TWU law school snub
- Thread starter gerryh
- Start date
Lol, are you high?
What the hell does "discrimination doesn't fall under the law" even mean? Why are you obsesses with trying to use discrimination as a catch all legal term when there simply is no simple "discrimination" law anywhere in Canada. There are a number of laws the prohibit discrimination on certain grounds in certain situation. Do you get that yet?
The human rights codes themselves are obviously subject to the charter. Remember, the charter applies to issues between people and the government. So if the code is found to discriminate against people on one of the grounds protected in the charter, then that would be a charter violation. Are you following at all?
You seem to talk about my bum non stop, so maybe you need to do a bit of self assessment there Petros.
I think you are getting yourself confused. You keep arguing discrimination isn't covered by the charter. If that is true then there can be no discrimination as the charter covers all laws in canada. If it isn't covered under the law then it has to be legal. Everything past that poi t is just personal opinion and personal opinion cannot be used as the basis for a lawsuit so I cannot be sued or fined or penalized in any way for discriminatory actions or policies.
Conversely if I can be sued or fined or penalized then there is a law which would be covered by the charter.
Please try to read my post more carefully or just google this or something. Nothing you are saying is even close to reality.
The charter is not the basis for any laws in Canada, it is a review mechanism for laws. The law for laws if you will.
Are you getting this at all?
It is like how the police rule book governs how police act, and police control how people in general act, but the police rule book is not applicable to people in general.
Actually I was an early adopter of gay rights. But now I can't swing a fish without one of my friends coming out of the closet. It's boring now.
As far as comparing the two, they are both sexual orientations. In the case of gays it invovles consenting adults. In the case of pedophiles it involves victimizing young children. I recognize that. But you can't "treat" pedophiles any more than you can "treat" gays. They are who they are. When it comes to sexual urge, people don't have any control over where there attractions lay.
As for the Law Society of Upper Canada, I checked their website, and I found nothing there indicating that lawyers from countries where homosexuality is criminalized are barred from applying. In those countries its not just a matter of signing a covenant agreeing not to engage in pre-marital sex, it means that if you are gay you can, and often are, be beaten, raped and put in jail.
I don't know if boredom is really a great argument against human rights.
This is just stupid. You most certainly can treat gay people different from pedophiles.
Also, we are very very far from determining that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Very little research has been done in that area. Even if it were established one day, being attracted to someone in no way justifies rape, and since minors can provide consent, it is always rape if a pedophile has sex with a child. So yeah, that is one major way we can and do treat pedophiles different from gay people.
Can you name any schools in those countries that the law society has accredited?
Why should he? Have you listed any students that have been discriminated against by TWU? They've been operating since 1962, you'd think that the list would be very long after that length of time, and yet, you have yet to name one student that has complained of being discriminated against.
What I meant was that there used to be--and still is (though far fewer)--advocates for medically treating gay people to cure them of their gayness. I'm saying any such similar approach for pedophiles will result in the same dismal failure. They will continue to lust for children. Treatment should focus on managing their impulses as opposed to trying to change them. The sad fact is even that treatment is not very effective so society is best off locking up pedophiles for a long period of time.
I don't think I said anything about justifying rape. I don't know what is implicit in the term "sexual orientation" but there is quite a lot of evidence that pedophiles cannot change their desires. Actually there's quite a lot of research that none of us can.
Anyways the point of raising it in the first place was to differentiate discrimination from illegal discrimination. Discrimination is banned against only a specific, listed set of groups enumerated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not illegal to discriminate people for the "intrinsic aspects of who they are" unless they are a member of one of those groups.
With respect to TWU there are competing rights. For students that will (presumably) graduate from this program, they will be discriminated aginst for their religious beliefs. The Law Society is punishing the students not the school. And that punishment can be construed as an infringement of their freedom of religious belief. In other words--can the Law Society discriminate against religious beliefs of the (prospective) students because of this discrimination against sexual orientation by the school?
It's my opinion that this would have been better dealt with through negotiation and continued discussion as opposed to this brinksmanship.
Why the hell are you going on about how to best treat pedophiles? That has nothing to do with this thread.
As I have said, there is next to no research of this nature on pedophiles, so you are just talking out of your *** anyways. If you can point to a significant body of evidence on this, please prove me wrong.
I never claimed it was illegal, I claimed it was wrong.
I have pointed out about a million times in this thread that the laws only make certain types of discrimination illegal in certain cases. You still don't seem to understand what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is though, since you still seem to think it is the basis for other human rights legislation.
If nothing changes, the students who graduate wont be denied access to practicing in Ontario and Nova Scotia because they are christian, they will be denied access because they chose to go to a school that is not accredited in those provinces. That is their choice to make.
The school is the one who is being punished, since presumably fewer students are going to want to go to a school that isn't accredited.
The law society is definitely within their rights to refuse to call people to the bar if they don't go to an accredited law school.
Lol, I asked the question because that would be the relevant comparison.
I have answered your question about 20 times. They discriminate against gay people.
Christians really miss the old days, when you could be criminally prosecuted for teaching Darwin.
and they won't give the school accreditation because they feel that the covenant is "wrong". Not illegal, not discriminatory in the eyes of the law, not incorrect or substandard curriculum, they just feel the covenant is "wrong".
Nothing like lawyers following the law.:roll:
To be fair, the Bar has always reserved the right to refuse individuals admission for unspecified "character" issues.
Not talking about an individual here. They are discriminating against Christians for having Christian beliefs, which is not against the law in Canada and is not against the Charter in Canada and is not considered discriminatory in Canada.
The law certainly doesn't say that this is not discrimination. The law just says that in BC they are allowed to discriminate against these people because of their religious status. In other provinces, that type of discrimination wouldn't be allowed.
As pointed out above, the rules that the law society upholds for lawyers have never claimed to be "if it's not explicitly illegal, then whatever". They hold themselves and their members to much much higher standards than that, which is their right.
Lol, give it up. This BS about them discriminating against Christians has long been shown not to be the case. The law society has thousands of Christians in it that live by christian beliefs. The issue is with the school forcing discriminatory beliefs on people who wish to attend their school.
Nobody cares what you do to yourself. When it affects other people, that is an issue.
Bullshyte they do.
Lawyer who ripped off residential school survivors suspended | APTN National NewsAPTN National News
This lawyer faced no sanctions what so ever, for his deeds, from the law society. He was suspended only after he didn't pay his dues.
Maybe that's the problem, TWU isn't greasing the right palms.
Well, if they can refuse individuals for unspecified reasons, why not institutions?
They don't force anyone. It is a private school, and those that attend, do so by their own accord.
Lol, you can't even keep the provinces straight!
Those who want to attend are forced to sign the covenant. They are putting a completely extraneous requirement in the way of obtaining legal education.
So, we have an organization that has the final say in what schools can teach law and what lawyers can practice law and they can decide all of this on a whim. Do I have that right?
By the way, let me re-assert that this is BS. From what I've read, the school does not discriminate against gays. It asks all unmarried students, regardless of orientation, to swear to refrain from sex. That's not discrimination.
I also use a version of this same reasoning to say gays should be allowed to be priests. If it requires celibacy, what difference could it possibly make if a priest is gay? All sex is a sin for priests.