[StylinRed]

Law Society of BC moves to reject faculty of law at Trinity Western
News1130 Staff April 11, 2014 8:57 am

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) – The Law Society of BC could be on the path to rejecting Trinity Western University in its bid for accreditation.

The executive of the society has moved a motion to turn the university’s application down, but the group is still debating the motion.

Lawyer Joe Arvay says his issue is the school’s community covenant which that requires students to abstain from “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.”

“My main objection to this law school is what I see as discriminatory conduct by the administration of the law school. I object to what I say is the metaphorical sign at the gate of the law sign, which says ‘No LGBT students, faculty or staff are welcome.’”

Arvay calls it discriminatory and disrespectful.

The university won a court challenge brought about by the BC College of Teachers along the same issue back in 2001.

The Federation of Law Societies of Canada and B.C.’s Ministry of Advanced Education have already decided they will recognize the law school, which is preparing to take in its first students in 2016.

Move for Law Society of BC to reject faculty of law at Trinity Western | News1130 (http://www.news1130.com/2014/04/11/law-society-of-bc-moves-to-reject-faculty-of-law-at-trinity-western-university/)

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

[murd0c]

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.

[van_city23]

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?

[Energy]

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.

[Drow]

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

[Infiniti]

Thats, one small step backwards for man...

[van_city23]

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.

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

[Soundy]

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

[Energy]

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.

[godwin]

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.

[Energy]

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.

[Energy]

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

[tmc22]

^ Just curious, how is this disappointing?

[Soundy]

^ Just curious, how is this disappointing?

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

[Hondaracer]

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

[nabs]

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.

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

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.

[godwin]

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.

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

[van_city23]

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.

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

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.

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

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.

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.

[Soundy]

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.

[bing]

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.

[dvst8]

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

[tmc22]

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?

[Tone Loc]

This reminds me of last week's Mozilla fiasco, where half the interwebs were pushing for the CEO to resign because he had anti-gay views. As if his personal beliefs - i.e, beliefs that he himself had and did not push on any of his employees/company policies - had any impact on how he ran the company. Basically, this guy's life and future career prospects, regardless of his actual intelligence or corporate skill, was completely ruined by a bunch of losers with nothing to do except promote "free" and "equal" views... that is, of course, only if your views align with theirs. Absolutely disgusting.

Posted this last week. And I personally think it applies here as well.

Who the f*ck cares, as long as TWU produces graduates who are good lawyers that are able to correctly and skillfully interpret the law? It's not like other schools, by virtue of attending there, automatically produce graduates with pro-LGBT views. IMO as long as they keep those "bigoted" beliefs to themselves then I don't see an issue, the only time I see a problem is if they were actively using their status to lobby for laws/statutes that take rights away from LGBT people. And I don't see this happening here.

[Manic!]

Trinity Western University Law School Cleared By B.C. Law Society (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/11/trinity-western-university-law-school-bc_n_5134482.html)

Looks like they are allowed to open.

[Mr.HappySilp]

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.

Exactly! And there are evidence that certain people are born being gay or lesbians (I believe is been proven that DNA does have an effect) so if they believe Jesus made humans and certain people are born gay or lesbians then doesn't it mean that Jesus made them that way and as his followers they should accept that?

[falcon]

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.

Because there are no Christian lawyers out there at all right now... :suspicious:

I really don't think it matters. People are saying "well if I don't agree with the covenant then I can't go there." Then don't! There are other law schools in BC. Choose one that fits with your views and lifestyle. There are all kinds of law schools out there focusing on different types of law. From corporate to family, eviromental etc. Why can't there be one focusing on religious freedoms? I think it's a HUGE issue in Canada especially these days, and this debate around TWU is a good example of why it SHOULD be allowed to happen.

I went to a private Christian school. I agreed with the foundation the school was formed on, and the mission statement. So it worked for me. Others who don't/didn't agree with the same things I did were more than able to go to another school. A thing to remember is TWU is a private institution. They went through the same problems when they wanted a nursing program, and after a few years of having one now it's rated as one of if not the top nursing program in western Canada. I think a law program would be a great addition for those who WANT that kind of law instruction.

[falcon]

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

The fact you made this comment proves you know absolutely nothing about the true Christian faith and have only listened to what's been fed to you by the media and "Westbroro Baptist" types.

Matthew 7;1-2 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

The Bible clearly lays out important rules regarding judgement of others. Judgement is not for us to dole out here on earth, to OTHERS outside of the church. How can you judge someone based on a book (The Bible) that they do not believe in? While as a Christian you can disagree with the life choices of others you are told not to judge. It's different though for someone in the Church. You are supposed to "judge" them and keep them accountable, although judge is kind of a wrong word to use.

Anyways... I guess I should que the fails for quoting Bible verses. But I don't care, I'm proud and comfortable with what I believe.

[bing]

^People are either ignorant, have short memories, or they slept through first year crim :troll:

Let's not forget that even with the increasing secularization of the law, religion and law still co-exist since they historically have been interrelated.

Many of our laws reflect a Judeo-Christian religious heritage (e.g. vice crimes).

There is also an influential and dedicated school of thought in legal philosophy, natural law, which is based on the idea that the source of law's binding power comes from God and is discoverable through reason.

[Phil@rise]

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

So everyone should bend and believe in the accepted norm? Just cus whats normal changes doesnt mean everyone has to follow suit. Many of the laws governing our land are based on religion and the morals that came with it.

[Soundy]

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

So everyone should bend and believe in the accepted norm? Just cus whats normal changes doesnt mean everyone has to follow suit. Many of the laws governing our land are based on religion and the morals that came with it.

http://forums.finalgear.com/attachments/entertainment/last-movie-you-saw/9202d1361162724-375994_sarcasm_sign.jpg

[van_city23]

and it's being challenged..

Lawyers challenge B.C. approval of Trinity Western law school - The Globe and Mail (http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/lawyers-challenge-bc-approval-of-trinity-western-law-school/article17957304/?service=mobile)

A group of lawyers will launch a court challenge on Monday against the B.C. government for approving a new law school at Trinity Western University, which has caused controversy because of the school’s policy toward gays and lesbians.

In December, the province’s Minister of Advanced Education, Amrik Virk, accredited the program, saying that it met academic standards and that other concerns, such as whether it respects the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, were outside his purview.
But critics have argued that a community covenant prohibiting same-sex intimacy among all members of Trinity Western is discriminatory. Lawyers will argue before the Supreme Court of B.C. that Mr. Virk had a duty to consider whether the covenant violates the Charter right of potential students and staff at the university to be treated equally.

Trinity Western is a private, faith-based university in Langley, B.C., and its community covenant prohibits “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.”

Clayton Ruby, a prominent criminal and civil-rights lawyer in Toronto, has called Trinity Western’s policy discriminatory and “simply unacceptable” in the context of a law school. He is one of five lawyers mounting the challenge with Trevor Loke, an openly gay Christian who is also a commissioner for the Vancouver Park Board, as plaintiff.

“I find the minister’s endorsement of TWU’s law school humiliating,” Mr. Loke said in a statement.

The firms mounting the challenge – Ruby Shiller Chan Hasan and Janes Freedman Kyle Law Corporation – will argue that B.C.’s approval contravenes Charter rights regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation and freedom of religion.

They will also claim that the minister has a duty to improve equitable access to law school for the province’s students, and that Trinity Western’s community covenant violates the very statute by which it was founded.

The university’s community covenant has also raised concerns among provincial law societies across the country. The proposed law school received tentative approval from the Federation of Law Societies of Canada in December, but provincial societies in B.C., Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick launched their own reviews of the decision.

On Friday, Trinity Western won a substantial victory when the Law Society of B.C. voted 20-6 in favour of accrediting graduates of the proposed law school. The university’s president, Bob Kuhn, has defended the covenant as a matter of freedom of religion and hailed the vote as an affirmation of “the need in a pluralistic society for voices that may not be popular.”

Decisions from the Ontario and Nova Scotia law societies are expected in late April.

[Energy]

That was expected. The SCC case of TWU v BCCT that tied the hands of the Benchers and prevented them from rejecting TWU's application is over 10 years old. Times have changed since then. This case is a good start.

[Soundy]

“I find the minister’s endorsement of TWU’s law school humiliating,” Mr. Loke said in a statement.
I don't care what your orientation, religion, gender, job, or hair color is... don't be such a fuckin' whiner. "Humiliating"?? Shut the fuck up.

hu·mil·i·at·ing
(h)yo͞oˈmilēˌātiNG/
adjective
1.
causing someone to feel ashamed and foolish by injuring their dignity and self-respect.

PuhLEEEZE. Is your dignity THAT FEEBLE that it can be destroyed by something that has FUCK ALL to do with you? If you're constantly seeking validation from outside, you've got bigger problems than where people choose to go to law school.

This whole thing speaks to a much larger issue in our society today: people's need to find something, anything, to be offended by... "Outrage Culture", I've often heard it called.

One caller to the radio today said TWU should just get rid of their religious basis altogether, so it's more attractive to people who don't want that as part of their education... I'm sorry, what about those who DO? There are plenty of totally secular universities in BC... few, if any, outside of TWU that do have the faith-based grounding. So really... you want to remove that option from people who DO want it... and you complain about TWU being "exclusionary"?

The people who wave the Charter around in things like this are the worst... last I checked, the Charter also grants people freedom of religion.

[dangonay]

mounting the challenge with Trevor Loke, an openly gay Christian who is also a commissioner for the Vancouver Park Board, as plaintiff

Of course they had to find a gay Christian to act as their "plaintiff."

Is this even necessary? Can't the lawyers opposed to this simply argue it on the merits? Do they need a "figurehead" for their case?

[Soundy]

Of course they had to find a gay Christian to act as their "plaintiff."

Is this even necessary? Can't the lawyers opposed to this simply argue it on the merits? Do they need a "figurehead" for their case?

Of course they do.

It's got nothing to do with some lawyers trying to make a name for themselves... no, not at all...

:ilied:

[falcon]

He is one of five lawyers mounting the challenge with Trevor Loke, an openly gay Christian who is also a commissioner for the Vancouver Park Board, as plaintiff.

Openly gay Christian?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "(9)Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, (10) or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God."

Calling yourself an openly gay Christian is an full on contradiction. To be a Christian is to believe the the Bible is the direct word of God. Saying you are gay and a Christian goes against everything the Bible says in regards to relations and the sanctity of marriage.

Matthew 19:4-6 "He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”


It goes against modern cultural thinking, but I truly believe that if you are in fact a Christian, God changes you from within to no longer want to sin. Being gay is said to be a sin just like lying, cheating, theft, murder etc. It's often mistaken that the Bible compares homosexuality directly to murder. But it's using that comparison to explain that sin is sin in God's eyes and there is no sin greater than another. We are all fallen and useless creatures and will fail every time if we try to do it on our own. I know this from personal experience. I still fail daily but know because of the blood of Christ I know I am saved regardless of how much I screw up. That doesn't mean I go out and do things thinking "hey whatever it's all forgiven anyways do I can do what I want." No, I actually don't WANT to sin anymore. And that is why I don't believe that someone can actually be a Christian and still be openly gay, just like I don't believe someone can still want to go cheat on their wife, lie, cheat, steal or murder someone... and truly believe in God and live their life for His glory. I know people who were and probably still are gay and are Christians. But they do not act on it and fight with it daily just like I fight with my sins and vices. That's the difference. I feel this Mr. Loke and others like him are just using the Christian label as publicity for political gain for the LGBTQ community, and are not truly believers.

If you don't believe in God, then you can't be held to the standard the Bible sets out. So if you're reading this and are not a Christian, don't take it as though it's directed at you. But this man calls himself a Christian. So he should, and come judgement day will be held to that standard by God.

Back to the TWU issue. If you don't agree with their covenant, don't go to their school. The part where it says it requires students to abstain from “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman” also falls within the sex outside of marriage realm. Between a male and female. It is and was not put there to exclude the LGBTQ community. If two hetero students are found to be having sex outside of marriage while at TWU, regardless of their faith they will be expelled. Simple as that, they signed the covenant. So for the LGBTQ crew to come out and say this is excluding only them, is ridiculous. The TWU covenant has been there for a LONG time and only now with the increase in LGBTQ equality movement it's apparently become an issue. If it was truly an issue of human rights it would have been fought long ago, right?

Something to think about.

[franko]

O No, I actually don't WANT to sin anymore. And that is why I don't believe that someone can actually BE a Christian and still be openly gay. I know people who were and probably still are gay and are Christians. But they do not act on it and fight with it daily just like I fight with my sins and vices.

Sounds pretty great, make you hate yourself and think you're an abomination for something caused by a genetic/hormone change that happened during a baby's gestation.


This doesn't require a response, I have no intent to try to argue with you about it.

[falcon]

We are all abominations. And until you realize and come to accept that, you'll never truly be free of yourself and your failures.

[underscore]

If the exact wording is as quoted:

sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.

Then wouldn't heterosexual, unmarried intimacy be a violation and homosexual intimacy not be a violation of this? I mean it would be hard to violate the "sacredness" of heterosexual marriage if you're homosexual, no?

[falcon]

According to the Bible, marriage to be between one man and one woman. And sex is to be enjoyed with your spouse within that context of marriage. So any sex outside of marriage, whether it be between a woman/man, man/man or woman/woman violates that sanctity and also the covenant that TWU requires you sign.

[chunk_stir]

From recent article in Globe and Mail: Intolerance is now a vice of the left
"Once upon a time (back in the Jurassic age, when I was in university), the most progressive forces in society believed passionately in free speech, tolerance, pluralism and diversity. They still claim to believe in those things – until someone says something they don’t like, at which point they fight to shut them down."

Intolerance is now a vice of the left - The Globe and Mail (http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/intolerance-is-now-a-vice-of-the-left/article17967924/?service=mobile)

[impactX]

I am just curious on how do they go about proving their students having a sexual relationship outside of marriage if both parties made no such admission?

[andrew dobbie]

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

Can't tell if you are being sarcastic....
Many non-christians and Christians believe that Jesus existed, as many historical facts point to that conclusion. The question of whether he rose from the dead and had any godly powers or relations is another story where faith and the bible comes into play. It is hard to argue that there wasn't a man named Jesus...

[andrew dobbie]

I am just curious on how do they go about proving their students having a sexual relationship outside of marriage if both parties made no such admission?

They don't and they can't.

[underscore]

Can't tell if you are being sarcastic....
Many non-christians and Christians believe that Jesus existed, as many historical facts point to that conclusion. The question of whether he rose from the dead and had any godly powers or relations is another story where faith and the bible comes into play. It is hard to argue that there wasn't a man named Jesus...

I know 2 of them, real nice guys too.

[finbar]

“sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.”

Get your pervert ass out of our bedroom!
Lead your own life and leave me alone you arrogant pricks.
And fuck your shaming opinion.
Blech.[/rant]

love and happiness,
the reverend Al

[Majestic12]

A lawyer in Victoria has taken the initiative to try and force a special general meeting of the Law Society of BC. If 5% of the lawyers in BC make the request (about 550 people) then they will have to declare the meeting and the decision may be overturned.

Read more about it here: Trinity Western law school could face new law society vote - British Columbia - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trinity-western-law-school-could-face-new-law-society-vote-1.2613783)

I've signed the form and sent it over. If there are any other lawyers here, I invite you to do the same. Feel free to contact me if you need a copy.

[Soundy]

A lawyer in Victoria has taken the initiative to try and force a special general meeting of the Law Society of BC. If 5% of the lawyers in BC make the request (about 550 people) then they will have to declare the meeting and the decision may be overturned.

Read more about it here: Trinity Western law school could face new law society vote - British Columbia - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trinity-western-law-school-could-face-new-law-society-vote-1.2613783)

I've signed the form and sent it over. If there are any other lawyers here, I invite you to do the same. Feel free to contact me if you need a copy.

Don't forget, the original decision was based on the idea that there is no LEGAL reason to deny their accreditation. Unless the law has changed in the last couple weeks, I don't see why the decision should change either.

[Energy]

That original decision is based on a ruling that is over 10 years old. The laws can change. This issue needs to be revisited.

Even the benchers who voted to let TWU's application pass said that they believe the covenant is abhorrent and objectionable.

Shouldn't be hard to get 550 signatures. How I wish I could sign that form now.

edit:
Michael Mulligan told The Times his email request to the society’s 11,000 members to convene a special general meeting went out yesterday and has already generated hundreds of "overwhelmingly positive" responses.

"The fax machine, email and phone went bananas," Mulligan said.

He expects by next week he will have the minimum five per cent of society members in good standing required to force the meeting at a future date.

[dangonay]

A lawyer in Victoria has taken the initiative to try and force a special general meeting of the Law Society of BC. If 5% of the lawyers in BC make the request (about 550 people) then they will have to declare the meeting and the decision may be overturned.

Read more about it here: Trinity Western law school could face new law society vote - British Columbia - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trinity-western-law-school-could-face-new-law-society-vote-1.2613783)

I've signed the form and sent it over. If there are any other lawyers here, I invite you to do the same. Feel free to contact me if you need a copy.

So this lawyer (Mulligan) thinks that "the vast majority of lawyers take issue with the university's covenant banning", which is why he believes he'll easily get his 550 votes to force a special meeting (and then get a majority vote at that special meeting to overturn).

Yet the law society ruled 20-6 in favor of TWU.

Why does he think most lawyers are against this when the benchers voted 20-6 in favor of TWU? Don't the benchers represent a cross-section of all lawyers in BC? Or is this group of benchers somehow skewed with an unusually high number of "religious" people who overlooked the law in order to make a decision that aligned with their personal beliefs?

I find it extremely arrogant to state that most lawyers think the way you do when a group of lawyers who actually thought long and hard about this decision voted against what you think.

[Energy]

Many of the benchers voted that way because they felt their hands were tied by established precedent.

Indeed, doing something that goes against what you believe, in order to uphold the rule of law, is admirable. If the benchers had used their own beliefs then the outcome may have been different.

Edit:

Lets pretend TWU v BCCT did not exist.

On one hand we have TWU who wants freedom of religion and the freedom to discriminate against LGBT and other groups. On the other hand we need to think about the right to equality.

How do we balance these competing interests? Are we going to say that yes, TWU does have the right to discriminate and that right to discriminate takes priority over the right to equality? The answer should be no.

TWU and its administration can go ahead and believe that being a homosexual or have premarital sex is evil - if all they do is believe then their freedom of religion should be respected. But when that belief becomes conduct and that conduct results in harm and discrimination then the right to equality trumps freedom of religion.

[Majestic12]

So this lawyer (Mulligan) thinks that "the vast majority of lawyers take issue with the university's covenant banning", which is why he believes he'll easily get his 550 votes to force a special meeting (and then get a majority vote at that special meeting to overturn).

Yet the law society ruled 20-6 in favor of TWU.

Why does he think most lawyers are against this when the benchers voted 20-6 in favor of TWU? Don't the benchers represent a cross-section of all lawyers in BC? Or is this group of benchers somehow skewed with an unusually high number of "religious" people who overlooked the law in order to make a decision that aligned with their personal beliefs?

I find it extremely arrogant to state that most lawyers think the way you do when a group of lawyers who actually thought long and hard about this decision voted against what you think.

He didn't state that most lawyers think that way. He "believes" it. What that is based on, I don't know. Probably just discussions with colleagues. The legal community isn't all that large, so it's not the hardest thing to get the pulse of the group at large if you're determined to do so.

The benchers aren't infallible. Their decisions should be (and are) subject to checks and balances. In the end, the benchers are also just a small group of people. They're not even necessarily the best or the brightest minds in the legal community. And if there's a sufficient number of lawyers who believe this decision is flawed, or at least that it should be scrutinized more, then the mechanism exists to compel a review.

[bing]

I hope the vote fails. This whole thing is retarded.

Roughly 5% of the population even has the mental acuity to get into law school. TWU wouldn't even be close to being one of my top choices either. So who exactly is being affected?

[Energy]

The issue is discrimination. By allowing this to happen we are saying that it is ok for people to actively discriminate against others.

What kind of message does that send? That discrimination is permitted as long as the number of people harmed are little to none?

[falcon]

Many of the benchers voted that way because they felt their hands were tied by established precedent.

..... If the benchers had used their own beliefs then the outcome may have been different.


Isn't that WHY the law exists? So you don't make decisions based on your personal beliefs?

[godwin]

Arrogant maybe, but it is called due process. It is part of our legal framework. They can fight all the way to the supreme court if they want to, as long as they are paying for it, I am fine with it. Some people collect stamps, some people like to tilt windmills. It is democracy.



I find it extremely arrogant to state that most lawyers think the way you do when a group of lawyers who actually thought long and hard about this decision voted against what you think.

[underscore]

So this lawyer (Mulligan) thinks that "the vast majority of lawyers take issue with the university's covenant banning", which is why he believes he'll easily get his 550 votes to force a special meeting (and then get a majority vote at that special meeting to overturn).

Yet the law society ruled 20-6 in favor of TWU.

Why does he think most lawyers are against this when the benchers voted 20-6 in favor of TWU? Don't the benchers represent a cross-section of all lawyers in BC? Or is this group of benchers somehow skewed with an unusually high number of "religious" people who overlooked the law in order to make a decision that aligned with their personal beliefs?

I find it extremely arrogant to state that most lawyers think the way you do when a group of lawyers who actually thought long and hard about this decision voted against what you think.

Are you high?

The benchers could be skewed for all we know. If Mulligan is right, then he'll have his 550. If he is wrong, then he won't. It's called ensuring the benchers are answerable to the people they represent, if lawyers weren't allowed to step up and force reviews then the benchers could do things that are against the views of the majority of the people they represent.

Do you honestly think that they should be able to do what they want without answering to those they represent? Like a lawyer dictatorship?

[dangonay]

Arrogant maybe, but it is called due process. It is part of our legal framework. They can fight all the way to the supreme court if they want to, as long as they are paying for it, I am fine with it. Some people collect stamps, some people like to tilt windmills. It is democracy.
Where did I say it's arrogant for him to challenge a ruling? I clearly stated it's arrogant to assume most lawyers agree with his position.

Are you high?

The benchers could be skewed for all we know. If Mulligan is right, then he'll have his 550. If he is wrong, then he won't. It's called ensuring the benchers are answerable to the people they represent, if lawyers weren't allowed to step up and force reviews then the benchers could do things that are against the views of the majority of the people they represent.

Do you honestly think that they should be able to do what they want without answering to those they represent? Like a lawyer dictatorship?

Am I high? Did you seriously ask such an asinine question?

Where did I say anything to imply that the benchers don't have to answer to anyone? Nowhere.

Mulligan could get his 550, but that's only 5% of the lawyers in BC. 5% doesn't make him "right" at all. All that does is force a special general meeting. At that meeting there will have to be a majority vote to overturn the TWU decision. If the "vast majority" (Mulligan's own words) of lawyers at that meeting rule against the TWU decision then, and only then, would he be considered right.

Or not. This also depends on how many lawyers actually show up for the meeting, and if they represent a normal cross section of all lawyers in BC. You stated "The benchers could be skewed for all we know". If they have a meeting and vote to uphold the TWU decision does that mean the lawyers who showed up for the meeting were also skewed in favor of TWU? What if they vote to overturn? Does it mean the lawyers were skewed against TWU? Or are they only "skewed" if they make a decision you don't like, and "reasonable" if they make a decision you agree with?

[underscore]

Am I high? Did you seriously ask such an asinine question?

Where did I say anything to imply that the benchers don't have to answer to anyone? Nowhere.

Mulligan could get his 550, but that's only 5% of the lawyers in BC. 5% doesn't make him "right" at all. All that does is force a special general meeting. At that meeting there will have to be a majority vote to overturn the TWU decision. If the "vast majority" (Mulligan's own words) of lawyers at that meeting rule against the TWU decision then, and only then, would he be considered right.

Or not. This also depends on how many lawyers actually show up for the meeting, and if they represent a normal cross section of all lawyers in BC. You stated "The benchers could be skewed for all we know". If they have a meeting and vote to uphold the TWU decision does that mean the lawyers who showed up for the meeting were also skewed in favor of TWU? What if they vote to overturn? Does it mean the lawyers were skewed against TWU? Or are they only "skewed" if they make a decision you don't like, and "reasonable" if they make a decision you agree with?

Well you're sure getting your panties in a knot about the guy actually using the system designed to make them answerable. Since you're bitching about the guy using the system I'm taking that as an issue with the system, the alternative being what? How would you prefer things work should lawyers have an issue with the bench?

It's obviously not going to be perfect, and I'm not saying that they ARE skewed, but they COULD be. The meeting could end up skewed as well, but only if lawyers choose not to show interest in this.

Also the bit about the vast majority isn't a direct quote, so those aren't necessarily his own words, it could just be bad reporting. If you aren't high then maybe you need to brush up on your reading skills.

[Energy]

Isn't that WHY the law exists? So you don't make decisions based on your personal beliefs?

Yes, but the law is not static and unchanging. It can change just like it did when we realized that women should be able to vote and that slavery and racism are wrong.

It takes a lot of courage to be able to follow a law that results in behaviour that you believe to be discriminatory, oppressive, and abhorrent and that is what the majority of benchers did.

However, it also takes courage to stand up for what you believe in and try to create change - which is what the dissenting benchers tried to do.

The benchers were elected to be leaders and not followers, the result of the vote was disappointing because the Law Society's mandate is to regulate lawyers in the public interest and it has been given discretion and jurisdiction to do that.

I do not think an appropriate balance was struck between freedom of religion and equality... their decision was skewed towards religion and that, I believe, is not in the public interest.

[falcon]

Public interest should not matter. It's a private school. If UBC or SFU decided to have a covenant like this THEN I would completely disagree with it. But it's TWU. A long standing Christian University.

[Majestic12]

Of course public interest matters. These lawyers, whether from TWU or SFU or UBC or wherever else, are supposed to serve the public. That's the whole point.

[falcon]

Lawyers serve clients. Nothing more. Personally I think a school like TWU would do good for the area of law based on all the terrible and corrupt lawyers I've had the displeasure of meeting.

[Majestic12]

Let me elaborate. This has nothing to do with TWU's covenant. That's their own business. You are right, they are a private institution and are free to be as discriminatory and anal as they wish with their moral code. But according to the legal profession act of BC

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,

The reason why there is a controversy is because, in a nutshell, it's difficult for some, including myself, to reconcile the fact that the supposed graduates of this school will be competent and able/willing to uphold the principles of the practice of law in BC when the very foundation of their knowledge, being their university education, is discriminatory.

[Majestic12]

Lawyers serve clients. Nothing more. Personally I think a school like TWU would do good for the area of law based on all the terrible and corrupt lawyers I've had the displeasure of meeting.

Well, luckily your personal experiences aren't the proper basis for policy.

Edit: I also fail to see how TWU would be "good for the area of law". Are you saying that discrimination based on sexual orientation equates to a higher moral standard or intelligence?

[dangonay]

Well you're sure getting your panties in a knot about the guy actually using the system designed to make them answerable. Since you're bitching about the guy using the system I'm taking that as an issue with the system, the alternative being what? How would you prefer things work should lawyers have an issue with the bench?

It's obviously not going to be perfect, and I'm not saying that they ARE skewed, but they COULD be. The meeting could end up skewed as well, but only if lawyers choose not to show interest in this.

Also the bit about the vast majority isn't a direct quote, so those aren't necessarily his own words, it could just be bad reporting. If you aren't high then maybe you need to brush up on your reading skills.

Panties in a knot? Again with the 12 year old comments.

I haven't taken a position as to whether the TWU decision is right or wrong. Nor have I taken a position that the Law Society systems are right or wrong.

I think you're the one with reading comprehension skills. My posts on this matter seem straightforward to me, but I'll state them as clear as I possibly can:


Whenever there's a decision on a controversial topic (gay marriage, abortion, this TWU decision and so on) you ALWAYS have people like Mulligan or Trevor Loke come out of the woodwork. I already commented on Trevor Loke so there's no need to repeat it.

It could be bad reporting about Mulligan saying a "vast majority", but he did state "the policies of the university are viewed almost universally as discriminatory and inappropriate". Whenever someone states something as an absolute, I call that arrogant. It's a logical fallacy similar to saying "only an idiot would believe x".

What I see in this thread is a lot of people who disagree with the TWU decision, but can't seem to argue the case without getting pissed off about it or taking offence to anyone who makes any sort of critical comment about those involved. I don't really care about the TWU case and what happens to it. I'm just sick of people like Mulligan and Loke who appear to me have other motives and are using this case to further them (especially Loke, given his history).

[Soundy]

The issue is discrimination. By allowing this to happen we are saying that it is ok for people to actively discriminate against others.

What kind of message does that send? That discrimination is permitted as long as the number of people harmed are little to none?
Discrimination cuts both ways: by denying the accreditation, we'd be saying that because someone believes a certain way and wants to attend a school based on those beliefs, they aren't worthy of being lawyers - that, too, is active discrimination.

You could argue that they have the choice then to go to a secular law school... but then there's the counter argument that there are plenty of secular law schools that OTHERS can go to if they don't want to adhere to TWU's beliefs.

[Energy]

Discrimination cuts both ways: by denying the accreditation, we'd be saying that because someone believes a certain way and wants to attend a school based on those beliefs, they aren't worthy of being lawyers - that, too, is active discrimination.

You could argue that they have the choice then to go to a secular law school... but then there's the counter argument that there are plenty of secular law schools that OTHERS can go to if they don't want to adhere to TWU's beliefs.

Okay just to be clear, you are talking about Christians who want to be lawyers being discriminated against if TWU doesn't get accredited?

No law school in Canada is making Christians sign a covenant forcing them to hide their beliefs or face sanctions that include expulsion. No law school is effectively putting up a sign that says "Christians are not welcome".

Again, there is a difference between belief and conduct. You are free to believe whatever you want as long as you do not turn those beliefs into harm (which in this case is discrimination).

edit: grammar

[Majestic12]

Discrimination cuts both ways: by denying the accreditation, we'd be saying that because someone believes a certain way and wants to attend a school based on those beliefs, they aren't worthy of being lawyers - that, too, is active discrimination.

You could argue that they have the choice then to go to a secular law school... but then there's the counter argument that there are plenty of secular law schools that OTHERS can go to if they don't want to adhere to TWU's beliefs.

Wrong. If someone believes a certain way and wants to attend a school based on those beliefs... GO NUTS. But if you want to attend a school that preaches a discriminatory set of principles that are contrary to the legislated non-discriminatory foundation of the legal profession, then there's a problem.

[Soundy]

Okay just to be clear, you are talking about Christians who want to be lawyers being discriminated against if TWU doesn't get accredited?
I'm talking about Christians in general, and the school specifically, being discriminated against because of their beliefs. The general implication being stated HERE by some of you is that you think those identifying themselves as Christian will be incapable of performing duties as lawyers, simply because of their beliefs - how is that not discrimination and prejudice?

[Majestic12]

That's the most backwards reasoning I've ever heard.

You're basically saying "you're discriminating against our right to be discriminatory". If TWU wants to force its students to adhere to its code, then that's perfectly fine. If Christian or non-Christian students want to attend law school, that's also perfectly fine. Our point is this:

The legal profession is supposed to accessible and equal to all, and I quote (again) -- preserving and protecting the rights and freedoms of all persons. How is it that a school can purport to teach its students the foundations of law that will guide them through their legal careers when they have to sign a form before even stepping through the door that is completely contrary to that very principle?

[Lomac]

Let me elaborate. This has nothing to do with TWU's covenant. That's their own business. You are right, they are a private institution and are free to be as discriminatory and anal as they wish with their moral code. But according to the legal profession act of BC

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,

The reason why there is a controversy is because, in a nutshell, it's difficult for some, including myself, to reconcile the fact that the supposed graduates of this school will be competent and able/willing to uphold the principles of the practice of law in BC when the very foundation of their knowledge, being their university education, is discriminatory.

Not necessarily replying to you specifically, just these types of posts in general.

A friend of mine is a pretty hardcore Christian, who just also happens to be a lawyer. Despite his personal beliefs about gays and whatnot, he still managed to successfully argue for a gay client who was discriminated against at work and won the case. All despite his own beliefs. Sure, it may be an isolated case of a religious person taking a case that goes against their own feelings, but I've a feeling it's not.

Also, keep in mind that just because you become a lawyer, it doesn't mean you'll only be in court fighting for LGBT rights; you can become a patents lawyer or notary or a thousand other specialists where your beliefs have absolutely no impact on your work life.

[Majestic12]

Not necessarily replying to you specifically, just these types of posts in general.

A friend of mine is a pretty hardcore Christian, who just also happens to be a lawyer. Despite his personal beliefs about gays and whatnot, he still managed to successfully argue for a gay client who was discriminated against at work and won the case. All despite his own beliefs. Sure, it may be an isolated case of a religious person taking a case that goes against their own feelings, but I've a feeling it's not.

Also, keep in mind that just because you become a lawyer, it doesn't mean you'll only be in court fighting for LGBT rights; you can become a patents lawyer or notary or a thousand other specialists where your beliefs have absolutely no impact on your work life.

Nobody is saying Christians aren't capable, willing, or motivated to represent gay clients to the best of their ability. In fact, a common exercise in law school is to present someone with a particular problem, and then have the student argue against his/her own personal viewpoint. The problem here is a systemic discriminatory policy that is contrary to the very essence of what a lawyer is. Whether he/she represents corporations, straight clients, gay clients, transgender clients, or whatever else, is irrelevant.

[Energy]

I'm talking about Christians in general, and the school specifically, being discriminated against because of their beliefs. The general implication being stated HERE by some of you is that you think those identifying themselves as Christian will be incapable of performing duties as lawyers, simply because of their beliefs - how is that not discrimination and prejudice?

Wow this statement completely misses the point.

Although, now that you've brought it up... NO. Absolutely no one is saying that Christians cannot be good lawyers.

I have friends at UBC who are devout Christians and they have friends that are LGBT, Buddhist, Muslim, etc. I have met successful lawyers who are Christian.

Christians (and everyone else) are free to identify themselves as such if they go to any other law school in Canada. There is nothing wrong with being Christian. What's wrong is when someone acts in a discriminatory manner to others. The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld LGBT's right to equality and what TWU is doing is forcing them back into the closet so to speak.

[twdm]

Public interest should not matter. It's a private school. If UBC or SFU decided to have a covenant like this THEN I would completely disagree with it. But it's TWU. A long standing Christian University.

This is the most retarded shit I've ever heard. No wonder Atheists hate religious people and religious people hate each other. So let's say I started a new religion that promoted Asian superiority and that women should not be schooled and should stay at home to cook and clean, and THEN I open a university that openly bans women and people not of Asian decent. Would you be OK with that? Would you say "oh it's a private school, let them do what they want"?

Where do you draw the line? Heck I don't even think religious schools should be allowed. Just as the church and state is separated, I would argue schooling is a part of the state and thus should be separate as well. Just as I wouldn't discriminate against a christian from entering any type of school, I would expect the same tolerance even from a Christian school. If UBC tomorrow decided to ban anyone who practiced religion, or wore any religious symbols, you would all be up in arms, but it's ok to do it under the guise of religion?

[Majestic12]

Mulligan received 1177 requests in less than a week, which is more than double what he needed to get in total. Special general meeting will go ahead.

[Majestic12]

Even more news coming out about this..

Law grads from B.C. faith-based school won?t be allowed to practise in Ontario - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/twu-president-casts-law-school-debate-as-religious-freedom-issue/article18185317/)


Ontario’s law society has refused to accredit a new law school at a faith-based university over a policy prohibiting same-sex intimacy that some say is discriminatory.
...
“‎I cannot vote to accredit a law school which seeks to control students in their bedrooms,” bencher Howard Goldblatt said.

[Energy]

The benchers over there made the right decision.

LSUC is the biggest law society in Canada and their decision should be influential on the Nova Scotia Barrister's Society meeting tomorrow and the special meeting again here in BC.

[van_city23]

Manitoba is still left to vote as well, next month I think.

[Energy]

TWU got conditional approval from the Nova Scotia Barrister's Society. 10 voted to accredit conditionally and 9 voted not to accredit. The condition is that TWU must remove the discriminatory part of their Community Covenant.

Let us see if TWU decides to stick with its discriminatory stance in the face of the recent decisions by the LSUC and the NSBS.

N.S. law society rejects accreditation as long as Trinity Western maintains same-sex covenant - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/twu-president-casts-law-school-debate-as-religious-freedom-issue/article18185317/)

[godwin]

Since Canada uses a lot of laws from the UK, it will be interesting to see when someone wants to introduce it here:

For people who don't have the attention span to read. UK Law Society is offering training courses on Sharia Law.

High street lawyers to get formal training in Islamic Sharia law - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10787553/High-street-lawyers-to-get-formal-training-in-Islamic-Sharia-law.html)

High street lawyers to get formal training in Islamic Sharia law
A new training course being run by the Law Society this summer is described as an 'introduction to Islamic Sharia law for small firms'
By Christopher Hope, Senior Political Correspondent

9:00PM BST 26 Apr 2014

High street lawyers are being offered formal training in Islamic Sharia Law by the professional body which represents solicitors, The Sunday Telegraph can disclose.

A new training course being run by the Law Society this summer is described as an “introduction to Islamic Sharia law for small firms”.

Critics said the fact that the Law Society was offering training in Sharia law created the “perception” that it was now “a legal discipline”.

It comes after the Society controversially published guidance last month to allow high street solicitors to draw up Sharia-compliant wills.

On Monday around 100 anti-Sharia law campaigners are expected to protest outside the Society’s head office in the heart of London’s legal establisment.
Sharia law is Islam’s legal system. It derives from the Koran and the Hadiths, the sayings and customs attributed to the Prophet Mohammed, as well as fatwas - the rulings of Islamic scholars.

Currently, Sharia principles are not formally addressed by or included in Britain’s laws. However, a network of Sharia courts has grown up in Islamic communities to deal with disputes between Muslim families.

There are reported to be around 85 such courts in the UK – however campaigners say there could be far more.

The Sharia Law event at the Law Society’s headquarters on Chancery Lane, central London on June 24 has already sold out.

It offers training in Sharia law covering wills and inheritance, family and children and corporate and commercial law.

The course is billed as “a forerunner to a planned future seminar series on Islamic law”, the Law Society said.

The Society said: “This event will set you thinking on an important area of client service as our expert and authoritative speakers highlight some basic concepts and requirements of the Islamic Sharia applicable to these practice areas.”

Solicitors have to undertake 16 hours of Continuous Professional Development (CPD) training every year in disciplines such as competition or corporate law.

The Sharia course counts for one and a half hours of this CPD training, which critics said meant that it “creates the perception that Sharia law is a legal discipline”.

Charlie Klendjian, a spokesman from the Lawyers’ Secular Society said: “It creates an ever increasing perception to the public and also to the legal profession that Sharia law is a legal discipline.

“Sharia law is not a legal discipline, it is theology and we can’t constantly keep giving it this credibility and it is certainly not for the Law Society to be doing that.

“It is damaging to the perception of the primacy of English law, and that is what the Law Society don’t appreciate.”

There is increasing concern about by the use of Sharia Law in communities in the UK – last week a campaign called ShariaWatch was launched to monitor its spread.

There were unsubstantiated claims at its launch in the House of Lords that MPs and peers were afraid to speak out about Sharia Law because of the fear of reprisals.

Baroness Cox, a campaigning cross-bench peer who hosted the launch, said the Law Society’s encouragement for Sharia law was “disturbing”.

She said: “While every citizen in this country is free to practice their religion, it is deeply disturbing that an organisation as prestigious as the Law Society appears to be encouraging the implementation of Sharia Law.”

Islamic law was “often inherently discriminatory against women”, including in the way women were treated in divorce and inheritance cases, she said.

Lady Cox added: “Muslim women have claimed they feel ‘betrayed’ by Britain: they came here to escape Sharia law and they find the situation worse here than in the countries they came from.”

A Law Society spokesman said: “We hold hundreds of CPD events every year, on topics ranging from legal aid to being a happy LGB [Lesbian, Gay, Bisxexual] lawyer. That does not make these topics all legal disciplines.

“Our CPD programme is a process of continuous learning to maintain and further develop solicitors’ competence and performance across a range of subjects. Our CPD events help lawyers better serve their clients, whatever their background.”

The Society said it had held four events on Islamic Law between 2004 and 2006, although Sharia Law was not mentioned in the titles of these events.

This reminds me of Bill Maher last night (from 2m20s onwards):

http://youtu.be/6ujbioUAtnw?t=2m20s

[StylinRed]

Hats Off to the Ontario Law Society


Since Canada uses a lot of laws from the UK, it will be interesting to see when someone wants to introduce it here:

For people who don't have the attention span to read. UK Law Society is offering training courses on Sharia Law.

there are mediation services available in many faiths even in Canada

[Ulic Qel-Droma]

i don't fucking get it man. lawyers are just professionals that understand the lingo and the system better than you do. and they're there to represent you cuz you're too fucking stupid to represent yourself in their game of legal jargon.

at the end it's always up to the judge or jury right? i mean... so who the fuck cares who represents you. the legal system shouldn't care. it still has to pass through the final decider who is supposed to be completely neutral.

[van_city23]

i don't fucking get it man. lawyers are just professionals that understand the lingo and the system better than you do. and they're there to represent you cuz you're too fucking stupid to represent yourself in their game of legal jargon.

at the end it's always up to the judge or jury right? i mean... so who the fuck cares who represents you. the legal system shouldn't care. it still has to pass through the final decider who is supposed to be completely neutral.

The "final decider who is supposed to be completely neutral" decides based on the arguments the lawyer representing you make. Once again, this isn't about "Christian" lawyers being incompetent to represent certain people. It's about the TWU law discriminating against certain types of Canadians and being incompatible with the requirements/values of the law society.

[Bouncing Bettys]

Since most appointed judges spent much of their early career's as lawyers, wouldn't the possibility of appointing a TWU lawyer as a judge put a key tenent of our justice system (blind justice) into question?

[PeanutButter]

From what I gather, since TWU is no longer recognized, does that mean all current and former students and graduates are affected?

So are all current students that haven't written the bar screwed now??

[van_city23]

From what I gather, since TWU is no longer recognized, does that mean all current and former students and graduates are affected?

So are all current students that haven't written the bar screwed now??

don't know if serious. i think you need to re-gather. :suspicious:

[PeanutButter]

^I saw a small blurb in the metro that TWU isn't recognized anymore? I guess i'm missing something?

[van_city23]

^I saw a small blurb in the metro that TWU isn't recognized anymore? I guess i'm missing something?

Yup, nothing said it wasn't recognized any more. In a nut shell, they want to be recognized which was what the BC law society did, accredit them. This is now being challenged.
Go back and read the OP. The last paragraph of the quoted article says TWU would have it's first class start in 2016, therefore, no student is currently effected by this.

[PeanutButter]

Thanks for the clarification. I thought they already had classes going.

[underscore]

i don't fucking get it man. lawyers are just professionals that understand the lingo and the system better than you do. and they're there to represent you cuz you're too fucking stupid to represent yourself in their game of legal jargon.

at the end it's always up to the judge or jury right? i mean... so who the fuck cares who represents you. the legal system shouldn't care. it still has to pass through the final decider who is supposed to be completely neutral.

If that were true some lawyers wouldn't be changing many times more than other lawyers.

[falcon]

I voted for Trinity Western U because of the rule of law - The Globe and Mail (http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/i-voted-for-trinity-western-because-of-the-rule-of-law/article18319508/?service=mobile)

[Energy]

Bump.

Special general meeting of the Law Society of BC is tomorrow. Hard to say how the vote will go. Most/all of the lawyers at my firm are voting against accreditation.

[Majestic12]

I was there today. It was a pretty large turnout. You could definitely get a feel for the crowd, the vast majority were in favour of the resolution (against TWU). Before the vote went down, they had an opportunity for speakers on both sides of the vote to speak and voice their opinions and views on the subject.

[Energy]

YES TWU NOT ACCREDITED.

[Majestic12]

Thousands of B.C. lawyers have voted for a non-binding resolution to reverse the Law Society's April decision to accredit Trinity Western University's new Christian law school.

The resolution directs the Board of Governors, known as Benchers, to declare that TWU's law school is not an approved faculty of law for the purposes of the Law Society’s admissions program.

Of the B.C. Law Society's 13,000 members, 3,210 voted in favour with 968 opposed. However, the resolution is not binding, so does not automatically reverse the existing decision to accredit the law school.

"The decision regarding whether to admit graduates from the proposed law school at TWU is a Bencher decision," said President Jan Lindsay, QC.

"However, the Benchers will give the result of today’s members' meeting serious and thoughtful consideration."

Trinity Western law school approval voted down by B.C. lawyers - British Columbia - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trinity-western-law-school-approval-voted-down-by-b-c-lawyers-1.2670688)

[van_city23]

Voting is happening again today on 3 options.

The first is to respect the wishes of the majority of B.C. lawyers who voted this past spring to call on benchers to reverse their decision to accredit the faith-based law school.

The second is to put the issue to another vote — this one binding — to all the society's members.

The third is to wait for the courts to rule on the university's legal challenge of decisions in Ontario and Nova Scotia to refuse to recognize the law school's future graduates.

for anyone interested, I think the following link takes you to the live stream...

Law Society of BC Benchers' Meeting on Livestream (http://new.livestream.com/mediaco/lsbc09262014)

[cheeky_scrub]

I cannot, simply cannot believe that in the year 2014, in Canada, that marriage equality is still an issue among so many people.

Damn. BRB, gonna slit my wrists and let the faith in humanity drain out.

[murd0c]

I cannot, simply cannot believe that in the year 2014, in Canada, that marriage equality is still an issue among so many people.

Damn. BRB, gonna slit my wrists and let the faith in humanity drain out.

as long as the church is around it will always be an issue

[van_city23]

Fyi, they voted to vote again on the accreditation issue, this time the decision to be binding, option 2 from my previous post.

[Energy]

As much as I want TWU to not be accredited, this referendum decision was the right choice.

If the outcome of the SGM last June is a true reflection of how lawyers will vote, then the result will be the correct one too.

[Majestic12]

Kind of a waste of time to vote again. The vote was pretty clear last time. It's not like it was even close. I'll be sure to vote again, and this time it'll count. Fuck these discriminatory pricks.

[Soundy]

So much hate in this thread... the irony is staggering.

[Energy]

Please explain.

[6o4__boi]

yo dawg i heard you like to vote so we can vote on if we can vote to vote on an issue that needs to be voted on again.

[dangonay]

Kind of a waste of time to vote again. The vote was pretty clear last time. It's not like it was even close. I'll be sure to vote again, and this time it'll count. Fuck these discriminatory pricks.

Wrong. The vote was only a part of the total membership (less than 1/3rd). And considering there was a campaign by another lawyer (forget who, but it's in this thread) who contacted other lawyers and encouraged them to vote against TWU then there's no way anyone could believe that the people who voted were an accurate representation of all lawyers.

Don't know who actually said this, but it was quoted below:

The first is to respect the wishes of the majority of B.C. lawyers who voted this past spring to call on benchers to reverse their decision to accredit the faith-based law school.

I'd like to know who thinks that 4,178 out of 13,000 is a majority?

[chouchou]

Strong reading comprehension.... majority of the 4178 that voted, 77% of those voted to deny acredditation.
Unless you can think of a better way to get all 13,000 members to come out and cast a vote, whereby most of them are probably indifferent, I'd say in terms of those who have an opinion 77% voting one way is a majority.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=30996af0-9a8b-46a8-9004-f77ea55f5e1f

[Energy]

The next vote will be via mailed ballots so there is no excuse to not vote.

Everyone is expecting the result to be the same.

[Majestic12]

Wrong. The vote was only a part of the total membership (less than 1/3rd). And considering there was a campaign by another lawyer (forget who, but it's in this thread) who contacted other lawyers and encouraged them to vote against TWU then there's no way anyone could believe that the people who voted were an accurate representation of all lawyers.


Yeah, except that the percentage of the electorate that showed up was in line with the same number that showed up for other elections in the past. Unless they plan on compelling a vote from every single member, the result is exactly what should be expected. And yes, there was a lawyer that started a campaign, but it spread by other lawyers. It's not like he called every lawyer he could find personally.

[Majestic12]

So much hate in this thread... the irony is staggering.

There's a difference. Nobody is stopping them from having their shitty opinions. I welcome shitty opinions. However, I'll vote all day against their shitty opinions infringing on equality rights of other individuals.

[Great68]

I don't get how they're infringing on anything?

Don't like their rules, don't go there. Seems simple to me.

It's not like they don't make their rules known up front, and it's not like it's the ONLY place in Canada that you can study Law.

[murd0c]

its all about civil rights and everyone being equal

[Energy]

I don't get how they're infringing on anything?

Don't like their rules, don't go there. Seems simple to me.

It's not like they don't make their rules known up front, and it's not like it's the ONLY place in Canada that you can study Law.

This keeps coming up again and again.

The idea is that everyone has a right to their opinions even if they are discriminatory. However, when people start acting on their discriminatory opinions then that is no longer protected under the Charter.

TWU is turning its opinions into actions and actively discriminating against LGBT persons. The Law Society of BC has a duty to govern the legal profession in the public interest. Many lawyers feel that it is not in the public interest to accredit a school that discriminates against LGBT.

When you defend TWU with a remark like "don't like their rules, don't go there", know that that can perpetuate discrimination. For example, a restaurant has a rule saying that only white people can eat there, is it a defense for them to say "don't like our rules, don't eat here"?

[dangonay]

Strong reading comprehension.... majority of the 4178 that voted, 77% of those voted to deny acredditation.
Unless you can think of a better way to get all 13,000 members to come out and cast a vote, whereby most of them are probably indifferent, I'd say in terms of those who have an opinion 77% voting one way is a majority.

New breed of lawyers judges proposed TWU school differently (http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=30996af0-9a8b-46a8-9004-f77ea55f5e1f)

That vote is not binding so the ratio of those in favor or against is irrelevant.

When they do the second vote with all members, which will be binding, then we'll find out if the ratio for/against is the same as the initial vote. So one of us will be proven right and the other wrong.

[van_city23]

That vote is not binding so the ratio of those in favor or against is irrelevant.

When they do the second vote with all members, which will be binding, then we'll find out if the ratio for/against is the same as the initial vote. So one of us will be proven right and the other wrong.

U can't say its irrelevant, I mean without that vote this process would have been over. So the ratio is very relevant but may not be indicative of the results of the binding vote.

[Soundy]

TWU is turning its opinions into actions and actively discriminating against LGBT persons.
See, this is where the argument falls down: they're not saying students can't be LGBT. The covenant that students are expected to agree to merely states that, while students, they will abstain from sex outside of heterosexual marriage. It doesn't discriminate against LGBTs any more than it discriminates against straight playas. It doesn't stop anyone from BEING LGBT. It doesn't stop them from fucking whatever or whomever they want once they graduate. Technically, it doesn't stop them from doing it WHILE they're students.

[Energy]

See, this is where the argument falls down: they're not saying students can't be LGBT. The covenant that students are expected to agree to merely states that, while students, they will abstain from sex outside of heterosexual marriage. It doesn't discriminate against LGBTs any more than it discriminates against straight playas.

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.

[Energy]

See, this is where the argument falls down: they're not saying students can't be LGBT. The covenant that students are expected to agree to merely states that, while students, they will abstain from sex outside of heterosexual marriage. It doesn't discriminate against LGBTs any more than it discriminates against straight playas. It doesn't stop anyone from BEING LGBT. It doesn't stop them from fucking whatever or whomever they want once they graduate. Technically, it doesn't stop them from doing it WHILE they're students.

You edited your post so I will respond to the bolded part.

What happens when the students graduate is not at issue here, it is what happens when they are students.

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.

At this point, I am unsure of how you cannot see this. ~3,700 very intelligent and capable lawyers voted against accreditation for this reason.

[hchang]

^ 3700 intelligent and capable lawyers voting solely because of their beliefs or partially influenced by not wanting more competition?

[Energy]

That is not the issue here and that is not what this is about. Neither side has brought that up.

If there was no discrimination there would be no problem and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[hchang]

Yeah but discriminations gonna happen either way.

That is just a more black and white example.

For example, let's say some Purple skinned individual killed a family member of mine when I was younger, and I was put on trial or put up to prosecute a purple skinned individual , don't you think that clouds my judgement?

Everybody whether we like it or not passes judgement and discrimination is prominent everywhere we walk. Some hide it better than others.

[Energy]

Yeah but discriminations gonna happen either way.

That is just a more black and white example.

For example, let's say some Purple skinned individual killed a family member of mine when I was younger, and I was put on trial or put up to prosecute a purple skinned individual , don't you think that clouds my judgement?

Everybody whether we like it or not passes judgement and discrimination is prominent everywhere we walk. Some hide it better than others.

I'm not sure I understand you.

Sure a purple skinned individual harmed your family in the past. You are free to have whatever opinion you want of them. You can wish death on all purple skinned individuals. You can pass judgment on them as much as you want.

What you cannot do is act on your biases and clouded judgment. You cannot open up a university and actively discriminate against purple skinned people. This is even more important when it is an institution that perpetrates discriminatory acts.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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-community-covenant-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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 applicantShe 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 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/topic/Organization/Trinity%20Western%20University).


Trinity Western University's law school - background to controversy (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/topic/Organization/Trinity%20Western%20University)

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 (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1310195-copy-paste-of-all-amaruk-emails-in-chronological.html)
​
"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 (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1310194-2014-09-30-paquette-human-rights-complaint-filed.html)
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 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trinity-western-grad-attacked-for-being-christian-in-job-rejection-1.2791323)




Anyone see this on the news?

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

[pinn3r]

Olaf Amundsen is my hero

[Pally777]

Anyone see this on the news?

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


Yeah and the follow up investigation by cbc news reveals these people aren't even real.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/british-columbia/amaruk-wilderness-questions-raised-about-company-at-centre-of-anti-christian-attack-1.2794452


As more women who received bizarre and inappropriate responses to their job applications to wilderness company Amaruk come forward, efforts to reach the company's CEO have left CBC News questioning whether the business and its jobs even exist.

[underscore]

A basic look at their site and it should be pretty obvious it's not a real company. It looks good at first glance but the whole thing is vague as hell and offers a bunch of things (including online courses) but only lets you email them.

[xmisstrinh]

srsly... what real company is dumb enough to send such an email =\

[van_city23]

74% of voters voted against TWU being approved

Trinity Western University: proposed law school | The Law Society of British Columbia (http://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/page.cfm?cid=3912&t=Trinity-Western-University:-proposed-law-school)

In a referendum conducted in October, a total of 5,951 BC lawyers (74%) voted in favour and 2,088 (26%) against a resolution declaring that the proposed law school at Trinity Western University is not an approved faculty of law for the purpose of the Law Society's admission program.

[murd0c]

That's great news

[Energy]

Nice.

[Majestic12]

So the vote ended up being 74.02662% in favour of denying accreditation. If I didn't vote, it would've been 74.02339%. Glad my vote made such a big difference! :whistle:

[MG1]

I don't get what the hoopla is.............just lawyers and judges. What I can't believe is TWU has an education program.

That, to me, is more of a concern. Can't believe the BCTF just let it happen.

I guess it's because shit happens no matter what........ religious teachers pushing their faith in class. It happens.


Case in point - my daughter was in grade four, I believe. Spelling list for the week is given out. Standard 16 words from spellar and 4 words the teacher picks out. One of them is an obscure word that maybe 5 out of ten thousand normal people would recognize or come across. It's a biblical term.......... "Okay, kids.......... mkay (a la South Park)... use this word in a sentence. If you don't know the word, look it up. "jesus loves me, yes he does... for the bible tells me so." Music/band teacher hands out nothing but non-secular music. You get the idea. Some are good at keeping it subtle, but some are pretty blatant with the shit. Anyway, waaaay off topic.

[van_city23]

Majestic12, what's the purpose of the bencher meeting tomorrow? are they obliged to follow this? do they formalize the rejection?

[Majestic12]

It's binding, so yeah, I'm pretty sure they have to follow it. The meeting tomorrow, not sure. You're probably right, just to formalize the whole thing.

[StylinRed]

finally!

i was so shocked that it was let through initially

the board of governors get the official final say though hence the meeting tomorrow to ratify

[Energy]

The referendum was binding so the Benchers will ratify it whether they like it or not.

[van_city23]

yah, it was just to ratify it. Benchers voted 25-1 to ratify it. Now comes the court challenge by TWU.

[GLOW]

Standard 16 words from spellar and 4 words the teacher picks out. One of them is an obscure word that maybe 5 out of ten thousand normal people would recognize or come across. It's a biblical term.......... "Okay, kids.......... mkay (a la South Park)... use this word in a sentence. If you don't know the word, look it up. "jesus loves me, yes he does... for the bible tells me so."

you would have lost marks for spelling Jesus with lower case J, just sayin'

:whistle:

[Energy]

Take that TWU.

Trinity Western law school future in doubt after B.C. Law Society rejection

The president of Trinity Western University says he is uncertain if the new law school will open as scheduled in 2016 following the recent vote by the B.C. Law Society members to reject the faith-based institution.

TWU president Bob Kuhn expressed his frustration with the recent vote as he left a ratification meeting at the law society on Friday morning.

"They had to choose between the principles upon which they made the initial decision and the popularity of that decision among lawyers in the province," says Kuhn.

"We're disappointed of course they chose the latter. But that's the reality of people in an elected position."

British Columbia is now the third province, after Ontario and Nova Scotia, to officially reject the university's law school.

Kuhn says it's not clear whether the Christian university will move ahead with its 2016 opening date, and the school will decide in the coming weeks whether to file a judicial review.

The board members of the B.C. Law Society voted 25 to one with four abstentions to ratify the results of a referendum announced yesterday rejecting the accreditation of a Trinity Western University's law school.

More than 8,000 of the society's 13,530 members voted earlier this month in a special referendum to overturn the board's decision earlier this year to accredit the faith-based law school.

Critics oppose the new law school's accreditation because Trinity Western students must sign a Christian covenant that states sexual relations are to be confined within the bounds of a marriage between a man and a woman.

Victoria lawyer Michael Mulligan, whose petition triggered two law society referendum on the issue, says the school's policy is discriminatory against people in LGBTQ relationships.

"The policies of this university are inconsistent with core values of legal profession insofar that this university continues to dispel or expel students for their private sexual activities," said Mulligan.

The Law Society of Upper Canada in Ontario has voted against approving the law school and the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society has granted conditional acceptance but only if the school changes the covenant for law students or allows them to opt out.

Trinity Western is legally challenging those decisions in court, arguing they have a right to religious freedom.

[MG1]

you would have lost marks for spelling Jesus with lower case J, just sayin'

:whistle:

Buddy, how long have you been on RS? All words in my posts involving/regarding christianity start with lower case - on purpose. god, jesus, christ, madonna, joseph, mary, etc.

But, thanks for caring....................


god bless

[Energy]

Buddy, how long have you been on RS? All words in my posts involving/regarding christianity start with lower case - on purpose. god, jesus, christ, madonna, joseph, mary, etc.

But, thanks for caring....................


god bless

I should start doing that.

[pinn3r]

lol'd

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0aHGdeCUAApouG.jpg

[MG1]

Just to let you guys know, I don't mind christianity or christians........ hell, some of my best friends are christians. They pray for my salvation every day. They love me and want me to see the light. I tell them, "Whatever. You can pray for me all you want." They tell me there is still hope for me. Save me, Glow - help me see the light!

I will never forget being forced to say the lord's prayer every day at school and singing the "jesus loves me," song.

[pinn3r]

new article

Legal challenges to Trinity Western's proposed law school gave B.C. minister second thoughts - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-education-minister-virk-considers-revoking-twu-law-school-approval/article21743712/)

had a debate in class about this... surprisingly, like 80% of the students were FOR the accreditation :fulloffuck:

[Majestic12]

had a debate in class about this... surprisingly, like 80% of the students were FOR the accreditation :fulloffuck:

Too bad your average person doesn't really understand the intricacies of the law and the specific reasons for and against accreditation. Hell, I'm a lawyer and I don't understand all of it.

[GLOW]

Save me, Glow - help me see the light!


do what i do...drive in richmond at night. high beams everywhere!

[Soundy]

So anyway...

http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/1044/9237316133.png (http://easycaptures.com/9237316133)
View Screen Capture (http://easycaptures.com/9237316133)

[SpartanAir]

^ Oh, Christ.

[Traum]

Doh... :facepalm:

[Tone Loc]

Ideally, whether someone signs that "community covenant" or not doesn't exactly make them a good or bad lawyer. As someone who knows people who go to TWU, their "covenant" is similar to the Terms of Service you hit "Yes" on when you power up a new phone or computer for the first time - largely ignored and is commonly seen as a formality.

If you don't want a lawyer that graduated from TWU, it's your choice not to have one. It's also your decision not to go to TWU and to another school whose moral/ethical/lifestyle code better aligns with your own. Moreover, TWU is a private university anyway, and as long as a significant part of my tax dollars doesn't contribute to the spread of ignorance and bigotry, and if I don't have to consciously rely on their lawyers in my personal life, they can do what they want. It's that simple.

[Mancini]

Trinity Western University Law School wins legal battle in B.C. court - British Columbia - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/british-columbia/trinity-western-law-1.3831024)

Ruled in favour of TWU.

[Jmac]

Good.

I'll preface this comment with the fact that I've never stepped foot in a church and hold no religious beliefs. I hate it when beliefs are forced down anyone's throat, religious or not. Forcing a private religious entity to go against their own beliefs is just as ridiculous as forcing religious practices in public institutions (like prayer in school, for example).

This overzealous SJWism is getting/has gotten completely out of hand.

[Bouncing Bettys]

Good.

I'll preface this comment with the fact that I've never stepped foot in a church and hold no religious beliefs. I hate it when beliefs are forced down anyone's throat, religious or not. Forcing a private religious entity to go against their own beliefs is just as ridiculous as forcing religious practices in public institutions (like prayer in school, for example).

This overzealous SJWism is getting/has gotten completely out of hand.
While it is true, people can choose not to hire TWU lawyers, I could see this being an issue should any of them be made a judge. In certain cases, it would be difficult to maintain an illusion of impartiality given their credentials.

[Great68]

It's a tough call because it's two conflicting charter rights, but the ruling basically comes down to what a bunch of us have already been saying:

"If you don't agree with the covenant, don't go to TWU. Plenty of other law schools out there"

[parm104]

It's a tough call because it's two conflicting charter rights, but the ruling basically comes down to what a bunch of us have already been saying:

"If you don't agree with the covenant, don't go to TWU. Plenty of other law schools out there"

Is being accredited by a Law Society a statutory right?

[will068]

While it is true, people can choose not to hire TWU lawyers, I could see this being an issue should any of them be made a judge. In certain cases, it would be difficult to maintain an illusion of impartiality given their credentials.

It happens already in the highest courts in the US.

Supreme Court Justices are hand picked based on their historical rulings and current beliefs.

I'm sure they are handpicked in the Canada as well. But just like everyone else, I find US politics to be more entertaining.

[Great68]

Is being accredited by a Law Society a statutory right?

Can the Law Society deny accreditation to an organization based on the religious beliefs of that organization?

[Energy]

I'm quite pleased with the SCC decision in this case.

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/6748/scc-affirms-7-2-ontario-and-b-c-regulators-denial-of-accreditation-to-twu-s-proposed-law-school

"In a four-opinion ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled 7-2 that the refusal of the law societies of Ontario and B.C. to accredit Trinity Western University’s (TWU) proposed law school was reasonable because the regulators proportionately balanced the impact on the religious freedom rights of TWU’s community with the regulators’ mandate to protect the public — including promoting equal access to the legal profession, diversity and lawyer competence, as well as upholding a positive public perception of the legal profession"

[sonick]

Happy to hear this as well on the radio this morning.

[whitev70r]

That's too bad ... dangerous precedent.

[Energy]

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/still-seeking-law-school-trinity-western-drops-sexual-covenant-for-students

Their Community Covenant wasn't that important after all.

[yray]

maybe they want to take indian exchange students now since kwantlen stopped :lawl: