Law Society of BC debating TWU Law School
 

Move for Law Society of BC to reject faculty of law at Trinity Western | News1130

should faith get in the way of another persons freedom? how can we trust a lawyer who clearly agrees with denying the freedom of another? should a school be allowed to force their students to agree with their discriminatory view?

the debate and vote is happening now

the province/ministry are in favour of TWU getting a law school of the law society is voting on it now so far most of the law society is voting in favour of TWU getting their law school which is surprising to me

the school will allow gay students but they have to sign the community covenant which states marriage is only for men & women

i need a sleeping pill

Faith and lawyers shouldn't mix... If someone faith has a chance from jeopardizing someone else's freedom then they are in the wrong line of work.

TWU argues it's discriminatory not to recognize their law school. They're saying going to school there is an option that you voluntarily take and therefore, don't have to go there if you don't like the covenant.

I don't know, that's a valid argument but it's weak. Private schools can choose how they run their schools. But, I don't think it helps making lawyers confined to ancient thinking. Religion v society is always a tough debate. With private schools, is there any inclusion type of rule where they have to take a certain amount of non-faith or low income students? or is that only if they receive public funds?

I'm particularly interested in this and have been following it for awhile. Watching it live now. I feel that TWU's application will pass, unfortunately.

inb4 all the lawyers who graduated from TWU turn on their clients because they have "sinned"

Thats, one small step backwards for man...

I don't think it'll pass right now but eventually, after appeals, i think it unfortunately will too.

There's a strange irony in discriminating against someone because you consider them discriminatory...

All the benchers are zeroing in on old precedent. They say they are bound by the rule of law and have to approve TWU's application while expressing regrets about having to do so.

That is unfortunate. From the government's perspective TWU is one of the better choices to put a Law School (SFU size restrictions and rest of lowermainland schools are not that rigorous). Not to mention they are well funded so we won't need to worry about budget shortfall like Capilano etc. From a tax payer's perspective that's a plus. Besides we do need more lawyers whether we like it or not.

Having interacted with some fresh CS grads from TWU a while back before my retirement, I find most of them have the stuff together better than a lot of other grads.

Wow, I really respect Joe Arvay now. The law is never frozen in time and always evolving... Now that's a man that can take a stand.

The motion to deny TWU fails. TWU is accredited. Very disappointing.

^ Just curious, how is this disappointing?

Because, nobody is allowed to have different beliefs than the Accepted Norm.

I know many people that have not/will not swear on the bible while testifying in court

No way in hell most people are going to agree to go against Somone who's bringing "faith" into the courtroom at any level
Posted via RS Mobile

Law and Religion is a hard mix. There are lines that Lawyers could cross that could be deemed non-religious. I'm not trying to be an asshole with this comment, but a lot of the Christians I know, are pretty hardcore about their religion, and I can't see them breaking any religious rules to further them in their career.

For me it's not a fact of them asking their students to abstain from sex ( for example ), but more would they make a good lawyer because of all the rules they are bound by, I don't think they would. I agree with the rejection of law school on those terms.

Uh, isn't it up to the lawyer to accept the job or not. LOL.

i mean, if some christian lawyer saw a case and he didn't think he could properly defend his client due to his values, he could just say "sorry dude, find another lawyer".

and we gotta remember, money is the first thing in mind... lawyers don't wanna lose their case or get a bad rep for their style of court room kungfu.

So where would this stop? Ban people who attended religious schools from kindergarten up doing any meaningful vocation? so St. George's or any school with a Saint prefix should go out of business?

Just because a lawyer had been educated at a religious affiliated institution, doesn't mean they would automatically bring that to their work life or any part of their life?

The argument is about barrier of entry, not about how competent they are as lawyers.

It's not about being a certain type of lawyer, it's about not allowing gays and lesbians into the program. Christians can go to any law school in canada they want and have extreme views or not. You can't regulate what someone believes but you should be able to regulate discriminatory conduct, which is what's argued as happening with the rules they have about homosexuals.

it's funny how things go in a full circle.

roman's laughed at christians

christian's laugh at gays

and now everyone laughs at the christians.

it just seems to be a swapping of values. so really... who's right?

why is it that one set of values are favored during one time and another during another?

what's the solution to this?

discrimination is not allowed.
but then thought control is not allowed either.

doesn't that seem kinda circular to you guys.


if you discriminate against the gays, and people don't let you do that... and then they discriminate you for your values and revoke your licences or rights or whatever. it's like... you're just perpetuating that problem. it's 100% hypocritical.

if you can't control thoughts, then you can't control discrimination.

it's an endless chase.

but no one wants to be thought controlled.

really there is no solution. it's just a vicious never ending cycle unless everyone wants to obey one value. which... probably won't happen... ever.

Seems a lot of people are reading things into this that just don't exist.

The whole flap is (and has been for other accreditations in the past) over a clause in the "community charter" that students are expected to sign when starting at TWU, particularly one phrase that states they agree to VOLUNTARILY ABSTAIN from having sex outside of a heterosexual marriage.

That's it.

Doesn't say they have to agree with the policy, doesn't say they have to be any particular faith, doesn't say they can't be gay, doesn't even say they have to be married. And it doesn't bind them to it AFTER they graduate.

They just have to agree that they'll not have sex outside of hetero marriage while they're students. Something that isn't particularly enforceable anyway, BTW.

There's ZERO reason that agreeing to this policy would affect anyone's ability to be a competent or even kick-ass lawyer.

And for that matter, the claim that it "discriminates against gays and lesbians" is ridiculous - by that token, it also discriminates against straight sluts, or just about anyone who wants to go meet up with their opposite-sex non-spouse significant other for a little somethin' somethin' between classes. But you don't hear any righteous indignation from the straight sluts, do you?

What's particularly interesting is the the BCCLU, usually the bastion of Political Correctness<tm>, was on the side of TWU in this case, too.

I'm glad their law school was approved. I don't see how their charter has any bearing on future TWU lawyers ability to serve the public.

Lawyers and religion? Come on.... Where's the facts that Jesus existed? None your honour

You're telling me that lawyers and judges are completely objective with no religious influences?