Lol, your barely literate repetition of the same thing over and over again has somehow not swayed me.
TWU law school snub
- Thread starter gerryh
- Start date
Lol, your barely literate repetition of the same thing over and over again has somehow not swayed me.
Excuse me??
The Supreme Court of Canada does not adjudicate provincial legislation.
The Supreme Court of Canada has already passed judgement on this issue.
The lawyers of Ontario and Nova Scotia are WAY out of line, and are busily proving the adage about 500 lawyers on the ocean floor........it would be a good start.
If there were any real justice, those responsible for this would be disbarred for contempt of the SCOC.
Lol, you think that the charter of rights and freedoms applies in this case, and you are still trying to lecture me on how the legal system works?
The supreme court of Canada can definitely hear cases involving provincial legislation.
As I said before though, the previous case wasn't about if the school was acting in a discriminatory way.
Really, they decided on this case already? Or did they decide on a similar case 10 year ago?
If all we have to do is look at similar cases from the past, why does the supreme court even exist anymore? Anyone who disagrees with a choice that the SCOC made at any time in history should be held in contempt of the SCOC? That would mean you would have to arrest everyone currently on the SCOC.
This case is different in some fundamental ways, mainly that this involves an organization from a different province. It doesn't take much of a leap to imagine that organizations in different provinces would have a different responsibility to abide by choice made by other governments. If the BC government approves a program, it may make sense to make people in the province live with that, but does it make sense that the BC government's choice would mean that Ontario lawyers would have to comply?
So you still don't know what the charter of rights and freedoms is?
They don't actually have a rule against people being gay. The rule is against premarital sex, with marriage being defined as a man and a woman. So if you're a celibate single gay, no prob.
I believe the school won the case in teh Supremem Court of Canada with respect to the education issue some years ago.
I disagree with the Law Society on this one. The convenant has nothing to do with the ability of those graduating to practice law. The purpose of the Law Society is to govern the practice of law. If they have a problem with the other aspects of the university, they should take it up separately.
I actually wanted to do law at TWU, but they hooked my member up to a machine and apparently I got a "twitch" on the topless Johnny Depp photo. I still remembered hollering as they carried me out of there, "Johnny Depp doesn't count! Johnny Depp doesn't count!"
Advocacy Lessons from the Law Society of Upper Canada in re Trinity Western University | Gilbertson Davis LLP Blog | Gilbertson Davis Emerson
I just read this blog from a law firm, where the lawyer retrospectively looked at what went wrong in those deliberations. It's interesting to read his perspective. Describing what went wrong, well first they note that the President of the school used the closing argument instead of allowing their lawyer to do his job. Another point they mentioned was that the school didn't effectively lay out the case for why the 2001 SC decision specifically applies, and in doing so lost control by inviting contrasting thinking about the two cases.
What went wrong?
Prior to the debate, I thought that Mr. Meehan would be appearing before the Ontario benchers. As the consummate "closer," his task would have been to "seal the deal" between TWU and the legal profession and calm fears of extremism. TWU did not have him address the assembly. Instead of taking a page from its counsel's playbook, the University chose portray itself as an underdog with a tactical burden. Within a few minutes of the TWU President Kuhn's presentation, any lawyer could sense the life draining from the case for accreditation. I noted the following observations:
The inexplicable decision to have the University President make the oral pitch to the assembly, with one of Canada's leading appellate counsel sitting in a corner. It was like the Pittsburg Penguins resting Sidney Crosby during the seventh game of the Stanley Cup final. Mr. Meehan has taught most of the top lawyers in Ontario how to plead a client's case, and commands enormous credibility as counsel.
Instead, the University put forth an unknown corporate officer from British Columbia to speak to a body charged with protecting the public interest in Ontario. Despite the fact President Kuhn is himself a lawyer, the University was put in the position of the pro se litigant, because the submissions were made by someone lacking in counsel's objectivity.
Leading with information not contained in the public record.
Mr. Kuhn led by reciting numerous tweets, online newspaper comments, and other expressions of religious intolerance expressed against the University. An assembly versed in the rule that counsel should not give evidence from the podium or refer to facts outside the official record would have actively discounted these submissions. He lost the opportunity to make arguments on central issues by starting with an irrelevancy.
Playing the victim card and equating rejection with bigotry.
Instead of advancing its strengths as a college of learning, the University came before the assembled benchers with a grievance. It thus squandered the strategic advantage of having its curriculum and syllabus vetted by the Federation of Law Societies.
Even those who voted in favour of accreditation expressed their discomfort with the idea of a University which forces students to sign a document that discriminates against LGBTQ members of the public.
Arguing that denial of accreditation would validate religious intolerance, when the cause of the controversy was a contract of adhesion drafted by the University, reminded the assembly of its duty to the student at the moment of being asked to sign.
Attempting to appeal to the heart and not the head.
As evident in the earlier debate in British Columbia, fence-sitters opted to side with the University on the basis that to do so would be following the law. In the Ontario debate, it would have been more advantageous to explain why the B.C. benchers arrived at the correct decision.
Instead, the University repeated its essentially empty argument that the 2001 Supreme Court decision is binding, without entering into specifics. This unsatisfactory argument led fence-sitters to search for reasons for considering the issue de novo. In so doing, the lawyer's mental process was to look for differences, not similarities.
The University, by advancing the 2001 decision through a bald, "You've got to follow this" argument, left a vacuum to be filled by those who argued that the 2001 decision did not apply.
Failing to listen to the questions of the assembly.
During the initial hearing, several of the LSUC benchers alerted the University of several questions, including one about the student who discovers his or her sexual identity during the course of the three-year degree and feels unable to sign the covenant for the second or third year. This should have telegraphed the need to shore up the case by addressing the compassion to be afforded the student. Had the University dealt with this question, and some others like it, head on, it could have swung enough votes to its side.
The textbook entry will likely finish with comments and questions about the importance of making informed advocacy decisions during the course of a court submission, especially when one is entering the process from a position of tactical strength. This was not a court, but it was a room of 50 leading lawyers exercising self-governance based on legal deliberation. The same types of considerations apply to civil, criminal and administrative advocacy. Arbiters of fact and law have questions and want to arrive at the right decision. One must place trust in the lawyer to plead the case and to be sensitive to the thought processes of those arbiters, to help bring about the desired outcome.
Prior to the debate, I thought that Mr. Meehan would be appearing before the Ontario benchers. As the consummate "closer," his task would have been to "seal the deal" between TWU and the legal profession and calm fears of extremism. TWU did not have him address the assembly. Instead of taking a page from its counsel's playbook, the University chose portray itself as an underdog with a tactical burden. Within a few minutes of the TWU President Kuhn's presentation, any lawyer could sense the life draining from the case for accreditation. I noted the following observations:
The inexplicable decision to have the University President make the oral pitch to the assembly, with one of Canada's leading appellate counsel sitting in a corner. It was like the Pittsburg Penguins resting Sidney Crosby during the seventh game of the Stanley Cup final. Mr. Meehan has taught most of the top lawyers in Ontario how to plead a client's case, and commands enormous credibility as counsel.
Instead, the University put forth an unknown corporate officer from British Columbia to speak to a body charged with protecting the public interest in Ontario. Despite the fact President Kuhn is himself a lawyer, the University was put in the position of the pro se litigant, because the submissions were made by someone lacking in counsel's objectivity.
Leading with information not contained in the public record.
Mr. Kuhn led by reciting numerous tweets, online newspaper comments, and other expressions of religious intolerance expressed against the University. An assembly versed in the rule that counsel should not give evidence from the podium or refer to facts outside the official record would have actively discounted these submissions. He lost the opportunity to make arguments on central issues by starting with an irrelevancy.
Playing the victim card and equating rejection with bigotry.
Instead of advancing its strengths as a college of learning, the University came before the assembled benchers with a grievance. It thus squandered the strategic advantage of having its curriculum and syllabus vetted by the Federation of Law Societies.
Even those who voted in favour of accreditation expressed their discomfort with the idea of a University which forces students to sign a document that discriminates against LGBTQ members of the public.
Arguing that denial of accreditation would validate religious intolerance, when the cause of the controversy was a contract of adhesion drafted by the University, reminded the assembly of its duty to the student at the moment of being asked to sign.
Attempting to appeal to the heart and not the head.
As evident in the earlier debate in British Columbia, fence-sitters opted to side with the University on the basis that to do so would be following the law. In the Ontario debate, it would have been more advantageous to explain why the B.C. benchers arrived at the correct decision.
Instead, the University repeated its essentially empty argument that the 2001 Supreme Court decision is binding, without entering into specifics. This unsatisfactory argument led fence-sitters to search for reasons for considering the issue de novo. In so doing, the lawyer's mental process was to look for differences, not similarities.
The University, by advancing the 2001 decision through a bald, "You've got to follow this" argument, left a vacuum to be filled by those who argued that the 2001 decision did not apply.
Failing to listen to the questions of the assembly.
During the initial hearing, several of the LSUC benchers alerted the University of several questions, including one about the student who discovers his or her sexual identity during the course of the three-year degree and feels unable to sign the covenant for the second or third year. This should have telegraphed the need to shore up the case by addressing the compassion to be afforded the student. Had the University dealt with this question, and some others like it, head on, it could have swung enough votes to its side.
The textbook entry will likely finish with comments and questions about the importance of making informed advocacy decisions during the course of a court submission, especially when one is entering the process from a position of tactical strength. This was not a court, but it was a room of 50 leading lawyers exercising self-governance based on legal deliberation. The same types of considerations apply to civil, criminal and administrative advocacy. Arbiters of fact and law have questions and want to arrive at the right decision. One must place trust in the lawyer to plead the case and to be sensitive to the thought processes of those arbiters, to help bring about the desired outcome.
I still think the school is likely to win out if it goes to court, but it's interesting to hear from a lawyer what they think went wrong, and how close the decision actually was. The lawyer writing this article clearly feels that the school had a good opportunity to win out and blew it.
Having sex with people who are the same gender as you is kind of the definition of homosexuality. The school doesn't even allow for married people who are homosexual to have sex. It is at very best a double standard that singles out gay people for stricter rules.
Well yeah, the school won a case in 2001 with a professional society in their own province. Things change over time and this is an issue with organizations in other provinces, so we will see how this works out.
This has nothing to do with the students, since there are no students. It has to do with this school seeking an endorsement from these other law societies. It seems well within their rights not to endorse an institution that they so fundamentally disagree with.
No I would disagree with you there. Being homosexual and committing a homosexual act are two different things. Is it necessary for a man to have sex with a woman before he can consider himself heterosexual? Fie, I say FIE!!! (where was i?)
Live an let live I say. That goes for gays and Christian schools.
Yes it will be interesting. Different times.
There are no students? I'm not sure I follow you there. The purpose of the Law Society is to govern the practice of law in the public interest. In my opinion this is mission creep. This is political advocacy.
YOU know better than this.
Please see the Supreme Court of Canada decision.
So, does the ban on pre-marital sex prevent hetereosexuals from being hetereosexual?? Or is it only gays that count??
The phrase "committing homosexual acts" seems kind of loaded. I don't know how often people say that someone "committed" something in a neutral way. It is always "they committed a crime", "the committed adultery", etc.
Regardless, in these rules, gay people are treated explicitly differently than straight people, since even if they are married, they are not permitted to have sex under the rules of the school.
That is pretty much how things have gone for the school for most of its existence, but it is harder to do so when they are seeking permission from other groups. They are going to the law societies asking for their blessing to start producing candidates who will join their profession.
Asking other people to endorse you and accept you into their club is a big step above live and let live.
The way it is going, it seems like all they would need to do is reword their community covenant a bit and it will all go away, so hopefully this doesn't get drawn out more than it has to.
There are no students because the school doesn't exist yet. It might open in 2 years.
It seems perfectly reasonable for a law society to feel that it is not in the public interest to endorse an institution with such explicitly discriminatory rules.
The law society probably sees the school as having a massive problem with mission creep. The point of a law school isn't to make sure that gay people don't have sex. They may not want activist law schools within their ranks.
They don't want people's sexual orientation to in any way affect their ability to become a lawyer. Accrediting schools like this gives some people more options to become a lawyer than others.
It appears, that paradox equates Homosexuality solely with the act of sex. I feel sorry for him for this reason. The LGBT lobby, for years, has been trying to educate the public in the fact that being homosexual is NOT just about sex. It's very possible for someone to BE homosexual without ever having sex. Just like it is possible to be heterosexual without ever having sex. The LGBT lobby has been trying to educate the public that one can identify as hetero or homosexual long before one actually engages in sex. The arguments I'm hearing from both Paradox and BR is that sex IS the definition. It appears from their arguments that homosexuals can NOT live without having sex. For BR, I recommend education. For Paradox, I recommend counseling.
The University is not asking anything more from Homosexuals than they are from Heterosexuals. Both are required to abstain.
As for Paradox, you're hurting the cause buddy, and it's not the first time you have crossed the line.
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.
It wasn't intended in that sense. Just to point out that you can be gay (or straight) and not engage in sex.
ohhhh.
They are to protect the public interst in a very specific way--by overseeing the practice of law. In this case, will these (prospective) students be threatening the public interest specifically by practicing law in Ontario? I don't think so.
Well, I think you might be looking at this a bit too broadly. What really exist to do is to protect their profession.
It seems they don't think it is in the best interest of their profession to associate themselves with organizations that are explicitly discriminatory, nor is it in the interest of the profession to see schools open up that would give more access to the legal profession to some certain groups over others.
Public or private, a law school pulls legal resources. They need professors, and when those students graduate, they join the ranks looking for articulating and associate positions. It is questionable to endorse this when the costs are felt by all but the benefits are not offered to some people based on things such as sexual orientation.
Lol, I am happy that you finally came around to my side?
So you freely admit they are not legally wrong in their policy. Good! So now reconcile how a body that is supposed to represent the law can censure a school that isn't breaking the law.
Right, that would make one think a body of lawyers would follow the law, not personal opinions.
All that they are not exempt from as a private institution.
Could you make up your mind? Was it similar or was it different? I see it as the same case. A professional organization does not want TWU to grant degrees into that field because it promotes living as per biblical teachings. There is no core difference. The province may have changed but the SCOC rules over all provinces.
It is that useless part of the constitution act that gives people the illusion of freedom. ;-)
Where you keep failing is your claim of discrimination. Under current laws they do not discriminate no matter what your opinion or the opinion of any percentage of the population. The law is the law no matter what until it is changed by due process. Your belief it is discrimination doesn't count until the laws reflect that opinion.
Unlike the school or an actual private club the law society is a professional association and is not exempt from any discrimination laws. Basing their decision upon a christian value expressed at a christian school is religious discrimination.
Considering the current state of christianity and a progressive pope and the advances made by some christian sects in the last 10-20 years I would surmise that left to their own devices they may have changed it on their own soon enough.
Once again I would expect a group of lawyers to understand that discrimination is defind by the law, not personal or public opinion and at this time the law says TWU doesn't breech any laws.
And the point of the law society is not to make sure they do. It also isn't there to determine what, if any, covenant a legal adult can freely enter into to gain entrance to a private institution. It only needs to be concerned with if the academic curriculum and standards are met.
Yep, who ever heard of an activist lawyer eh??? :roll:
It doesn't. There are plenty of public institutions that do not have such a covenant. You somehow keep assuming that there is huge line of married homosexuals waiting for entrance to TWU. Or are you just implying that gays don't have what it takes to be lawyers?
Just like Grambling or Howard give more oppotunity to black students TWU give more opportunity to christian students. That doesn't me they will not accept non-christians just like the traditionally black universities will accept white students it means preference is given to those who meet the main criteria for entrance. At Grambling it is a benefit to be black, at TWU it is a benefit to believe in the biblical teachings. It is allowed under the law.
Right on both counts!
You're saying they believe their profession needs protection from people with a christian value system? Has Gerry released the vicious christian horde to wage war on lawyers or something? :lol:
It isn't like a lawyer needs a perfect moral compass, in fact it would logically be called a detriment to a lawyer to hold strong personal beliefs that they brought into the courtroom.
It seems that, like you, they are having a problem distinguishing between the legal definition of discrimination and a personal opinion.
Say what???? They pull resources by needing professors AND putting out students??? Your logic is nothing short of an epic failure here. They obviously have a greater number of students than teachers making a net gain by a sizable margin over the years. So what is your argument? That a few qualified lawyers may go to teach there or that all the students coming out will be competing against members of the law society for clients. Given that a lot of people might just prefer a lawyer with a strong moral background it is quite possible the second may be of greater concern.
You're an idiot!Lol, I am happy that you finally came around to my side?