Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Benchers vote No to TWU Law School


Mainly Mattias

Recommended Posts

Its not the covenent that says you can't have sex outside marriage that is the problem. TWU believes that marriage is between a man and woman. That is what is upsetting gays. They say that discriminates against them.

Absolutely it does.

As for the covenant not being enforced, does anybody think it's a good idea to have future lawyers start their careers by taking a vow they intend to break?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BC Civil Liberties Association, the great defender of human rights, minority rights, gay rights, etc, SUPPORTS the accreditation of the law school at TWU.

So is it really discrimiantion against gays as so many people beieve?

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is backing the right of a Christian university to create a law school while continuing to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

The president of the BCCLA has issued a strongly worded, six-page letter denouncing the Canadian Council of Law Deans for opposing Trinity Western University’s bid to open the country’s first private law school.

BCCLA president Lindsay Lyster accused the deans of the country’s secular law schools of wanting to “monopolize” legal education and keep “religiously-minded” people from becoming law students and lawyers.

However, a spokesman for Canada’s law deans responded that B.C.’s civil liberties association has “misunderstood” their goal.

Bill Flanagan, president of the CCLD, said in an interview Wednesday his organization is simply urging the evangelical Protestant university to stop banning homosexual relationships among students or faculty.

The highest-quality private Christian law schools in the United States, such as those at Fordham and Pepperdine universities, would “not in a thousand years discriminate against students and faculty on the basis of their sexual orientation,” Flanagan said.

“It’s just not true that we’re opposing a Christian law school. Our challenge to Trinity Western University is to reflect on whether it needs to discriminate against gays and lesbians in order to keep its religious nature.”

The CCLD distributed a letter in the fall that challenged TWU’s Bible-based “community covenant,” which the council says makes clear that “gay, lesbian or bisexual students may be subject to disciplinary measures including expulsion.”

In his letter to the Federation of Canadian Law Societies, which helps decide whether to approve new law schools, Flanagan wrote: “This is a matter of great concern for all members … Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation … fundamentally at odds with the core values of all Canadian law schools.”

The BCCLA president, however, accused the council of law deans of operating on the premise “that those who are religiously minded should be excluded from all legal education. That would, by extension, include all professors, students and eventually lawyers and judges who held to the religious views the CCLD says are repugnant.”

Even though the BCCLA has stood up for the rights of homosexuals in many cases, Lyster wrote that, in the case of TWU, it’s instead emphasizing the principle of religious freedom.

Lyster cited TWU’s earlier legal dispute with the B.C. College of Teachers, in which the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2001 that a religious school can exempt itself from human rights legislation forbidding discrimination against homosexuals.

Despite TWU’s ban on homosexual relationships and sex outside marriage, Lyster also defended the evangelical school’s approach to academic freedom — saying secular universities often impose restrictions on free thought, including in regards to religious perspectives.

For his part, Flanagan confirmed he is committed to the values of freedom of religion and respect for diversity. He added that his own law school, at Queen’s University, has admitted graduates from Trinity Western University.

The controversy over TWU’s proposed law school comes at the same time that the Christian university’s faculty — who are the lowest-paid among all of Canada’s 58 universities — is in conflict with the administration over a drive to start a union.

TWU philosophy professor Myron Penner, one of the pro-union faculty, said a law school could be “a very good thing” for the Langley university as long as administrators ensured it did not add to the school’s already “substantial debt.”

TWU faculty’s application to join the Christian Labour Association of Canada goes before the B.C. Labour Relations Board in mid-February.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BC Civil Liberties Association, the great defender of human rights, minority rights, gay rights, etc, SUPPORTS the accreditation of the law school at TWU.

So is it really discrimiantion against gays as so many people beieve?

I'm not surprised that the BCCLA is saying that - it should advocate for both groups since each have different rights, privileges and interests which are affected. (Remember there's that other side that says, "Hey, don't deny us a law school just because we have our beliefs.")

Since TWU is a private institution, it's not bound to follow the Charter or the BC Human Rights Code directly. (The administrative body that governs it would though.. but it has to balance the rights of everyone.) The covenant is discriminatory but it's a legal discrimination. And the courts won't care if the convenant is enforced or not. The courts are not looking at discriminatory beliefs but discriminatory conduct. In the BC Teachers' case, since there wasn't any evidence that teachers going through the TWU program would be discriminatory, it was unfair to deny them the teacher program.

I think the question (when it will eventually head back up to the SCC again) is whether the BC lawyers' case is distinguishable from that of the BC Teachers'. Or, alternatively, whether the BC Teachers' case is still good law after 13 years.. I read somewhere that there is another case, Whatcott something, that followed the dissenting opinion in the BCCT case but haven't really looked into that yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the covenant not being enforced, does anybody think it's a good idea to have future lawyers start their careers by taking a vow they intend to break?

Pretty much the same thing a lawyer friend said yesterday when I asked her about this. I mentioned some of what had been said in this thread, that the covenant isn't actually applied, she laughed and said "Do you really think 'yeah, we have weird rules, but we don't enforce them' will fly with a group of lawyers?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

UPDATE: FEB 2015

SUPREME COURT SIDES WITH TWU

Globe and Mail Article

Hurt feelings and even outrage are not sufficient grounds for government to violate the fundamental freedoms of Canadians.

Thus ruled the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia on Wednesday, striking down the Barristers’ Society policy against the new law school at Trinity Western University (TWU).

TWU describes itself as “an arm of the church,” with a mission to “develop godly Christian leaders.” This wholly private university offers many graduate and undergraduate programs, including professional schools of nursing and education, with a law school set to open in September, 2016.

Like every Canadian university, TWU has a code of conduct that students choose to comply with when attending that university. Based on Christian principles, TWU’s Community Covenant prohibits vulgar or obscene language, drunkenness, pornography, gossip, sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman, and other legal activities. The Barristers’ Society argued that TWU “discriminates” against gays and lesbians, ignoring the fact that TWU’s expectations also “discriminate” against countless others, for myriad reasons, all of which boil down to an unwillingness to practice a Christian lifestyle. Moreover, the Barristers’ Society ignored the practical reality that prospective law students who do not wish to commit to these religious beliefs can attend any of the other 19 law schools in Canada. The Barristers’ Society was also oblivious to the fact that no Canadian law society bans the law graduates of American universities with codes of conduct similar to TWU’s.

In 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that TWU has the Charter right to include traditional sexual morality as part of its community standards, in a nearly identical case where the B.C. College of Teachers refused to accredit TWU education graduates. In the absence of evidence that TWU graduates were mistreating gays and lesbians, the Court decisively rejected the “discrimination” argument.

Despite this clear court ruling in 2001, the law societies of Nova Scotia, B.C. and Ontario have refused to approve TWU law degrees, forcing TWU to commence court actions in three provinces to secure its Charter freedoms of religion, conscience, expression and association.

Justice Jamie Campbell noted that, although some LGBT students would feel unwelcome to attend TWU, “[p]eople have the right to attend a private religious university that imposes a religiously based code of conduct ... even if the effect of that code is to exclude others or offend others who will not or cannot comply with the code of conduct.”

The Charter does not apply to private institutions like TWU, but to government bodies like the Barristers’ Society. The Barristers’ Society cannot coerce TWU students, professors, and staff to change their beliefs to conform to majority opinion about sexuality and marriage. Further, “f the state seeks to coerce them to change their actions that give effect to those beliefs, it had better have a compelling reason.”

Justice Campbell acknowledged that some may experience “outrage, emotional pain, minority stress, or hurt feelings” from knowing that a graduate of a private Christian university in B.C. can become a lawyer in Nova Scotia. But this does not provide the Barristers’ Society with any grounds to violate the Charter-protected fundamental freedoms of Canadians. Further, Justice Campbell found that the Barristers’ Society’s action against TWU “was not designed to minimally impair the freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.” The Charter cannot be transformed into “a tool in the hands of the state to enforce moral conformity with approved values.”

Justice Campbell rejected the argument that “those who hold religious views should be educated by the state in more appropriate secular values to create a moral melting pot.” Rather, lawyers “are entitled to believe what they want … [and] to form associations of like-minded lawyers.”

This is a great precedent for the fundamental freedoms of all Canadians. A free society does not allow hurt feelings or majority opinion to deny individuals their right to create, maintain, and belong to the voluntary associations of their own choosing. The freedom to express offensive opinions, practice minority religious beliefs, and create unpopular organizations form the cornerstone of Canada’s free and democratic society. These fundamental freedoms benefit all Canadians, including gays, lesbians, and evangelical Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument that at TWU Students sign an agreement and then not follow it is laughable. That would only show that the students there are dishonest and unwelcome in the law profession.

However, the fact that an institution like TWU has a place in education is far more concerning to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of funny that they have a vote amongst the professions about whether or not this school should exist. (Voted NO).

Then the Supreme Court comes in and gives it to them anyway.

Not much point in having the vote then, yes?

If the supreme court judgement preceded their vote, yes, it would have had no point. But it didn't.

I agree with the Supreme court though on the decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the supreme court judgement preceded their vote, yes, it would have had no point. But it didn't.

I agree with the Supreme court though on the decision.

Same as much as I disagree with TWU's policies it would have been against the charter of rights and freedom's (Section 2 freedom of conscience and religion) to uphold the Barrister's decision. Providing that the only reason it was struck down in the first place was because of TWU's policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the supreme court judgement preceded their vote, yes, it would have had no point. But it didn't.

I agree with the Supreme court though on the decision.

So you're saying the vote happened before the Supreme Court did?

If the supreme court judgement preceded their vote, yes, it would have had no point. But it didn't.

I agree with the Supreme court though on the decision.

From all the posts from this topic, I can't really tell if the SC's decision came BEFORE it.

Seems like there's some lobbyists in here really trying to get them in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...