Law Society of BC rejects TWU Law School

[carisear]

"women only" fitness centres. "gay only" orgy clubs. "children only" ball pits.

there's already discriminatory businesses that perpetrates discriminatory acts. who cares? In a free market environment such as ours, if there isn't enough support from society, it will die off naturally. If there is enough support, then it fills a niche for a subset of users.

Am I discriminated against because I can't join a womens only * ? yup. am I worse off because of it? nope.

[Energy]

You bring up a good point that others have also raised.

The answer is complicated but simply, it lies in the difference between a university/law school and a fitness centre and the purpose that each serve in our society.

It's late, I will see what I can find and come back tomorrow.

[parm104]

Originally Posted by Energy

You bring up a good point that others have also raised.

The answer is complicated but simply, it lies in the difference between a university/law school and a fitness centre and the purpose that each serve in our society.

It's late, I will see what I can find and come back tomorrow.

I won't have the time to form up legal arguments here as I have a very busy day but as mentioned by Energy, there is an inherent difference between a university/law school and a fitness centre. The law school, private or not, cannot discriminate against an identifiable disadvantaged group. Our education system has a long standing history of racial and gender discrimination therefore there is a heightened scrutiny standard when it comes to discrimination and education.

[murd0c]

and remember with the law system everyone is equal to a fair trial and with the gender discrimination it's not possible for that to happen in some cases.

[Great68]

Originally Posted by Energy

Students who are not married or are LGBT are free to have sex of course but then TWU can place sanctions on those students that go up to expulsion.

So students can have sex but are liable for punishment by TWU. Having that clause that gives TWU this discretion is discriminatory.

How the would TWU know who's fucking who? Are they putting cameras in bedrooms?

Seems like an awfully difficult thing to enforce.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by Great68

How the would TWU know who's fucking who? Are they putting cameras in bedrooms?

Seems like an awfully difficult thing to enforce.

I think it's not about the ability to enforce. It's about giving them an authority over the matter. Kind of like speeding within 10km over the speed limit. Will a cop generally pull you over? Probably not. Can they if they wanted to? Sure as hell they can.

[van_city23]

From reading some of the posts, many people are misinformed or simply don't understand the issue. It isn't about creating biased lawyers or the ability to enforce. You can't stop a Christian with strict beliefs from going to UBC law and being a lawyer that is biased and doesn't take on gay clients. It has to do with discrimination by an educational institute and competing charter values.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Energy

Students who are not married or are LGBT are free to have sex of course but then TWU can place sanctions on those students that go up to expulsion.

So students can have sex but are liable for punishment by TWU. Having that clause that gives TWU this discretion is discriminatory.

So why is it only LGBTs who are getting all bent about this, and not single hetero sluts?

Again, it's NOT saying that they CAN'T BE GAY. It's a CODE OF CONDUCT, no different than requiring that students not show up to class fucked up on herion, or drive a car through the Dean's office. "This is how we expect you to behave while you're here". NOT "we expect you to alter your physical being".

[van_city23]

Originally Posted by Soundy

So why is it only LGBTs who are getting all bent about this, and not single hetero sluts?

I think Energy already answered that...

So what if you are a married LGBT couple? How come the straight couple can have sex and the LGBT couple cannot?

The covenant tries to skirt the issue but what it is saying is that TWU believes that first, you can only have sex when you are married and second, marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

[Great68]

So do you think that EVERY single hetero woman on campus right now is practicing abstinence?

I bet not.

And you can't prove me wrong, because there's just no way to know (unless they up and get pregnant).

[Noir]

Originally Posted by van_city23

I think Energy already answered that...

He's also using illegal activities as examples like drug usage of wreckless driving, whereas gay "activities" is not.

[Lomac]

Originally Posted by Great68

And you can't prove me wrong, because there's just no way to know (unless they up and get pregnant).

And even then, I'm sure the campus staff would have to at least entertain the whole "immaculate conception" excuse...

[Lomac]

For anyone interested, here's the actual Community Covenant Agreement all students and staff must sign off on:

http://twu.ca/studenthandbook/twu-co...-agreement.pdf

[AAnthony]

-----

[murd0c]

So basically the lawyers can't do what lawyers normally do...

[Hondaracer]

Jesus..

Kind of OT but when I took level 2 first aid training 4 years ago there were 4 TWU graduates who were there. All 4 of them had graduated with a BA but couldn't find work so they were training to be "security" at TWU. I'm not sure if this was some sort of anti sex Gestapo or something because these people couldn't stop a child from doing something..

Anyways, I've never been around people who were seemingly more shy/nervous around the opposite sex lol. Two of the younger guys would not do full body checks on the female class mates because two of the chicks had massive tits and they went beat red when they had to run their arm down the girls chest to check for broken bones etc. these two ended up failing the final exam because of similar situations.

Also I started eating lunch in my truck/out when I walked into the lunch room and the one guy was going off on how god is his guiding light and his future is determined through is unrelenting belief.

Uhg..

[cheeky_scrub]

.

[van_city23]

Originally Posted by cheeky_scrub

Random thought:

I wonder how many people ITT who are defending TWU have used "faggot" or "so gay" to describe something or someone undesirable.

You can't pick and choose when it comes to equality.

I get your point, but that doesn't necessarily touch equality. There's a difference between someone calling you a fag and what's going on with this situation. Also a difference between someone saying it and an educational institute acting on a certain belief.

[pinn3r]

Hold on a second...
As much as I would like TWU to be denied accreditation (personal biases and such), I don't believe there is a legal basis for them to use discrimination as an argument. The Charter only applies to government laws/actions (fed, prov, municipal), correct? I believe TWU is a privately-funded institution, with no ties to the gov't. So that nullifies Energy's restaurant analogy.

I'm still hoping lawyers vote against the accreditation though. Not a fan of their curriculum possibly affecting impartiality

I've only a rudimentary knowledge of the law, so if any lawyers/legal academics could chime in on this and correct me, that'd be appreciated

edit: forgot about pursuing the public interest

[Majestic12]

Originally Posted by murd0c

So basically the lawyers can't do what lawyers normally do...

Everyone talks shit about lawyers until the day they actually need one. Then all of a sudden they're your best friend.

[Majestic12]

Originally Posted by pinn3r

Hold on a second...
As much as I would like TWU to be denied accreditation (personal biases and such), I don't believe there is a legal basis for them to use discrimination as an argument. The Charter only applies to government laws/actions (fed, prov, municipal), correct? I believe TWU is a privately-funded institution, with no ties to the gov't. So that nullifies Energy's restaurant analogy.

I'm still hoping lawyers vote against the accreditation though. Not a fan of their curriculum possibly affecting impartiality

I've only a rudimentary knowledge of the law, so if any lawyers/legal academics could chime in on this and correct me, that'd be appreciated

edit: forgot about pursuing the public interest

This isn't really my area of expertise, but my understanding is that as an educational institution, they are subject to certain laws and requirements in order to maintain "university" status and have degrees conferable. One of those laws provides that the Charter applies. I can't cite a source for this though, and I may or may not be speaking out of my ass on this one.

[tiger_handheld]

Originally Posted by AAnthony

To stay a respectable human being, the community members voluntarily abstain from the following actions:

• communication that is destructive to other human life and inter–personal relationships, including gossip, slander, vulgar/obscene language, and prejudice.

• harassment or any form of verbal or physical intimidation, including hazing

• lying, cheating, or other forms of dishonesty including plagiarism

• stealing, misusing or destroying property belonging to others

• the use of materials that are degrading, dehumanizing, exploitive, hateful, or gratuitously violent, including, but not limited to pornography

• drunkenness, under-age consumption of alcohol, the use or possession of illegal drugs, and the misuse or abuse of substances including prescribed drugs

• the use or possession of alcohol outside of a drinking establishment, or at any non-alcoholic event, and the use of tobacco on campus or at any sponsored event and door ways.

changed.

[parm104]

Originally Posted by Majestic12

This isn't really my area of expertise, but my understanding is that as an educational institution, they are subject to certain laws and requirements in order to maintain "university" status and have degrees conferable. One of those laws provides that the Charter applies. I can't cite a source for this though, and I may or may not be speaking out of my ass on this one.

Originally Posted by pinn3r

Hold on a second...
As much as I would like TWU to be denied accreditation (personal biases and such), I don't believe there is a legal basis for them to use discrimination as an argument. The Charter only applies to government laws/actions (fed, prov, municipal), correct? I believe TWU is a privately-funded institution, with no ties to the gov't. So that nullifies Energy's restaurant analogy.

I'm still hoping lawyers vote against the accreditation though. Not a fan of their curriculum possibly affecting impartiality

I've only a rudimentary knowledge of the law, so if any lawyers/legal academics could chime in on this and correct me, that'd be appreciated

edit: forgot about pursuing the public interest

You're absloutely right about the Charter of Rights and its application as a tool to be free from oppression from Government. However, let's keep in mind, just because an establishment like TWU is "private" in nature, doesn't mean it doesn't get public/federal funding. If a university receives public funding, it may be subject to abide by government standards. TWU does not receive direct public funding but it does by grants and other applications.

The part I find amusing about this whole debacle is that we require our lawyers to act in accordance to a set of rules and regulations that guide our professional conduct. Rules of Professional Responsibility are mandated by every law society and bar in North America. Failure to abide by these standards can and will result in disbarment. One of the most basic and simple rules an accredited lawyer must abide by is to refrain from discriminating or refusing services to a particular person or class of people (LGBT) for reasons of race, sex, martial status, family status, sexual orientation etc. How does the law school expect to teach this to their students if it cannot do so itself in practice?

[Majestic12]

Originally Posted by parm104

The part I find amusing about this whole debacle is that we require our lawyers to act in accordance to a set of rules and regulations that guide our professional conduct. Rules of Professional Responsibility are mandated by every law society and bar in North America. Failure to abide by these standards can and will result in disbarment. One of the most basic and simple rules an accredited lawyer must abide by is to refrain from discriminating or refusing services to a particular person or class of people (LGBT) for reasons of race, sex, martial status, family status, sexual orientation etc. How does the law school expect to teach this to their students if it cannot do so itself in practice?

Yeah, it's not even a Charter issue anyway, at least not directly. You are absolutely correct. That's my view of the entire thing. Lawyers that go to that school and come out will probably not be discriminatory. However, this sort of "covenant" can't be condoned.

Section 3, Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c-9:

3 It is the object and duty of the society to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice by
(a) preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms of all persons,
(b) ensuring the independence, integrity, honour and competence of lawyers,
(c) establishing standards and programs for the education, professional responsibility and competence of lawyers and of applicants for call and admission,
(d) regulating the practice of law, and
(e) supporting and assisting lawyers, articled students and lawyers of other jurisdictions who are permitted to practise law in British Columbia in fulfilling their duties in the practice of law.

[tiger_handheld]

A Trinity Western University graduate says she was “attacked” over her religion by a Norwegian wilderness tourism company, just for applying for a job.
Bethany Paquette claims her application to work in Canada's North for Amaruk Wilderness Corp. was rejected because she's Christian.
"It did really hurt me and I did feel really attacked on the basis that I'm a Christian," Paquette said.
In her complaint to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, Paquette outlines a series of emails from executives from Amaruk Wilderness Corp.
Paquette, an experienced river rafting guide, applied to be a wilderness guide for Amaruk’s Canadian operations in the North.

'It did really hurt me and I did feel really attacked on the basis that I'm a Christian'- Bethany Paquette, rejected job applicant

She says she was shocked when she read the rejection email from Olaf Amundsen, the company's hiring manager.
He wrote that she wasn't qualified and "unlike Trinity Western University, we embrace diversity, and the right of people to sleep with or marry whoever they want."
Trinity Western is the Christian university in Langley, B.C., where Paquette earned her biology degree.
All students must agree to a covenant prohibiting sexual intimacy outside heterosexual marriage, under pain of possible expulsion, which has led to controversy over the university's new law school.

• Trinity Western University's law school - background to controversy

Paquette was furious and told CBC, "My beliefs have developed who I am as an individual, but they don't come into play when I am doing my job."
Christianity 'destroyed our culture'

In the rejection email, Amundsen also wrote: "The Norse background of most of the guys at the management level means that we are not a Christian organization, and most of us actually see Christianity as having destroyed our culture, tradition and way of life."
Bethany Paquette used to be a river guide and hoped to become a wilderness guide for Norwegian company Amaruk's expeditions to Yukon.

Paquette wrote Amundsen back defending her faith, saying "your disagreement with Trinity Western University, simply because they do not support sex outside of marriage, can in fact be noted as discrimination of approximately 76 per cent of the world population!!! Wow, that's a lot of diverse people that you don't embrace."
She also wrote that the Norse people chose Christianity.
"I signed it God Bless, probably partially because I knew it would irritate them," Paquette said.
It clearly irritated Amundsen, who wrote back, describing himself as "a Viking with a PhD in Norse culture. So propaganda is lost on me."
Trinity Western grads 'not welcome' in company

He explained why graduates from Trinity Western are not welcome in the Norwegian company.

A profile photo from the Google+ account of Wilderness adventure company manager Olaf Amundsen. The Amaruk Wilderness Corp. hiring manager describes himself as 'a Viking with a PhD in Norse culture.' (Olaf Amundsen/Google+)

"In asking students to refrain from same-sex relationships, Trinity Western University, and any person associated with it, has engaged in discrimination."
He ended the email writing, "'God bless' is very offensive to me and yet another sign of your attempts to impose your religious views on me.
"I do not want to be blessed by some guy... who has been the very reason for the most horrendous abuses and human rights violations in the history of the human race."
Amundsen then used an expletive to state that if he met God, he would have sex with him.
It was that comment that prompted Paquette to retain a lawyer to take her case to B.C.'s Human Rights Tribunal.
Read the full email exchange. Warning: Offensive language
​
"That's kind of the most offensive paragraph in all the emails because that's going pretty far," said Paquette, who cringed when she re-read the email and another one that followed from Amaruk's co-CEO.

Christopher Fragassi-Bjørnsen, Co-C.E.O of Amaruk Wilderness Corp.

Christopher Fragassi-Bjørnsen joined the email chain writing that while "Trinity Western University believes that two men loving each other is wrong… we believe a man ending up with another man is probably the best thing that could happen to him.
"But we do not force these views onto other people, and we are completely fine if a guy decided to go the emasculation route by marrying a B.C. woman," Fragassi-Bjørnsen wrote.
Paquette said she resents the assumption that she would impose her beliefs on others in the workplace.
"They'd never even met me and never talked to me in person, and they just assumed all these things… and found it OK to attack me."
Amaruk's emails 'over the top'

Paquette's lawyer Geoffrey Trotter said, "You are not allowed in British Columbia to refuse to hire someone because you associate them with other people, from centuries ago, who you think they did something they shouldn't have done."
Trotter called Amaruk's emails "nasty" and "over the top."


Lawyer Geoffrey Trotter reviews Bethany Paquette's human rights complaint with her. (CBC)

Officials at Trinity Western University agreed, saying they've never before heard of any of their grads filing a similar complaint against a company.
Trinity Western spokesperson Guy Saffold told CBC, "Canadians shouldn't be treated this way by a foreign company." No faith should face discrimination, he said.
"Mocking of their religion — there is a personal shaming element to it that was most unfortunate."
Company says emails 'a mere expression of opinion'

CBC requested an interview with Amaruk Wilderness Corp..
In an email, Amundsen responded saying Paquette's job application was rejected "solely based on the fact that she did not meet the minimum requirements of the position."

Bethany Paquette is an avid outdoor adventurer, and Biology graduate from Trinity Western University.

"Any further discussion after that, including the fact that we strongly disagree with the position that gay people should not be allowed to marry or even engage in sexual relationships, would have been a mere expression of opinion," the email says.
Micheal Vonn of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association said employers are not supposed to express opinions about an applicant's religious background.
"You are allowed to think anything you like. But you have obligations as an employer to act in a non-discriminatory manner," Vonn said.
She said the Human Rights Tribunal will have to consider the reason Paquette was rejected.
"What you have is written documentation that more or less is tantamount to a sign on the door that says no one of religious affiliation need apply for employment here. We don't usually see discrimination cases that are quite this stark."
Not 'open season' on Christians in Canada: lawyer

Trotter said if the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal concludes his client was discriminated against, he will seek compensation for lost wages and "for injury to feelings and self respect."
"The main thing that she's been asking for is to order this company to stop discriminating."
Trotter is asking the tribunal to send "a really strong message" that "it is not acceptable to discriminate based on what somebody believes or where they went to school. That it is not 'open season' on Christians in Canada."
On mobile? Click here to read Paquette's complaint to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal
Full statement from Amaruk Wilderness Corp.

"As per rejection letter attached, Ms. Paquette was not considered for a position with our company solely based on the fact that she did not meet the minimum requirements of the position.
Any further discussion after that, including the fact that we strongly disagree with the position that gay people should not be allowed to marry or even engage in sexual relationships, would have been a mere expression of opinion.
Olaf Amundsen
Wilderness Guide/Instructor"


source: Trinity Western grad 'attacked' for being Christian in job rejection - British Columbia - CBC News

Anyone see this on the news?

The irony game is so strong its off the scale...