unbiased...........
Thought I should clarify.....to anyone that thinks the Ontario and Nova Scotia lawyers' societies have anything close to a case:
Background
Trinity Western University is a private university with a Christian-based curriculum. The university started a teachers training program and applied to the British Columbia College of Teachers for the proper certification. The college rejected Trinity Western on account that the school's policy that prohibited "homosexual behaviour" violated the college's anti-discrimination policy.
Opinion of the Court
In an eight to one decision, the Court held that the college was wrong in rejecting Trinity Western on the basis of discrimination.
The lower courts in British Columbia and, later, the Supreme Court of Canada, ruled in favour of Trinity Western University, stating that there was no basis for the BCCT's decision, and, moreover, that "the concern that graduates of TWU will act in a detrimental fashion in the classroom is not supported by any evidence."
Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Background
Trinity Western University is a private university with a Christian-based curriculum. The university started a teachers training program and applied to the British Columbia College of Teachers for the proper certification. The college rejected Trinity Western on account that the school's policy that prohibited "homosexual behaviour" violated the college's anti-discrimination policy.
Opinion of the Court
In an eight to one decision, the Court held that the college was wrong in rejecting Trinity Western on the basis of discrimination.
The lower courts in British Columbia and, later, the Supreme Court of Canada, ruled in favour of Trinity Western University, stating that there was no basis for the BCCT's decision, and, moreover, that "the concern that graduates of TWU will act in a detrimental fashion in the classroom is not supported by any evidence."
Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's nice. Now come back with that AFTER the SCC changes the law surrounding private clubs. It doesn't matter if 100% of Canadians and all of Africa think that way, the law dictates differently until it is changed.
So why does one club get to discriminate and the other club not?
You guys are never consistent.
But but Born Ruff spent the last 24 hours saying that TWU discriminates against gay guys .
What does the SCOC know .
Lol, you guys seriously can't accept that having explicit rules against homosexual behavior discriminates against people who are gay?
TWU gets away with it because there are exemptions within the BC human rights code that they take advantage of. The same practices would not be allowed in other provinces, such as Ontario, since our human rights code does not provide for the same exemptions.
Did I ask you?
This post is perfectly genuine if you actually read the post I quoted and was responding to. Gerry was asking why nobody had complained in the past, and why they are complaining now. I pointed out that this isn't the first complaint and that this is happening now because they are trying to get approval from these societies now.
You don't seem to have much of an understanding of how our court system works. If once the court made a decision, all future decisions had to be decided in the exact same way, our country would look very different today.
The fact is that the SCOC revises their previous stances on issues all the time. This previous case is one precedent, but there are hundreds of other precedents that would come into play as well, and it is all viewed through the lens of the judges interpretation of the applicable laws.
Stuff like this isn't harassment, it is exactly what you need to do to enact any sort of change. In order for the SCOC to get a crack at reevaluating the issue, there needs to be an issue for them to decide on.
A pretty key difference here is that we are not talking about their own provincial body. It would be easy to argue that a different province is not necessarily bound by the choice of the BC government to approve this school.
Lol, exactly what law are you talking about?
What is the proper name of you "private clubs" law?
And you can not understand that requiring people to voluntarily live up to a code of behaviour to be accepted into a private university is indeed discrimination...........just like requiring a certain GPA is discrimination.
BTW, I do not believe homosexuality is even mentioned in the oath....just sex outside the Biblical definition of marriage.
Ahhh....you've got to be kidding. The SCOC does not base its judgements on the BC Human Rights Code, but on the Charter which, useless as it is, applies everywhere.
You lose. Give it up. You're beginning to look silly.
You obviously don't have the slightest clue how the rule of law works.
The Court VERY RARELY reverses itself.
And precedent is the backbone of English Common Law.
You should really development a smidgen of knowledge on a subject before you shoot your mouth off.
You are making a fool of yourself.
Lol, I look silly?
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms only applies between the government and citizens. As many of you have pointed out about a million times, this is a PRIVATE institution, so the charter has no power over them. Have you ever noticed that every single charter case either starts with "R. vs" or ends with "vs. Canada"?
The only human rights laws that would apply to an institution like that would be the human rights code of the applicable province. That said, that wasn't the issue put in front of the court, so people saying that the last decision somehow proves that the SCOC approved of their discriminatory policies are simply wrong.
Lol, give it up. You don't even know the most basic facts about our charter of rights and freedoms.
If you don't think that the supreme court changes it's opinions often, while you are reading up on what the charter is, try reading through all the different interpretations that the SCOC has applied to each section over the years.
Why are you arguing that precedent is part of the system? I clearly acknowledged that in the last post. The only thing you missed is that they don't just look at one similar case and that is that. They look at all the applicable precedents in the light of the current interpretations of the applicable laws.
How does it make sense to use the word "require" and "voluntarily" in the same sentence?
If they want to attend the school, it is in no way voluntary.
GPA is in no way analogous to sexual orientation.
Again, if you have not read the excepts from the community covenant that have been posted a million times already, then I can't help you.
Name a gay student who has filed an HRC claim for being discriminated against.
Then and only then can you say they have discriminated a student for sexual activities that harm the sacredness of marriage.
Then and only then can you say they have discriminated a student for sexual activities that harm the sacredness of marriage.