Trinity Western vs BC Law Society

[RW]

Law society appeals BC Supreme Court Trinity Western decision

Court ruled BC law society must reconsider accrediting Christian law school



The Law Society of British Columbia is appealing a BC Supreme Court ruling which told the society to reconsider its decision not to accredit a law school at Christian Trinity Western University (TWU).



The society said Jan 5, 2016, that Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson erred in deciding the procedure followed by society directors was inappropriate, and erred in finding TWU was not afforded procedural fairness.



The law society's directors initially voted to accept TWU's future graduates in April 2014. Six months later, they rescinded that decision after an outcry from their members prompted a referendum.



Concerned about TWU's covenant — which threatens to penalize or expel students for having sex outside heterosexual marriage — members voted three-to-one to reject the school in the referendum. Hinkson said society directors should not have been blinded by their members' referendum, ruling that they allowed it "to supplant their judgment."



He said the directors should have stuck to their more careful weighing of the Charter rights in question — a Christian university's freedom of religion versus equality rights for gays and lesbians.



"I find that the decision was made without proper consideration and balancing of the Charter rights at issue, and therefore cannot stand," Hinkson ruled.



Society president David Crossin disagreed, saying in a news release that the society should be guided by its members' voices. "The circumstances surrounding the proposal for a law school at TWU raise issues regarding two competing Charter rights and values: the equality rights of the LGBTQ community and the position taken by TWU concerning religious freedom," he says.



Crossin says it's a constitutional question that should be resolved in an appeal court.[/i]

http://www.dailyxtra.com/vancouver/news-and-ideas/news/law-society-appeals-bc-supreme-court-trinity-western-decision-182933">http://www.dailyxtra.com/vancouver/news ... ion-182933">http://www.dailyxtra.com/vancouver/news-and-ideas/news/law-society-appeals-bc-supreme-court-trinity-western-decision-182933

This case raises some interesting legal and non-legal points:



1. Freedom of religion versus equality rights for gays and lesbians.  Which freedom takes front seat?

2. What is the right for the BC Legal Society to respect the votes of it's membership when it comes to accreditation?

3. Is it appropriate for a school to restrict students from personal/private sexual practices?



Feel free to address one or all.



[size=85]I would like to note this is a legal not a religious discussion.  This is not a comment or attack on Christianity.[/size]

[Bricktop]

1. We are a secular society. Human rights trumps religion.

2. Law Societies are a subversive political activist group. They should have no say in such matters.

3. No. Nor do they have the right, and should be reminded.

[RW]

1. We are a secular society. Human rights trumps religion.

2. Law Societies are a subversive political activist group. They should have no say in such matters.

3. No. Nor do they have the right, and should be reminded.

1. Freedom of religion is a human right. It's post-secondary.  Students agree to the school rules.

2. The Society is the regulatory body for the legal profession.  What would you have in it's place?

3. Why don't they have the right?

[Anonymous]

Law society appeals BC Supreme Court Trinity Western decision

Court ruled BC law society must reconsider accrediting Christian law school



The Law Society of British Columbia is appealing a BC Supreme Court ruling which told the society to reconsider its decision not to accredit a law school at Christian Trinity Western University (TWU).



The society said Jan 5, 2016, that Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson erred in deciding the procedure followed by society directors was inappropriate, and erred in finding TWU was not afforded procedural fairness.



The law society's directors initially voted to accept TWU's future graduates in April 2014. Six months later, they rescinded that decision after an outcry from their members prompted a referendum.



Concerned about TWU's covenant — which threatens to penalize or expel students for having sex outside heterosexual marriage — members voted three-to-one to reject the school in the referendum. Hinkson said society directors should not have been blinded by their members' referendum, ruling that they allowed it "to supplant their judgment."



He said the directors should have stuck to their more careful weighing of the Charter rights in question — a Christian university's freedom of religion versus equality rights for gays and lesbians.



"I find that the decision was made without proper consideration and balancing of the Charter rights at issue, and therefore cannot stand," Hinkson ruled.



Society president David Crossin disagreed, saying in a news release that the society should be guided by its members' voices. "The circumstances surrounding the proposal for a law school at TWU raise issues regarding two competing Charter rights and values: the equality rights of the LGBTQ community and the position taken by TWU concerning religious freedom," he says.



Crossin says it's a constitutional question that should be resolved in an appeal court.[/i]

http://www.dailyxtra.com/vancouver/news-and-ideas/news/law-society-appeals-bc-supreme-court-trinity-western-decision-182933">http://www.dailyxtra.com/vancouver/news ... ion-182933">http://www.dailyxtra.com/vancouver/news-and-ideas/news/law-society-appeals-bc-supreme-court-trinity-western-decision-182933

This case raises some interesting legal and non-legal points:



1. Freedom of religion versus equality rights for gays and lesbians.  Which freedom takes front seat?

2. What is the right for the BC Legal Society to respect the votes of it's membership when it comes to accreditation?

3. Is it appropriate for a school to restrict students from personal/private sexual practices?



Feel free to address one or all.



[size=85]I would like to note this is a legal not a religious discussion.  This is not a comment or attack on Christianity.[/size]

This is as much bullshit as Dalhousie giving the boot to dental students for shit that was none of the uni's fucking business.  

[reel]

1. That depends entirely on the context.  In most cases, they should not be in conflict in the public domain.  In this case, TWU is a private institution, so their right to religious freedom should take precedence in defining their own covenant.  I don't agree with it, but it's not up to me, you, or the courts.



2. Accreditation should be based on an objective evaluation matrix of education qualifications, not on arbitrary and subjective social justice issues.  TWU's covenant does not affect their ability to train and produce qualified lawyers.  The members should not be permitted to influence an objective evaluation based on their desire to penalize a private entity for its social views.



3. Yes.  It is a private institution.

[Bricktop]

Since when does the law in Western democracies permit private institutions to discriminate?



Anti discrimination applies to ALL. If that lunatic asylum withdraws or penalizes services on the basis of sexual orientation, it commits an offence.



The law society is then compounding the stupidity by enforcing its accreditations standards on the basis of a perceived disrcimination that has NO bearing on whether or not the graduates should be admitted to the bar. Clearly, they take the view that the graduates must support sexual discrimination, otherwise why would they attend the school. However, if the law society imposes its authority on the premise of some form of bias, than it needs to look within before tiptoeing in that minefield.

[RW]

That's true about a private institution not being able to discriminate.



To me, it's a matter of the wishes of a religious INSTITUTION vs PERSONAL human rights.  Which wins?  Personal rights should win IMHO.

[Anonymous]

That's true about a private institution not being able to discriminate.



To me, it's a matter of the wishes of a religious INSTITUTION vs PERSONAL human rights.  Which wins?  Personal rights should win IMHO.

Don't attend an evangelical church or any mosque if you don't like what they stand for. Don't attend their schools either and ur problem is solved.

[RW]

That's true about a private institution not being able to discriminate.



To me, it's a matter of the wishes of a religious INSTITUTION vs PERSONAL human rights.  Which wins?  Personal rights should win IMHO.

Don't attend an evangelical church or any mosque if you don't like what they stand for. Don't attend their schools either and ur problem is solved.

This isn't a church.  It's a school.  And I wouldn't touch TWU with a 10-foot poll but does that mean they are allowed to discriminate?  Should they not be allowed to let non-Christians attend?  Or blacks?  Or how about Chinese people?  Where are we going to draw the line if we allow discrimination?



Also, TWU has received PUBLIC funding:



The Harper government has awarded over $20 million of its infrastructure funding to Christian colleges and universities since the launch of the Knowledge Infrastructure Program in 2009 ($2.6 million for Trinity Western University).

[reel]

Since when does the law in Western democracies permit private institutions to discriminate?



Anti discrimination applies to ALL. If that lunatic asylum withdraws or penalizes services on the basis of sexual orientation, it commits an offence.



The law society is then compounding the stupidity by enforcing its accreditations standards on the basis of a perceived disrcimination that has NO bearing on whether or not the graduates should be admitted to the bar. Clearly, they take the view that the graduates must support sexual discrimination, otherwise why would they attend the school. However, if the law society imposes its authority on the premise of some form of bias, than it needs to look within before tiptoeing in that minefield.

Sorry I guess I didn't express my thought very clearly.  They shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on being a private institution, but in the event of a conflict like this one, they should be allowed to select which charter right they feel should take precedence on that basis.  I would argue that they aren't necessarily committing an offence as there is a clear conflict with their right to exercise their religious freedoms.  One or the other is violated, so my opinion is that the private institution should select which it's going to be.



I think we agree on the second part.  The accreditation standards should not make value judgements.  If that was the norm, we wouldn't have any lawyers.

[reel]

That's true about a private institution not being able to discriminate.



To me, it's a matter of the wishes of a religious INSTITUTION vs PERSONAL human rights.  Which wins?  Personal rights should win IMHO.

I don't think it's that black and white.  You have to evaluate this on a situational basis.  While I certainly agree with you that personal human rights have more value than religious ones, that is imposing my own value judgement rather than the intent of the charter.  Allowing the masses to impose value judgements on minorities is precisely what the charter is meant to prevent.

[reel]

That's true about a private institution not being able to discriminate.



To me, it's a matter of the wishes of a religious INSTITUTION vs PERSONAL human rights.  Which wins?  Personal rights should win IMHO.

Don't attend an evangelical church or any mosque if you don't like what they stand for. Don't attend their schools either and ur problem is solved.

This isn't a church.  It's a school.  And I wouldn't touch TWU with a 10-foot poll but does that mean they are allowed to discriminate?  Should they not be allowed to let non-Christians attend?  Or blacks?  Or how about Chinese people?  Where are we going to draw the line if we allow discrimination?



Also, TWU has received PUBLIC funding:



The Harper government has awarded over $20 million of its infrastructure funding to Christian colleges and universities since the launch of the Knowledge Infrastructure Program in 2009 ($2.6 million for Trinity Western University).

That one is easy.  TWU should not, under any circumstances, be receiving public funds.

[RW]

That's true about a private institution not being able to discriminate.



To me, it's a matter of the wishes of a religious INSTITUTION vs PERSONAL human rights.  Which wins?  Personal rights should win IMHO.

I don't think it's that black and white.  You have to evaluate this on a situational basis.  While I certainly agree with you that personal human rights have more value than religious ones, that is imposing my own value judgement rather than the intent of the charter.  Allowing the masses to impose value judgements on minorities is precisely what the charter is meant to prevent.

Religious rights are personal rights when it involves the rights of a person.  



I think the easy solution would be for the SCHOOL to mind it's own business what/who a student does on his/her free time pretty much like every other school does.

[RW]

Since when does the law in Western democracies permit private institutions to discriminate?



Anti discrimination applies to ALL. If that lunatic asylum withdraws or penalizes services on the basis of sexual orientation, it commits an offence.



The law society is then compounding the stupidity by enforcing its accreditations standards on the basis of a perceived disrcimination that has NO bearing on whether or not the graduates should be admitted to the bar. Clearly, they take the view that the graduates must support sexual discrimination, otherwise why would they attend the school. However, if the law society imposes its authority on the premise of some form of bias, than it needs to look within before tiptoeing in that minefield.

Sorry I guess I didn't express my thought very clearly.  They shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on being a private institution, but in the event of a conflict like this one, they should be allowed to select which charter right they feel should take precedence on that basis.  I would argue that they aren't necessarily committing an offence as there is a clear conflict with their right to exercise their religious freedoms.  One or the other is violated, so my opinion is that the private institution should select which it's going to be.



I think we agree on the second part.  The accreditation standards should not make value judgements.  If that was the norm, we wouldn't have any lawyers.

I disagree that they should be allowed to select the "character" when it means discriminating against someone's protected human rights.  If you are going to make that a rule, then restrict ALL students from pre-marital sex.

[reel]

Religious rights are personal rights when it involves the rights of a person.  



I think the easy solution would be for the SCHOOL to mind it's own business what/who a student does on his/her free time pretty much like every other school does.

In France, the only good local school was the catholic school.  We walked into the courtyard one day to the kid, arms pointed at the sky, shouting "The Sky Spirits love me!" at the top of her lungs.



Fortunately there were no repercussions.



That said, in this sort of a conflict, I don't think it's up to us to impose values whether it is an individual, a school, or otherwise.