# SCC and Trinity Western University



## FJAG (15 Jun 2018)

The Supreme Court of Canada has come down with two related decisions (seven judges concurring with two dissenting) respecting the law societies of Ontario and British Columbia denying accreditation to TWU because it's mandatory religious based covenant restricted access to members of the LGBT community. 

The SCC determined that the law societies were entitled to consider the effect of the covenant in determining whether or not to accredit TWU.

The following are key quotes from the Ontario decision.



> [1]                              Trinity Western University (TWU), an evangelical Christian postsecondary institution, seeks to open a law school that requires its students and faculty to adhere to a religiously based code of conduct prohibiting “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman”.





> [19]                          In this case, the LSUC [Law Society of Upper Canada now Ontario] interpreted its duty to uphold and protect the public interest as precluding the approval of TWU’s proposed law school because the mandatory Covenant effectively imposes inequitable barriers on entry to the school. The LSUC was entitled to be concerned that inequitable barriers on entry to law schools would effectively impose inequitable barriers on entry to the profession and risk decreasing diversity within the bar. Ultimately, the LSUC determined that the approval of TWU’s law school, as proposed, would negatively affect equitable access to and diversity within the legal profession and would harm LGBTQ individuals, which would be inconsistent with the public interest.



The BC decision is the longer more detailed explanation for the ruling.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17140/index.do

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17141/index.do

 :cheers:


----------



## pbi (15 Jun 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The Supreme Court of Canada has come down with two related decisions... The SCC determined that the law societies were entitled to consider the effect of the covenant in determining whether or not to accredit TWU.
> :cheers:



So, I take it that TWU cannot enforce this restriction on its students any longer? 

Which is fine by me. In my opinion, what students do in their private sex lives, as long as it isn't harmful or criminal, is their business alone. It certainly has nothing to do with being good lawyers.

There is no bar that I can see to being a Christian and LGBTQ: I have two gay friends who are both ordained Anglican clergymen. They are excellent servants of God, and far closer to the model of Christianity as I understand it and try to practice it, than some of the narrow-minded fundamentalist types who shriek endlessly about "praying away the gay" or other silly rubbish...

 Now, I wonder about the Catholic Church's view on celibacy for priests....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jun 2018)

On the flip side, what does this requirement really have to do with the Law Society? If the lawyers takes a job working for the government, then they will be bound by that departments polices. If they open a private business they would likely decline to service openly gay clients and if forced to serve them, are not likely to do so in as manner as eager as they might otherwise. I also don't recall any mosques openly embracing gay sex, so it could be construed that a devout Muslim lawyer may also discriminate against gay clients. I look forward to the Law society pursuing that issue with the same vigor.


----------



## captloadie (15 Jun 2018)

If I understand what has happened, the SCC has agreed with two law societies that it is alright to put some individuals' personal beliefs and rights over others? Is the law society questioning all lawyers on their beliefs? If those individuals who would have been accepted to TWU are now accepted to another program, taking a potential spot away from a LGTBQ individual, they are still going to have the same beliefs are they not, and still dilute the diversity of the whole?


----------



## FJAG (15 Jun 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> So, I take it that TWU cannot enforce this restriction on its students any longer?
> 
> Which is fine by me. In my opinion, what students do in their private sex lives, as long as it isn't harmful or criminal, is their business alone. It certainly has nothing to do with being good lawyers.
> 
> ...



All that the judgment means is that BC and Ontario's law societies could lawfully refuse to accredit TWU's law school as an institution. Other jurisdictions have given accreditation and therefore TWU can continue to keep their policy in place although it would limit where their student's degrees are accepted.

I've long been a believer that human rights are layered. When one conflicts with another predominance should be given to the situation over which the individual has no choice: such as skin colour, gender, etc while the less protected one should be over conditions where the individual has a choice: such as religion, medical condition grounded in addiction etc. This decision doesn't go anywhere near that far but shows that religion is not immune from challenge.

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG (15 Jun 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> On the flip side, what does this requirement really have to do with the Law Society? If the lawyers takes a job working for the government, then they will be bound by that departments polices. If they open a private business they would likely decline to service openly gay clients and if forced to serve them, are not likely to do so in as manner as eager as they might otherwise. I also don't recall any mosques openly embracing gay sex, so it could be construed that a devout Muslim lawyer may also discriminate against gay clients. I look forward to the Law society pursuing that issue with the same vigor.



The rationale is that each of the law societies has a statutory obligation set by their respective provincial governments to 





> ensuring equal access to and diversity in the legal profession and preventing the risk of significant harm to LGBTQ people.


 On the other hand, 





> a mandatory covenant is not absolutely required to study law in a Christian environment in which people follow certain religious rules of conduct, and studying law in an environment infused with the community’s religious beliefs is preferred, not necessary, for prospective TWU law students.


. The court balanced these requirements.

While there is no doubt that some lawyers are religious, that some have strong religious views and may even practice some form of discrimination, the latter is prohibited under the various Professional Codes of Conduct, not to mention provincial Human Rights Laws and they could and would be sanctioned if a complaint was made and upheld.

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jun 2018)

I find more interesting is the apparent eagerness of the Law Society to pursue this issue, while being quiet as a mouse on the views held by other religions that may be as equally discriminatory. Let's face it attacking Christian institutions here is basically baiting a toothless tiger with a payout of high moral brownie points and zero risk.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (15 Jun 2018)

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2 

What would a lawyer's thread be without thus quoting Will Shakespeare.  Instead of wasting FJAG's time in rebuttal (besides. he doesn't get to bill for the time) one can just go to https://army.ca/forums/threads/127136/post-1526913.html#msg1526913 for his explanation of the proper meaning of the line.

Now.

In the interest of balance, one can go to TWU's proposed law school site for their version of events leading up to this.
https://www.twu.ca/academics/schools-faculties/proposed-school-law

And for those who might have an interest in the LSO's rules and actions for those who violate them, a starting point.
https://lawsocietytribunal.ca/Pages/Mainpage.aspx#12

As an atheist agnostic ex-Irish Roman Catholic someone who doesn't give a s**t about religion, I can see the point of view of the opposing law societies in view of the "perceived" ideology of TWU.  However, there may be a touch of keeping a closed shop.  The two law societies party to this decision (BC and Ontario) are also the provinces in which TWU have brick and mortar campuses and thus are the most likely employment destinations of any graduates.  Thankfully, Canada has not yet fallen to the level of depravity found in the United States where you can hardly swing a dead cat (or a live plaintiff) without hitting someone who graduated from a law school.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jun 2018)

The legal reasoning is what it is, and just comes across as self-serving (the aim was situated).

The TWU covenant applies to all sexual activity outside marriage, not just homosexual activity - a fact which is often not mentioned, with the covenant (mistakenly, I suppose) often misrepresented only as a prohibition against gay sexual activity.  The hard part for social activists to handle is the attached definition of marriage being one man and one woman.  

Being a law school implies an older student population; nevertheless, I'd be surprised if many of the students were married.  The covenant affects - "harms" - straight students as much as gay ones.

TWU is a Christian university, so by definition there should be an "inequitable barrier to entry" to everyone who isn't on board with whatever Christian values the institution chooses to emphasize.  It isn't as if there are no other law schools.  Based on the hours of discussion on talk radio, what was actually up the activists' nose - what they'd admit to when they lost their cool or forgot themselves - was the idea of lawyers being trained with a Christian bias in the background.  The affront to same-sex marriage was just a pretext to try to shut down a law school at a Christian university.

Lawyers are expected to argue cases irrespective of their feelings or beliefs about a case (most defence lawyers, for example); the underlying supposition that lawyers educated at TWU would never be able to argue fairly and diligently is really just an insult that presupposes they would never be able to be effective lawyers in the first place.

The law societies have disgraced themselves.


----------



## FJAG (18 Jun 2018)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> . . .
> Lawyers are expected to argue cases irrespective of their feelings or beliefs about a case (most defence lawyers, for example); the underlying supposition that lawyers educated at TWU would never be able to argue fairly and diligently is really just an insult that presupposes they would never be able to be effective lawyers in the first place.
> 
> The law societies have disgraced themselves.



This is where you have accidentally found the nub of the matter. 

The law societies in question have a legislated mandate to "advance the cause of justice and the rule of law" which includes the Provinces' human rights legislation. It's the legislature that set the mandate, not the law societies themselves.

More importantly, evangelical Christians seem to have set themselves above the law in respect of various issues, including raising their religious beliefs as an excuse to escape the requirement to treat all people equally (see for example the bakers who refuse to make wedding cakes for same sex couples) They frequently state that their religious beliefs (as interpreted from millennia old scribblings) come from a higher authority and therefore outweigh modern laws that are in conflict with those beliefs.

TWU's mission statement from it's website is:



> "As an arm of the Church, to develop godly Christian leaders:
> positive, goal-oriented university graduates with thoroughly Christian minds;
> growing disciples of Jesus Christ who glorify God through fulfilling the Great Commission,
> serving God and people in the various marketplaces of life."



It's clear that their mission is not to simply turn out legal scholars but ones that are thoroughly inculcated with the desire to advance Christian principles which TWU blatantly states oppose same sex relationships. There is no misrepresentation by TWU's critics here. Yes, TWU comes out against all extramarital sex but goes further and makes specific provision that the only marital relationship they will accept is between a man and a woman. TWU's homophobic position couldn't be more obvious.

The law societies in question have struggled mightily over the last few years on this issue and it would appear, based on the Supreme Court's decision, have come down on the right side of the issue.

 :cheers:


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Jun 2018)

What TWT wanted to do is not required. There are already many lawyers of evangelical faith, and I can think of 3 SCO judges in SouthWest Region as well who were even pastors. It’s not a big deal that requires an entire law school dedicated to one faith or faith based principals. How would people feel about a special law school that requires all students be Muslim and adhere to Sharia while pretending to prepare to practice otherwise. Crazy. Anyways, they are law schools, not lawyer schools and there used to be a difference. 

I do, however, agree with Brad that activism is running rampant in the law societies, especially in Ontario and BC.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jun 2018)

"...evangelical Christians seem to have set themselves above the law in respect of various issues..."

They don't "seem"; they do.  For Christians - as for members of various other religions - some precepts are by definition (their own) above secular law.  Thus:

"They frequently state that their religious beliefs (as interpreted from millennia old scribblings) come from a higher authority and therefore outweigh modern laws that are in conflict with those beliefs."

Exactly.  Christianity clearly recognizes a distinction between heavenly authority and earthly authority (not all religions do), but doesn't concede the right to decide which is which to the earthly authority.

Law is downstream from culture and society.  I suppose much of our statutory law is just codification of customary practices over time.  It isn't magical, and it isn't infallible.  The notion of a religious principle or definition set above a secular one isn't merely possible; it may be morally imperative.  (In this specific case, I disagree that SSM is something over which the heavenly authority has manifest supremacy, but I also disagree that religions should not be at liberty to apply and enforce each religion's definition of marriage.)

>What TWT wanted to do is not required.

"Requirement" should be irrelevant.  TWU is a Christian university that wants to start a law school - the university and its Christian character are already baked in.

An Islamic law school emphasizing sharia practices (consistent with the kinds of applications of religious law currently permitted in Canada) is acceptable to me.  Those who don't want to learn Islamic law in an Islamic context while observing Islamic principles should not attend.  If a student passes the bar and then hangs up a shingle as someone specializing in settling civil disputes with applications of sharia, no-one should go there seeking a personal injury claim against ICBC or a defence lawyer for a serious criminal charge and the lawyer should be free (if not bound) to decline such cases; it is pretty clear to me that lawyers specialize.  With that as a "bright line", I have no objection to "learning law while observing Christian principles".

Frankly, all the people out their there [(gah!)] who are emphatic supporters of diversity should welcome a law school in a Christian-oriented institution and a law school in an Islamic-oriented institution.  (I'm not serious; I realize diversity is about superficial characteristics like skin colour, gender, and parentage, and not about thought.)


----------



## YZT580 (19 Jun 2018)

Well expressed, Brad


----------



## Journeyman (19 Jun 2018)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> ...they are law schools, not lawyer schools and there used to be a difference.


I participated in writing one portion of the annual NATO threat assessment.  One nation's representative had legal training from an old-school Jesuit institution;  he had a brilliant mind for logic and nuance that was positively "Vulcan."  He was one of the few reps that everyone actively listened to (as opposed to some, who were limited to spouting irrelevant national talking points or it was obvious that they were merely 'I'll support your country's party line on this if you support mine in another committee').  But hearing that one guy speak was awesome.


[yep, there's that old 'thoughtful, informed opinion' hobby-horse yet again.   ]


----------



## Pusser (19 Jun 2018)

If TWU is a "Christian" institution, does that mean that their student demographics consist of 13 men for every prostitute?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Jun 2018)

The LGBT Crusaders are as every bit zealots as the most evangelist Christian. Any attempt to "debate" the issues will have you pegged as a hater. Same with abortion, the fact that the majority abortion protesters rarely consider the concept of fetal rights or when life begins, makes it difficult to discuss.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (30 Jun 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I've long been a believer that human rights are layered.



I believe that the government (and government authorized regulators) shouldn't pick winners or losers when rights conflict.  By picking a winner, the government is the suppressor.  By standing aside the government is merely an observer.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (30 Jun 2018)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I believe that the government (and government authorized regulators) shouldn't pick winners or losers when rights conflict.  By picking a winner, the government is the suppressor.  By standing aside the government is merely an observer.



So, white supremacy would be okay?  It shouldn't matter to citizens that a government could round up and put into internment camps other citizens or residents such as Japanese?  The CAF was better off when it hunted down and persecuted homosexuals? Want more examples?

This isn't the "marketplace" where the company that is best able to place its products or otherwise overwhelm its competition is the winner.  I would agree with one phrase of your statement but probably not how you intended the meaning, "the government shouldn't pick winners or losers when rights conflict".  There shouldn't be "winners and losers" in regards to human rights, it's not a zero-sum game.  No one loses their rights if everyone else has theirs.  In this particular case it may be a bit hard to understand how the decisions of these two law societies are protecting the rights of all, but fortunately there are some who do.


----------



## Rick Goebel (30 Jun 2018)

(It shouldn't matter to citizens that a government could round up and put into internment camps other citizens or residents such as Japanese?  The CAF was better off when it hunted down and persecuted homosexuals?)

Blackadder1916, there is an enormous difference between what Rocky Mountains said and what you said (above).  A nongovernmental body saying you must agree to a certain code of behaviour to belong to our group is much different from employing the coercive power of the government to enforce racist policies.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (1 Jul 2018)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> So, white supremacy would be okay?



Sure.  Along with every other supremacy.  Like it is right now.  Ideas can be tolerated.  Calls to action cannot.  Nice straw Nazi - inserting white supremacy for Christian schoolkids who are likely among the most tolerant people on earth.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2018)

Just a point of clarification - evangelist.

I know that people round here are concerned, often to the point of adamancy, about the definition of words.  Personally this is one that is a pet peeve of mine.

I continue in my status as a lapsed presbyterian, raised by strict(ish) Presbyterians, but now married to a Roman Catholic. 

When I was going to church on a regular basis, and attending Sunday School, I was raised to be aware of the distinctions among all the many branches of Christianity.  

One distinction was evangelism.

Evangelism is actually an ancient word.  It has a Greek origin and was commonly used by the hellenic Christians as a noun, as in John the Evangel, or the Evangelist.  It meant the bearer of the Good News, specifically, in their terms, about Christ.

In the mid nineteenth century, during one of the periodic Awakenings that characterized the development of the protestant churches, it became popular as both a term and practice among certain churches.  Arguably it started with Congregationalists, whose political organization within their congregations permits local flexibility in belief,  and spread from there through other Churches like the Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians.  Eventually there were even evangelical Anglicans, Lutherans and Catholics (occasionally called Charismatics).

The defining difference of the evangelical of any church was the belief in the need to proselytize, to go out and spread the good news, to convert, to redeem, to save.

This driving force was the driving force that encouraged other Churches to encourage their own evangelists.  They needed to compete to keep bums in the seats.  Church roofs need to be repaired from time to time.

Now, my Grandfather, strict Scots Presbyterian, Elder of the Kirk and Member of the Kirk Session .... and Mason ..... was wont to offer "Beware of the man with the Bible bigger than his pocket".  Evangelists didn't just wear their religion on their sleeves they carried their Bibles in public and referenced them at the drop of a hat.

Grampa, was of the firm conviction that religion was a personal thing.  He kept his Bible at home.  He never discussed his religion outside the home.  He never tried to convert anyone to his beliefs.

On the other hand he lived his beliefs and his personal understanding of his religion, as he interpreted it from his own reading of the Bible, formed those beliefs.

He was only too well aware, having grown up in the west of Scotland, of the real consequences of religious strife.  The Killing Times, when the government forces rode down and killed dissenters from the established church (the Episcopal Church of Scotland) and the Highland Host, the billeting of Catholic Highlanders on Presbyterian Lowlanders (equivalent in time and function to Louis XIV's anti-Huguenot Dragonnades) were not just folk memories.  They were as real as yesterday.  Those memories bought a toleration of the other of a different type.  Toleration based on keeping religion out of the public square - and the Evangelicals threatened to upset that working principle.

As an aside - that working principle was at the core of the Masonic belief: that any man of any religion could be a Mason.  The fact that some Churches forbade their members from joining the Masons was immaterial to whether or not the Masons were an open society.  The only thing my Grandfather's Masons could not accept was an Atheist, unlike the European Masons.  His Masons would only accept someone who subordinated themselves to some understanding of a Higher Power.

What am I trying to say?

Not all Protestants are Evangelicals.  Not all Evangelicals are Protestants.  In fact not all evangelicals are even Christian or particularly god-fearing.

Most of the most fervent evangelicals, proselytizers, that I encounter these days are not Protestants, largely a dying array of sects, but are in fact socialists, atheists, environmentalists and Muslims.  They seem to be the people most interested in spreading the good news, converting me, redeeming me, saving me, invading the public square with their beliefs.



By the way Grampa was also the product of the Ayrshire coal mines.  His family were actively engaged with Keir Hardie in forming the Labour Party and he was a lifelong supporter of the South Ayrshire Labour Party.  And he treated his political membership exactly the same way he treated his church and masonic associations.  Circumspectly and privately.


----------



## FJAG (1 Jul 2018)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Just a point of clarification - evangelist.
> 
> I know that people round here are concerned, often to the point of adamancy, about the definition of words.  Personally this is one that is a pet peeve of mine.
> 
> ...



Good post Chris and I mostly agree with it. I think that I would have liked your Grampa had we met. 

I do take a small turn away from the contention that "the most fervent evangelicals, proselytizers, that I encounter these days are not Protestants,. . . but are in fact . . . atheists, . . .". 

I don't disagree that there are in fact some atheists that are fervent in their beliefs and push them relentlessly. The vast majority, like me, however, believe in live and let live. What we react strongly to isn't so much that some people want to believe in a spiritual superior being but the fact that they insist that the moral strictures that they have had handed down to them through whatever gospel that they follow must be adopted by everyone in their society. The issues of abortion and discrimination (if not violence) against homosexuals comes immediately to mind.

For me if a fervent Christian or Muslim does not believe in abortions then don't have them. But why deny others? Similarly, society is full of minorities. Every individual, whether they be of a different race, nationality, sex or sexual orientation, is a human being and deserves to be treated with the same respect and dignity. To single one or another class out for hate or discrimination or oppression  is simply wrong. The fact that such discrimination or oppression is permitted by some archaic sheepherder's interpretation of what some deity told him in a dream several millennia ago doesn't make it right.

Please don't mix up the very real impact that the religious evangelical movements have through their control of legislators to directly and indirectly push their beliefs on others with that of the sharp tongued atheists who challenge their beliefs. Personally I believe that the country's constitution should require that the state be secular but allow every individual to practice whatever religious beliefs they want so long as it harms no other individual.

 :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jul 2018)

FJAG....

You are entitled to your beliefs.  But others believe differently..... and thus: Democracy and parliaments.      :cheers:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (1 Jul 2018)

Just a small point of order, if I may Mr. president.

By definition, it is not possible for an atheist to proselytize or be fervent "in his/her belief", since by definition, an atheist does NOT believe. 

Just point of order, that's all.  ;D

Though, I have described myself as a Radical Atheist, like Douglas Adams before me. Just so there are no doubts.  :nod:


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Jul 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just a small point of order, if I may Mr. president.
> 
> By definition, it is not possible for an atheist to proselytize or be fervent "in his/her belief", since by definition, an atheist does NOT believe.
> 
> ...



I would agree, but then there are those that I would call anti-theists. They don't believe, and they want you to not believe. A true atheist doesn't care if you believe or not.


----------



## FJAG (1 Jul 2018)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> FJAG....
> 
> You are entitled to your beliefs.  But others believe differently..... and thus: Democracy and parliaments.      :cheers:



And thus: Tyranny of the Majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Here's where I actually agree with Ayn Rand who "wrote that individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities and "the smallest minority on earth is the individual"

Democracy fails miserably when the mass of the electorate is driven by emotion rather than common sense. Of course, others may believe differently . . . 

 :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jul 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> And thus: Tyranny of the Majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
> 
> Here's where I actually agree with Ayn Rand who "wrote that individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities and "the smallest minority on earth is the individual"
> 
> ...



Which results in the least amount of blood in the streets?  Tyranny of the Majority?  Or Tyranny of a Minority?  I don't know the answer but I would suggest that one has a better track record than the other.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jul 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just a small point of order, if I may Mr. president.
> 
> By definition, it is not possible for an atheist to proselytize or be fervent "in his/her belief", since by definition, an atheist does NOT believe.
> 
> ...



Respectfully - an a-theist is the opposite to a theist.  A theist is one that believes in a god, any god.  An a-theist is one that believes in the absence of god, any god.

An a-gnostic "believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

The commonality is "belief".  

Nobody knows anything for sure.  Unless they are sure in their belief.

Or as some character currently living the High-Life in Washington put it on his Facebook page :  "Credo ergo est"

I believe therefore it is.

Atheists, and agnostics, can proselytize.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jul 2018)

>For me if a fervent Christian or Muslim does not believe in abortions then don't have them. But why deny others?

The answer to the question lies in switching from your perspective to theirs: "For me if a fervent Christian or Muslim does not believe in murder then don't [commit] them. But why deny others?"


----------



## FJAG (2 Jul 2018)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >For me if a fervent Christian or Muslim does not believe in abortions then don't have them. But why deny others?
> 
> The answer to the question lies in switching from your perspective to theirs: "For me if a fervent Christian or Muslim does not believe in murder then don't [commit] them. But why deny others?"



That's a value-loaded judgment from the "pro-life" side as to whether or not an abortion is equivalent to murder. 

Currently in Canada 4 out of 5 people support abortions. https://globalnews.ca/news/3290006/support-for-abortion-rights-strong-in-canada-but-poll-shows-we-are-middle-of-the-pack-globally/

Similarly, 4 out of 5 people in the US support abortions in any circumstance or in some circumstances. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx. Only some 20% say it should be illegal in all circumstances yet that 20% is driving the agenda in many States' legislatures.

I think it's virtually unanimous that everyone considers murder illegal. Not so abortions. IMHO before a legislature creates laws making a certain act illegal, (or a legal act inaccessible) there should be a fairly general and widely accepted consensus that the act has such a high element of moral blameworthiness attached to it that it deserves penal sanctioning or eradication by the state. That consensus does not exist in either Canada or the US.

The fact that I can see their side of the argument does not mean that they should have their way in it.

 [cheers]


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jul 2018)

I think Brad was referencing the "general" and not the "particular".


----------



## YZT580 (2 Jul 2018)

Society has decided that murder is wrong; murder being the taking of a life for reasons other than self-defence, protection of family and of country.  By the dictionary it is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.  Even when a killing could be considered justified a person can still be committing murder if the killing is morally reprehensible and brutal.  With the exception of the 'morning after pill' abortion is  a brutal way to end a life.  If the methods used in abortion were used to administer the death penalty the outcry would be overwhelming.  Just because 80 or even 99% of the population have no problem with the thought of abortion does not change what abortion is i.e. the ending of another life.  We, society, have allowed women to chose to commit murder by accepting the notion that the child isn't a 'life' until the birth actually occurs.  But for the accident of a few months we are in actuality legalising infanticide.  Meanwhile the same folks that are agitating for unlimited abortion are lobbying against the fur trade, blocking the seal hunt, boycotting dog and horse races and preventing laboratories from using rats to help in the development of medicines.  Can you say HYPOCRITE.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Jul 2018)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Society has decided that murder is wrong; murder being the taking of a life for reasons other than self-defence, protection of family and of country.  By the dictionary it is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.  Even when a killing could be considered justified a person can still be committing murder if the killing is morally reprehensible and brutal.  With the exception of the 'morning after pill' abortion is  a brutal way to end a life.  If the methods used in abortion were used to administer the death penalty the outcry would be overwhelming.  Just because 80 or even 99% of the population have no problem with the thought of abortion does not change what abortion is i.e. the ending of another life.  We, society, have allowed women to chose to commit murder by accepting the notion that the child isn't a 'life' until the birth actually occurs.  But for the accident of a few months we are in actuality legalising infanticide.  Meanwhile the same folks that are agitating for unlimited abortion are lobbying against the fur trade, blocking the seal hunt, boycotting dog and horse races and preventing laboratories from using rats to help in the development of medicines.  Can you say HYPOCRITE.



You're mistaking murder (culpable homicide) with non-culpable homicide.  Canadian law makes legal termination of pregnancy up to the point of birth.  Committing a legal act, by definition, precludes in Canada an abortion from being murder.

G2G


----------



## dapaterson (2 Jul 2018)

So, as an opponent of abortion (though I note you don't differentiate between surgical and medical abortions), I assume you're also a strong proponent of sex ed and contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Jul 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just a small point of order, if I may Mr. president.
> 
> By definition, it is not possible for an atheist to proselytize or be fervent "in his/her belief", since by definition, an atheist does NOT believe.
> 
> ...



Atheism is a belief and it's followers worship at the alter of disbelief. Amusing to think a grain of sand understands the universe to rule out such things. Atheism requires far to much belief in the righteous of their convictions for me. To give them their due, they are generally less fervent than Vegans...  8)


----------



## YZT580 (2 Jul 2018)

Actually, I believe that Canadian law says nothing about abortion.  When they made the Morgantalier (forgive my spelling) ruling they punted it back to parliament with the notion that the existing law was no good so come up with a better one.  Since then, parliament has ignored the issue.  We have no law and therefore no guidance whatsoever and we have yet to come up with a definition of when life begins. If I chose to murder a pregnant woman I will face one charge only of first or second degree murder whilst the infant is ignored even if he/she too is killed as a result.


----------



## FJAG (2 Jul 2018)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Actually, I believe that Canadian law says nothing about abortion.  When they made the Morgantalier (forgive my spelling) ruling they punted it back to parliament with the notion that the existing law was no good so come up with a better one.  Since then, parliament has ignored the issue.  We have no law and therefore no guidance whatsoever and we have yet to come up with a definition of when life begins. If I chose to murder a pregnant woman I will face one charge only of first or second degree murder whilst the infant is ignored even if he/she too is killed as a result.



You're wrong on a number of counts.

For a fuller overview of the topic see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

In short, parliament did try to implement abortion based criminal code provisions but failed. Once that became clear the government assured through the Canada Health Act that all provincial health care support for publicly funded abortions were equally accessible. Finally, there is no shortage of guidance within the medical community and the legal one as to what is or isn't legal and in particular the acceptance by the SCC of the common law  "born alive rule" and the holding that a fetus had no legal status as a person.

While there are always niche arguments and issues that need to be addressed from time-to-time there are no overarching uncertainties except in the minds of the small minority of people who do not want the law to be what as it is.

 [cheers]


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Jul 2018)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Actually, I believe that Canadian law says nothing about abortion.  When they made the Morgantalier (forgive my spelling) ruling they punted it back to parliament with the notion that the existing law was no good so come up with a better one.  Since then, parliament has ignored the issue.  We have no law and therefore no guidance whatsoever and we have yet to come up with a definition of when life begins. If I chose to murder a pregnant woman I will face one charge only of first or second degree murder whilst the infant is ignored even if he/she too is killed as a result.



Abortion is covered by Canadian law, but in administration - the Canadian Health Act, RSC 1985 C-6. That is precisely the point about abortion in Canada.  It is not specified by the Criminal Code of Canada as a culpable-homicide, so it is not murder...nor is it illegal.  

G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Jul 2018)

The law on the beginning of life is legally "neat", but that is about it. It's based on from what I can tell rulings going back 300 years. I read a paper a few years on how the proliferation of ultra scans are are redefining fetus development, there is significant scientific basis to base the beginning of life at some point during the fetus development. However there appears to be no political or legal will to go there. It would open up a large box of worms, since you have two sets of competing rights within the same body and it would also mean that the biological father is on the hook for childcare and support during pregnancy. I suspect that the majority of Canadians given all the facts would settle on abortions being allowed in the early stages, but none at the later stages, except in dire circumstances. A law like that would not make the extremists on either side of the debate happy, but would suit the majority.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jul 2018)

>That's a value-loaded judgment from the "pro-life" side as to whether or not an abortion is equivalent to murder.

It's not "value loading", it's calling it how they see it.  "Murder" has a moral meaning as well as a legal one; I refer to the former.  If abortion isn't murder, there isn't really a reason to object to it; people object on the grounds that it is a taking of human (a person's) life.  As for law, everything defined in law is arbitrary - it may be grounded on some sort of moral or other principle, but ultimately we can define anything we want, any way we want, in law.  What the criminal code has to say is beside the point when discussing the issue in basic moral terms.


----------



## FJAG (2 Jul 2018)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >That's a value-loaded judgment from the "pro-life" side as to whether or not an abortion is equivalent to murder.
> 
> It's not "value loading", it's calling it how they see it.  "Murder" has a moral meaning as well as a legal one; I refer to the former.  If abortion isn't murder, there isn't really a reason to object to it; people object on the grounds that it is a taking of human (a person's) life.  As for law, everything defined in law is arbitrary - it may be grounded on some sort of moral or other principle, but ultimately we can define anything we want, any way we want, in law.  What the criminal code has to say is beside the point when discussing the issue in basic moral terms.



"Some" people object to it; the majority don't.

The crime v morality issue is really the point. Crimes need to be defined and uniformly applied within a society. Within a multicultural society morality varies from group to group and even individual to individual. Oppression occurs when one group insists that it's moral construct must apply to everyone. Our current laws regarding abortion mean that they need only apply to those who want to make use of them. Others are free to choose not to make use of the procedure.

Murder is a legally and socially defined concept as Good2Golf states. While morality may play a part, it's the "unlawful" part that's the key to the term. Societies permit many forms of lawful taking of another life (in war - whether as a direct target or collateral damage, in self defence, in capital punishment, and more). None of those are murder. 

By stating that abortion is murder, one is not simply stating their own moral opinion but making a statement that the act is illegal when in fact it is not. It's not only a misstatement but a misuse of language for the express purpose of inciting passion in the listener who is either like-minded or uninformed. That makes it "value-loaded".

 [cheers]


----------



## YZT580 (2 Jul 2018)

Thanks for the correction on the legal information.  But abortion is still the taking of a life and in a very brutal fashion.  WE, society, has set a very low value on human life.  The right to party without fear of repercussions 9 months later is a greater right than that of the child to actually enter into life.  Sad. Doesn't say much for our society and its values does it?


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jul 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> "Some" people object to it; _*the majority don't.
> *_
> ....



Rather a tyrannical judgement, no?

By the way, has that judgement been tested in parliament recently?


----------



## FJAG (3 Jul 2018)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the correction on the legal information.  But abortion is still the taking of a life and in a very brutal fashion.  WE, society, has set a very low value on human life.  The right to party without fear of repercussions 9 months later is a greater right than that of the child to actually enter into life.  Sad. Doesn't say much for our society and its values does it?



I'm not sure why I'm participating so much in this particular discussion. I do know that I don't have any objections to, or any ill will towards, individuals who subscribe to the pro-life view on this matter per se. I do, however, object to points of view that criticize, demean, attack or oppress others who are on the pro choice side.

For example, I believe that we, as a society, do have a very high value on human life. For example as a society we do not accept capital punishment. The issue on abortion is that we don't all agree as to when a potential human life becomes an actual one. I'm neither a biologist nor a theologian (and I presume very few of us on this board are) so won't get into a debate about how many angels are dancing on the head of this particular pin, but I can accept the rationale that the spark that changes potential human to actual human can occur very late in the process even if there are prior signs of biological activity such as a heartbeat and sensation.

The statement "right to party without fear of repercussions 9 months later" is IMHO condescending to women. I know that there are also some potential financial repercussions to the putative father, however, let's face it, it's the woman (and all too frequently a poor and uneducated one) who is the host for this potential life and will need to carry it for nine months and then care for it for decades later or leave it in the care of the state or others. I'm not a woman (and have never been one) but I can imagine that the carrying of a fetus to term and the raising of a child is more than a mere inconvenience. I very much support a woman's right to choose. I can only imagine that it is a difficult enough decision that she has to make without also being demeaned or bullied or cowed. Unfortunately in many jurisdictions down south it goes far beyond that and such women and girls are treated contemptibly if not down-right denied access to the procedure. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state#State_regulatory_initiatives_regarding_abortion

The fact of the matter is that there would be considerably fewer unwanted pregnancies (especially amongst poor women) if government provided cheap and easy access to contraceptives and family planning. Paradoxically current governments south of the border are cutting funding to such things and, IMHO even worse, such decisions by the conservative majority of the USSC in Burwell v Hobby Lobby allowed privately held corporations to exert their owners' religious beliefs to deny their employees the ability to access contraceptives through the Affordable Care Act. This shortsightedness on the part of many pro-lifers effectively drives the need for more abortions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.

I think that I'll jump out of this discussion now. It's becoming pretty much a zero-sum game.

 [cheers]


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Jul 2018)

This has been an instructive and very interesting thread turn.  I want to congratulate all participants for, thus far, keeping it civil and constructive!


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jul 2018)

I'll echo everything FJAG has said, as it's pretty much where I sit.  I've tried to educate myself on this a bit, if only to understand the policy debate.

1.  The real problem is that "pro-choice" is a bad term - it paints anyone who has some concern for the fetus as some sort of neanderthal trying to lock woman up in the kitchen.  When someone says they are "pro-choice," they are generally just saying that they don't want to hear anything that challenges their extreme position (extreme in that only the right to access should be considered).  "Pro-life" is also a bad term - it paints anyone who supports some form of reproductive control for a woman as an immoral murderer.  When someone claims they are "pro-life," they are generally just saying that they don't want to hear anything outside of their extreme position (extreme in that there should be no access to abortion at all).  Folks under either of these labels are probably the 10-15% on either end of the spectrum that hijack the discussion.

2.  The real answer is, as usual, in the gray zone.  At some point, a fetus is viable and developed enough that most reasonable people would judge that it should be provided some (maybe not total) legal protection.  Before this point, the mother should be provided with a host of legal rights as to her own body.  As FJAG said, I'm not a biologist or a theologian, but I do feel this gray zone is where the 80% solution is at.

3.  But maybe Canada already has the 80% solution?  Its just not the law that does it, but rather the guidelines of the medical profession.  While Canada has eschewed a legal approach to regulating abortion, it has built a professional regime to govern the practice.  Medical professionals will only perform late-term (20+ weeks) abortions in certain (often dire) circumstances.  Statistically, they are 1-2% of the procedures conducted, and are only done when a mother's life is in danger, or the fetus is damaged.  Yet these procedures are often the boogeyman in the room used by opponents of abortion to trigger emotional responses in people.

4.  Thus the real area of discussion is the 12-20 week period.  Again, as FJAG said, I'm not a theologian or a biologist, so my opinion isn't worth much.  But here is the middle ground where any realistic discussion should focus on, but the extremes on either side won't let that happen.  If I talk about the fetus at 17 weeks, I'm immediately "against a woman's rights;" if I talk about an abortion at 17 weeks, I'm immediately a "murderer."  This is the reason, I'm sure, that 80% of Canadians are happy to leave the issue to the woman and her doctor. 

5.  Finally, one thing that angers me is the characterization that "pro-life" folks often make by painting woman as flippantly going about terminating a pregnancy.   I know women first-hand who've went through the procedure, and none of them were happy with going through with it.  It's a psychological burden for them but for whatever personal reason, they saw it as necessary for their physical and/or psychological well-being.  They in no way should have to suffer abuse from some a**hole outside of a clinic hanging around with a sign and screaming at them.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jul 2018)

I appreciate the discussion about the abortion issue but this item started with a discussion about the Supreme Court, Trinity Western and the role of religion in the public square.

Might it be appropriate to hive off the abortion debate to a separate thread?

Or is abortion the only reason that there is concern about having TWU's Christian lawyers arguing cases before the Supreme Court?  That might suggest to me that TWU is providing them such an exemplary legal training that they can skew the results in their favour when arguing before the SCC regardless of the case they are arguing.

My own opinions on abortion are my own opinions and largely, as far as I am concerned, not germane to the discussion on how a democratic society manages all opinions, including those informed by religious belief no matter how arrived at, and converts those opinions into a manageable body of law that generates enough support so as to minimize the blood in the streets.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Jul 2018)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> …. the discussion on how a democratic society manages all opinions...


I'll continue with a _slight_  tangent by recommending Tom Nichols, _The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters_.  While the conflict between 'science' and 'religion' (as noted in this thread) is not remotely new, this book looks at a growing divide against thinking and expertise, writ large.



> A rejection of actual informed expertise occurred due to: the openness of the internet, the emergence of a customer satisfaction model in higher education, and the transformation of the news industry into a 24-hour entertainment machine, among other reasons.
> 
> Paradoxically, the increasingly democratic dissemination of information, rather than producing an educated public, has instead created an army of ill-informed and angry citizens who denounce intellectual achievement.
> 
> Today, everyone knows everything: with only a quick trip through WebMD or Wikipedia, average citizens believe themselves to be on an equal intellectual footing with doctors and diplomats. All voices, even the most ridiculous, demand to be taken with equal seriousness, and any claim to the contrary is dismissed as undemocratic elitism.


The updated version, which I haven't read, covers "the alarming exacerbation of these trends in the aftermath of Donald Trump's election."  anic:

It likely appeals even _more_  to my cognitive biases then.  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Jul 2018)

FJAG speaks about women's right south of the border, interestingly enough the further south you go, the less rights the woman gets in regards to abortion and contraceptives. I find it amusing that many peoples criticism stop just North of the Mexican border. The US is a complex place when discussing legal and moral issues, with at least 52 different legal views on the matters. It's a bad habit we all have to consider it as a singular entity.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jul 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'll continue with a _slight_  tangent by recommending Tom Nichols, _The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters_.  While the conflict between 'science' and 'religion' (as noted in this thread) is not remotely new, this book looks at a growing divide against thinking and expertise, writ large.
> The updated version, which I haven't read, covers "the alarming exacerbation of these trends in the aftermath of Donald Trump's election."  anic:
> 
> It likely appeals even _more_  to my cognitive biases then.  ;D



The problem, as I see it, is that regardless of the basis on which opinions are based, scientific, political or religious belief, any individual has the ability to be disruptive of the social fabric.  That includes people with whom we disagree.

Our system of governance, as explicitly defined during the liberal era of 1867, did not aspire to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, or even Truth and Justice. It offered only Peace, Order and Good Governance - a system based on pragmatism, compromise and accommodation.  In my view the key word here is "Order".   Not used in the sense of "Ordnung muss Sein" but rather in the sense of the Speaker call the House to Order.  Order is not imposed externally.  Order is requested from people exercising self-restraint and self-discipline.

To be blunt the issue is not who owns the Truth.  Who is Right.  We had been down that path long  before the British experiment.  And it continued in conflict with the British experiment right through to the present day.  In the past the argument was given that any fool with a pound in his pocket could publish the most outrageous statements on those new-fangled presses of Gutenberg that Caxton imported into Britain.  Next thing you knew academicians were taking it upon themselves to communicate amongst themselves, meet without official sanction at the local taverns and form invisible colleges.   They were publishing opinions that any sane establishmentarian could understand the need for prohibiting.   Neither the problem nor the responses are new or unique to our era.

Again, the issue is not one of being right.  It is simply one of managing society so that people can live peaceably and provide for themselves and their families.  And, my belief is, that the majority of people are highly tolerant of compromise so long as they do not find a fist in contact with their nose.

One opinion is worth exactly one vote.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Jul 2018)

Leaving the specific aside to focus on the general: understanding others' point of view is key to understanding (properly, rather than creating and substituting strawmen to knock down) why they hold it, and the intensity with which they hold it.  The intensity in particular explains why people violate the my-punch-ends-at-your-nose limit.

People who strongly believe that something is deeply wrong should be expected to continue the fight until they win.  This expectation may be applied to any social issue important enough to any faction.

I hypothesize that the best outcome on any such issue - given infinite determination of the parties at odds - is a compromise, with an interminable low level of dissatisfaction on all sides.  The more one party "wins" and pushes the other to the wall, the more incivility and violence will result.  If a faction in ascendancy yields nothing, eventually the blow-back will be worse than any of the concessions/accommodations it might have made.


----------



## FJAG (3 Jul 2018)

Getting back to the Trinity Western situation, and stretching the issue from pure religious issues to conservatism, here's an interesting article about the impact that the conservative oriented Federalist Society has had, and is having, on the USSC candidate selection process.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/leonard-leo-supreme-court-federalist-society_us_5b354230e4b0f3c2219f4082

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society

In brief, the Federalist Society is a national organization of some 60-70,000 US conservative and libertarian law students and lawyers (out of a total population of some 1.4 million lawyers in the US - and yes, I too think that's way too many)

Their executive vice president Leonard Leo has been instrumental in providing advice to several Republican presidents (including Trump) in selecting supreme court and federal appeal court justices. Five recent USSC justices (including Scalia) have been members of the Federalist Society and 24 of the 25 names on Trumps current list of nominees are members or have been involved in the Society's activities.



> So far, Trump has confirmed one Supreme Court justice, 20 district court judges and a whopping 21 circuit court judges ― more than any president has confirmed by this point in office and nearly one-eighth of all circuit court seats.
> 
> “Selecting nominees from The Federalist Society ensures that the right will cement the hold they have on the judiciary for the next several decades,” said Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice, a left-leaning judicial advocacy group.
> 
> “What they have in common is an exceptional hostility to the progress that’s been made in this country since the New Deal, whether that’s to workers, civil rights litigants, women, consumers or people who care about the environment,” Aron said. “Nominees being confirmed by the Republican Senate today would have been deemed unqualified even under President George W. Bush because of their extremism.”



Amazing what a small determined group can do if you let it.

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jul 2018)

Things are run by those who show up. The Left biggest issue is that much of it's support is a mile wide and a inch deep. Many of them won't be bothered to vote.


----------



## FJAG (4 Jul 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Things are run by those who show up. The Left biggest issue is that much of it's support is a mile wide and a inch deep. Many of them won't be bothered to vote.



Too true.

 :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jul 2018)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Leaving the specific aside to focus on the general: understanding others' point of view is key to understanding (properly, rather than creating and substituting strawmen to knock down) why they hold it, and the intensity with which they hold it.  The intensity in particular explains why people violate the my-punch-ends-at-your-nose limit.
> 
> People who strongly believe that something is deeply wrong should be expected to continue the fight until they win.  This expectation may be applied to any social issue important enough to any faction.
> 
> I hypothesize that the best outcome on any such issue - given infinite determination of the parties at odds - is a compromise, with an interminable low level of dissatisfaction on all sides.  The more one party "wins" and pushes the other to the wall, the more incivility and violence will result.  If a faction in ascendancy yields nothing, eventually the blow-back will be worse than any of the concessions/accommodations it might have made.



Just trying to choose between analogies - managing a low-grade fever - OR - operating as a high-functioning alcoholic.    ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jul 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Things are run by those who show up. The Left biggest issue is that much of it's support is a mile wide and a inch deep. Many of them won't be bothered to vote.



Hate to quote self, but another concern the left (particularly the NDP) is the slow loss of Union support, both from shrinking unions and conflict between environmentalists and union workers. The union worker is generally far more likely to vote, donate and volunteer to help their local candidate, than your average environmentalist ranter. I admit this is a generalist statement, but it holds some truth. Someone that donates, votes and volunteer is almost worth the equivalent of 3 vote, as they can make it possible to motivate and help others to vote, just a simple thing like identifying elderly supporters and helping them get to the correct polling station can have a major impact.


----------



## mariomike (5 Jul 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The union worker is generally far more likely to vote, donate and volunteer to help their local candidate, than your average environmentalist ranter.



I've been retired from the union for over nine years. The union had only one mission: to improve the lives and livelihoods of its members.

Because of that, political candidates were viewed through a very narrow focus.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jul 2018)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> .....
> What am I trying to say?
> 
> Not all Protestants are Evangelicals.  Not all Evangelicals are Protestants.  In fact not all evangelicals are even Christian or particularly god-fearing.
> ...




Apparently I am not the only one to perceive things this way:



> Douglas Murray, .... (his) take on how contemporary secularists can be just as dogmatic (and problematic) as the conventionally faithful:
> 
> Murray: We may be in the midst of discovering that the only thing worse than religion is its absence. I mean, every day there’s a new dogma. They’re stampeding to create new religions all the time at the moment, [with] every new heresy that’s invented. And they’re not as well thought-through as past heresies. They don’t always have the bloody repercussions yet, but you can easily foresee a situation in which they do. A new religion is being created as we speak by a new generation of people who think they are non-ideological, who think they’re very rational, who think they’re past myth, who think they’re past story, who think they’re better than their ancestors and who have never bothered to even study their ancestors.



This from a review in the Spectator on a discussion among Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris and Douglas Murray at the O2 Arena in London (UK) before 8000 paying customers who attended for the pleasure of hearing them debate.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/07/primates-like-us-having-conversations-this-is-the-best-game-in-town-jordan-peterson-sam-harris-and-douglas-murray-at-the-02-reviewed/


And T6 - I lied -    I can't seem to cure the addiction.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jul 2018)

Noting that modern Progressivism is indeed a new "religion" isn't really a new observation (and indeed it is not even limited to "modern" Progressivism, the Communists were pretty efficient at dealing with "heretics", and you can arguably look at the Terror during the French Revolution as the first truly modern instance of secularism as a religion).

This is likely the reason that political discourse is poisoned, you are not arguing rational points and facts, but going up against theological positions. This isn't going to be an easy thing to fix, one argument about the breaking of the religious mindset and setting the stage for the Enlightenment was the great Lisbon earthquake of 1755, which was so profoundly shattering to the prevailing world view that other ideas gained traction. One can only imagine what sort of event of this magnitude would be in the modern age......


----------



## pbi (20 Jul 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Amazing what a small determined group can do if you let it.
> 
> :cheers:



I've never been comfortable with the idea of the politicization of the judiciary, (Left or Right), which is what we seem to get from having political parties and their funders get involved in the process. To me it seems to go totally against the idea of a truly independent judiciary, since their appointments are so clearly done to further the agenda of the party with the power to appoint.

I have a hard time seeing what it is in politicians that makes them capable of divining if a judge is any good or not, as opposed to just being "reliable and useful"

I can't say that electing them is any better: IMHO that's just another form of politicization. I once heard a judge in the US comment that to pass a particular judgement would be "_suicide for my political career_". What is the functional difference between that and judges being swayed by popular opinion, rather than by the rule and spirit of the law?

Do I know how to replace political appointment of judges? No, not just at the moment, I don't. But it seems to me that there must be a better, less partisan way to do it.


----------



## FJAG (20 Jul 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> I've never been comfortable with the idea of the politicization of the judiciary, (Left or Right), which is what we seem to get from having political parties and their funders get involved in the process. To me it seems to go totally against the idea of a truly independent judiciary, since their appointments are so clearly done to further the agenda of the party with the power to appoint.
> 
> I have a hard time seeing what it is in politicians that makes them capable of divining if a judge is any good or not, as opposed to just being "reliable and useful"
> 
> ...



I agree that electing judges is just another way of having mob rule.

Our processes are better in that judges, once appointed, have tenure of office for life and are no longer beholding to anyone for their job (barring misconduct complaints and hearings)

There is no question that the various existing processes bend appointment in favour of an individual whose broad political leanings are in line with that of the appointing party. Initial vetting and shortlisting is much more nonpartisan, however, and therefore candidates brought before the politicians for selection are at least qualified and considered capable of doing the job.

We do have one major advantage. Our constitution and human rights legislation are more expansive and malleable which allows legal principles to grow and expand to match society's growth both in the way that legislatures deal with it as well as the judges. What's more, if legislatures are adamant that judges are being too proactive, they can also use the "Notwithstanding" clause. In the US the trait of the "originalism" hamstrings the Constitution to interpretations that do not take changes in society into account.

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Jul 2018)

I can bet all those people who are pro-abortion and think things should be science based, might get a little uncomfortable with apply science to the determination of the beginning of life. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180712141653.htm?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jul 2018)

The purpose of a constitution is to fence in government, preferably with no recourse but amendment.  I prefer things to be stated in terms like "Congress shall make no law...", with no weasel clauses ("notwithstanding", "reasonable limits").


----------



## pbi (21 Jul 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I can bet all those people who are pro-abortion and think things should be science based, might get a little uncomfortable with apply science to the determination of the beginning of life. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180712141653.htm?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook



But what if you're pro-science but anti-abortion? You know, one of those inconvenient people who don't fit stereotypes? 

If you're referring to this paragraph:



> T_he beginning of life
> 
> Furthermore, the knowledge from this paper might impact legislation. In some countries, the law states that human life begins -- and is thus protected -- when the maternal and paternal nuclei fuse after fertilisation. If it turns out that the dual spindle process works the same in humans, this definition is not fully accurate, as the union in one nucleus happens slightly later, after the first cell division._





what that seems to say (as far as I can tell), is that full conception occurs _later_ than what some pro-life laws assume.


----------



## YZT580 (21 Jul 2018)

Fertilisation, including that first cell division, occurs within a day and a half of impregnation.  So the only questionable 'abortion' effected would be the morning after pill.  (http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/dbefruchtung/zygote03.html  The mitotic spindle divides the chromosomes that have just been brought together into the two first cells of the embryo. This proceeding towards the two-cell stage occurs on average between 22 and 26 hours after fertilization.)


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jul 2018)

I'd characterize the problem as one of deciding when person-hood is granted, not when life begins.


----------



## pbi (21 Jul 2018)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I'd characterize the problem as one of deciding when person-hood is granted, not when life begins.


That is a good and important question. I used to be 100% pro-abortion, no questions. Now, I'm not so sure any more. To me, I guess the issue is for the mother (or mother and father) to ask themselves if they can live with the knowledge of ending a life.I don't agree with forcing women to have children against their will, but I don't believe that abortion should be the go-to for contraception. Rape, incest, or medical issues: I get that. But is abortion really needed as a form of contraception anymore, with all the options out there?


----------



## Altair (21 Jul 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> That is a good and important question. I used to be 100% pro-abortion, no questions. Now, I'm not so sure any more. To me, I guess the issue is for the mother (or mother and father) to ask themselves if they can live with the knowledge of ending a life.I don't agree with forcing women to have children against their will, but I don't believe that abortion should be the go-to for contraception. Rape, incest, or medical issues: I get that. But is abortion really needed as a form of contraception anymore, with all the options out there?


medical issues is what gets me. 

After a perfectly healthy pregnancy my wife developed preeclampsia and other complications during labour,  and suffered a lot of blood loss and was hospitalized for a week. 

The act of giving birth can always go sideways,  and there are always going to be risks involved 

I am leery of forcing a woman to go through the stresses of childbirth and labour against their will


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jul 2018)

Fjag

You may have a less contentious response if you stopped equating the demos and the mob.

Personally my solution to the appointment of judges is to have them created by various mobs of various cultures.  I am not opposed to an Islamic JP steeped in Sharia law if he or she recognizes that the law being adjudicated is parliament's law.

I am not impressed by all law being adjudicated by the mob of lawyers.

 ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> medical issues is what gets me.
> 
> After a perfectly healthy pregnancy my wife developed preeclampsia and other complications during labour,  and suffered a lot of blood loss and was hospitalized for a week.
> 
> ...



I suspect most Canadians would accept abortion up to about the 1st trimester, a smaller portion to the 2nd trimester. A video of an abortion in the third trimester would convince the majority not to support it. With only a doctors advice saying that the life of the mother is at stake. If life is deemed to begin earlier than current laws allow, both the mother and father would be on the hook to provide care and support earlier on as well.


----------



## FJAG (21 Jul 2018)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Fjag
> 
> You may have a less contentious response if you stopped equating the demos and the mob.
> 
> ...



The concept of Tyranny of the majority has been well understood ever since democracies became fashionable and particularly in the early years of the US Republic.



> While James Madison referred to the same idea as "the violence of majority faction" in The Federalist Papers, for example Federalist 10, the phrase "tyranny of the majority" was used by John Adams in 1788.[8] It was also used by Edmund Burke in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), where he said that "The tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny." It was further popularised by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty (1859). The Federalist Papers and the phrase (in translation) is used at least once in the first sequel to Human, All Too Human (1879).[9] Ayn Rand wrote that individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities and "the smallest minority on earth is the individual".[10]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority



> Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%. Attributed to Thomas Jefferson



Law is not adjudicated in this country by a mob of lawyers but by way of the Rule of Law which is established by democratically elected legislatures, limited by an overarching constitution and Code of Human Rights, which is presented and argued by lawyers before an independent and impartial judiciary. That works for me. 

The problem with an unfettered electorate is that it only works for you as an individual so long as you are a member of the majority and as long as the majority reflects your personal beliefs. Think back in history for examples where minorities were oppressed and exterminated by democratically elected governments (Germany, Italy and any number of Islamic republics) and then consider that in California in 2008 the majority of the electorate by way of two referendums legislated for humane treatment rights to chickens (Prop 2) and at the same time directed a constitutional amendment to make gay and lesbian marriage illegal (Prop 8 and thereby overruling a California Supreme Court ruling which had made it legal)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_2_(2008)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

I'm simply not impressed by unfettered democracies, even ones where I'm a member of the majority cultural group.  I'm not sure that a Constitution is the answer in every case either. See for example Iran's who's article 1 states:



> Article 1: The government of Iran is an Islamic Republic, which the nation of Iran based on its long-held belief in the rule of the truth and the justice of the Qu’ran, and after its victorious Islamic revolution, under the leadership of marja’-e taqlīd the exalted Grand Ayatollah Imam Khomeini, has established. The measure was ratified by the 98.2 percent affirmative vote of all the eligible voters in a referendum that was held on the 10th and the 11th of Farvardīn in the year 1358 of the solar Islamic calendar, agnate to the first and the second of jumādī al-awlā’ in the year 1399 of the lunar Islamic calendar.



I've grown quite fond of our system. It's got some warts on it but all in all I think it beats out most everything else out there. But then I was a lawyer. ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## pbi (22 Jul 2018)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Fjag
> 
> ...I am not impressed by all law being adjudicated by the mob of lawyers...
> 
> ;D



But who else is better than a person who has been schooled in the law and its underpinnings, practices it regularly and has a strong working understanding of how it has been historically applied? By way of analogy, do you want complex engineering decisions, or medical decisions, made by people who have no background in those fields? Do you want your house wired by a plumber?

I have never fully agreed with the JP system, having known a couple of JPs who I would have thought were not well-suited to the job at all. I understand that JPs will not handle serious cases, but I still find it odd. I would be even less inclined to support a Sharia JP, with no grounding in English Common law (even to the limited extent that a JP might have).

The laws which lawyers and judges study and adjudicate are created and passed into force by politicians, (whether or not they really understand what impact a given law will have a few years down range). The setting of general policy direction, or the response to public feelings, are rightly in the purview of politicians. But that, I think, is where it stops.

Other than that, I prefer to leave the adjudication of the law to people who know what they're talking about.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Jul 2018)

I take the point on tyranny of the majority.

And you are free to argue the benefits of alternative systems.... But in the interests of clarity would it not be better to refer to the alternatives as something other than democracy?

And wrt the JP  system my understanding was that they were lay arbitrators with more in common with members of a jury than with judges.

Do all arbitrators have to be judges?  Or even lawyers?  Or do they just need to enjoy the respect of all parties?


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Jul 2018)

People making judgements must know the rules, and know them well.  Contract law and related mediation and arbitration are just about the last place I welcome talented amateurs.  What vexes me, and degrades the legal profession, are fanciful theories created to bypass unambiguous statements in plain English, usually involving "shall" or "shall not".  Close second: passages inserted to provide potential loopholes through "shall" or "shall not".

>See for example Iran's who's article 1 states:

Citing a particularly egregious example doesn't particularly challenge the value of a constitution among people who are disposed to respect a constitution.

A quotation attributed to John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

It should be obvious that everything in law depends on the culture it serves.  A people could have the most carefully crafted coherent body of law ever known, adjudicated by a multitude of polymaths with photographic memory, and would still not have much law if they chose to ignore and work around it.

We (western cultures in general) are on pretty good ground culturally.  Where I see the weak link is in the sub-strata who are well into or above the fourth level in Maslow's hierarchy, and can't wholly internalize their personal quest - they are a meddlesome, self-righteous bunch.


----------



## FJAG (22 Jul 2018)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I take the point on tyranny of the majority.
> 
> And you are free to argue the benefits of alternative systems.... But in the interests of clarity would it not be better to refer to the alternatives as something other than democracy?
> 
> ...



Just to address the Justice of the Peace issue (I think the vast bulk of us here support the democratic system and constitutions although we may argue the finer points) JP's vary widely (and wildly) by jurisdiction. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_peace

Arbitration also varies depending on the jurisdiction and the subject matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration

At the heart of any judicial or quasi-judicial system is that it is a form of dispute resolution. Disputes are either ones between the citizen and the state (which deal with such matters as crimes or regulatory infractions) or ones between citizens (including corporations) and other citizens. 

In either field the continuum of disputes varies from low levels (e.g. low sums of money or punishments involved) to high level (e.g. gigantic sums of money or prison or death penalties)

The British model justice system (like ours and the US's) is one where it is assumed that there are at least two different interests involved and that the best way to resolve the issue is to allow each side of the dispute to argue their case in front of an impartial decision maker. We call this an "adversarial" system. Generally the decision maker allows the opposing parties to call the relevant evidence and make their arguments and then makes a decision based on the facts and law presented (The other major system is the "inquisitorial" system - such as in Europe's civil law countries - where judges plays a much more active role in questioning witnesses and controlling police investigations)

All of that is to say that in our system there is scope for a wide variety of forums and procedures from the very simple, where legal training is not essential, to the very complex, where either legal training or a high level of subject matter expertise is called for if not essential (as an example commercial arbitration is done outside of the state court systems using both subject matter experts and/or retired judges). 

North American lawyers are trained in the operation of the adversarial system as well as the law and as such they are more suitable than the average lay person to be advocates and decision makers in disputes. That said there are very many capable lay people who can operate as decision makers in the appropriate forum. What is very important IMHO is that such forums must be governed by rules and procedures and be accountable for their decisions through some form of appeal process. (as a worst case example are the numerous tribal/village councils in Pakistan and India who try serious a wide variety of disputes and who have made such ludicrous decisions as where the punishment for a man raping a women is to allow the the rape victim's male relatives to rape the rapist's sister http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-pakistan-revenge-rape-20170727-story.html)

 :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Jul 2018)

Thanks for the education FJAG

in essence the interested parties have the right to pick their preferred horse for their perceived course and have the right of appeal if the don't like the way the arbitration was handled.

I too like that system.

My concern is rooted at a higher level that puts judges over parliamentarians

In our constitutional monarchy where the monarch is constrained by parliamentarians elected as representatves parliament has been sovereign since 1689.

it is a comfortable system but it may not be democracy.


----------



## FJAG (22 Jul 2018)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Thanks for the education FJAG
> 
> in essence the interested parties have the right to pick their preferred horse for their perceived course and have the right of appeal if the don't like the way the arbitration was handled.
> 
> ...



But Chris

In virtually every case where the judges' "overrule" the legislature it is done on the basis of the interpretation of the constitution (generally the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) which was also written and passed by the legislature(s). If the legislature(s) feel strongly that the judges improperly interpreted the legislation or the constitution then they have the right to reenact the legislation and fixing the impugned provision (which they do quite often, or passing it using the "notwithstanding" provision.

We've had a period where numerous legislative provisions have been challenged successfully in the courts but IMHO much of that is as a result of the various departments (mostly the Department of Justice) writing legislation (principally the Criminal Code) that ran on the edge of the constitutional rights given our citizens (and much of that due to the former Justice Minister Vic Toews - it takes time for these things to work their way through the courts)

In essence one has to recognize that our system of government is a constitutional monarchy whereby the sovereign rules the country through three essential pillars - the executive, the legislative and the judiciary - each with it's own constitutional powers. Practically speaking the country is run by the executive as authorized or limited by the legislature (through legislation) and with disputes between citizens and between citizens and the crown adjudicated by the judiciary.

Again, IMHO, I think that the legislature(s) is(are) supreme as it(they) can make constitutional amendments or use the "notwithstanding" clause if it feels strongly enough that it has the population's support on an issue to subsequently face the electorate on it. So far they haven't done that when "overruled" by the courts.

 :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jul 2018)

How frequently does parliament have to invoke the "notwithstanding clause" before it becomes null and void because of lack of use - effectively handing supremacy to the courts who will be deciding on if the use of the clause is valid?

Just curious.  :cheers:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Jul 2018)

Chris:
No part of the Constitution can become "null and void" without an actual amendment of the constitution. Some, such as Article 19, can become "spent" because their purpose has run out (it's the article that called for the calling of the Parliament - the first time - to occur no later than 6 months after the Union). But they cannot become null and void.

Similarly, other than interpretation of its meaning, the SCC does not have the power to modify the constitution. This, BTW is no different than the role of the British Supreme Court, or the Judiciary Committee of the House of Lords before it: They are bound by the constitution, but can "overrule" (or rather "strike") the laws enacted by the various legislatures that are contrary to the said constitution - and only those that they find contrary to the constitution. Without such - supported - finding of being against the constitution, they can only give effect to the enacted laws. That is because the supremacy of Parliament (acting within the constitution - even in England) IS a fundamental rule of the constitution.

This said, and because the SCC understands and applies the rule of Parliamentary Supremacy, the use or non-use of the notwithstanding clause cannot be overcome by the SCC specifically because it is there to circumvent certain parts of the constitution for the benefit of expanded Parliamentary supremacy, with the understanding that the legislature that would employ such clause would be answerable to the people of Canada (come election time) for its use.

It is important to note, Chris, that the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution ( clause little understood by most Canadian) only permits to enact laws that would be contrary to Sections 2 and then 7 to 15* inclusively of the portion of the Constitution called the Charter of Rights. No other part of the Constitution can be overridden using that clause. This is an important nuance, especially here in Quebec, because many people think it can apply to any constitutional rule and, for instance, could be used to reinforce the Language Act here in Qc. Language rights in Canada are protected under section 16 of the Charter of rights - and therefore not subject to the notwithstanding clause.

BTW - little known fact - If ever a Canadian government ever found that a Supreme Court had overstepped its bounds in the application of the Constitution in manner that is unconscionable or clearly biased and partisan, they would have an interesting little recourse: Abolish the Supreme Court. Unlike the USA, our Constitution does not provide for the existence of a Supreme Court. Section 101 of the 1867 Act only indicates that Parliament "may"   "provide from time to time" for the constitution of such Court. The Supreme Court in Canada exists as result of an ordinary Act of Parliament, which can be abrogated just as easily.  ;D

*: These sections comprise the protection of fundamental freedoms, such as conscience, expression, peaceful assembly and association, the Legal rights, such as life, liberty and security, unreasonable searches, no arbitrary detention, rights upon arrest, rights once charged, no cruel punishment, no self-incrimination and availability of interpreter at the crowns expense, and then the rights to non-discrimination.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jul 2018)

OGBD, thanks to both you and FJAG for the continuing education.   No sarcasm intended.

So, perhaps, my issue is coming down to the lack of "debate" between parliament and the courts?  Is it in the interests of politicians to defer to the courts?  Or is it a lack of political will?  Or a fear of the public consequences of contradicting the court?

Myself, I am a strong believer in healthy debate and pragmatic accommodation, as some will have no doubt noted.  In that spirit I would much sooner that parliament made it ordinary practice to challenge the courts and not give the impression of acceding to holy writ.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jul 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> BTW - little known fact - If ever a Canadian government ever found that a Supreme Court had overstepped its bounds in the application of the Constitution in manner that is unconscionable or clearly biased and partisan, they would have an interesting little recourse: Abolish the Supreme Court. Unlike the USA, our Constitution does not provide for the existence of a Supreme Court. Section 101 of the 1867 Act only indicates that Parliament "may"   "provide from time to time" for the constitution of such Court. The Supreme Court in Canada exists as result of an ordinary Act of Parliament, which can be abrogated just as easily.  ;D



Man, imagine the stink that would occur should a Parliament try to legislate that....


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jul 2018)

Not a million miles away from this in concept:



> Standing Army.
> 
> That the raising or keeping a standing Army within the Kingdome in time of Peace unlesse it be with Consent of Parlyament is against Law.


.

Parliament is supreme.


----------



## FJAG (23 Jul 2018)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> OGBD, thanks to both you and FJAG for the continuing education.   No sarcasm intended.
> 
> So, perhaps, my issue is coming down to the lack of "debate" between parliament and the courts?  Is it in the interests of politicians to defer to the courts?  Or is it a lack of political will?  Or a fear of the public consequences of contradicting the court?
> 
> Myself, I am a strong believer in healthy debate and pragmatic accommodation, as some will have no doubt noted.  In that spirit I would much sooner that parliament made it ordinary practice to challenge the courts and not give the impression of acceding to holy writ.



One of the general principles of our courts is that they do not debate. When an issue goes to trial the court speaks only in it's judgement/opinion (and subsequently those judgements/opinions of the courts of appeal). Once the judgement is rendered, the judge. It is considered improper for a judge to speak about a case subsequently although there have been situations where judges may be invited to speak (such as a conference) but these are not debates as you see them

Remember that in an adversarial process both sides do present their arguments in court. Even in cases where there are only civilian parties present, if either party wishes to impugn a given law, they must give notice of the fact to the relevant government which then has the ability to attend court and speak on the issue. The sum of that is that if a given law is to be challenged, the judge hears arguments from a crown attorney who essentially is the representative of the crown. In essence that is the debate. Once the judgement comes down, however, the ball is entirely in the legislatures court as to what, if anything, they wish to do next including an appeal or amend the legislation.

One other thing. (and I hope I don't muddle things for you). Remember that under the common law, judges have been modifying or changing the common law for hundreds of years to cater to new situations (one of the most significant changes back in the 1930s was the creation of the tort of negligence in non contractual relationships). Even here though, the legislatures can overwrite those cases by creating legislation to deal with the matter (an example of this is the Negligence Act aka Contributory Negligence Act in some jurisdictions) which builds on the common law principles that judges had created.

The law itself is a very much a living thing where each of the legislature and the judges play their role. Remember that it isn't really parliament that drafts these laws. It's some sallow faced government lawyer/drafting team working in the bowels of a ministry somewhere using instructions coming from within the department with DOJ input. The legislature does have the opportunity to debate these before the final draft is approved but quite frankly, for the most part, the various members of parliament have only the vaguest of an understanding of the actual wording (they do get briefed on the intended effects). Often the wording is problematic or the reach of the law, as stated, goes beyond the intended consequences (and thus runs afoul of the Charter). That's often where the judge's play their role.

Remember that the debate here is different than it is in the US. Here all parties have a general understanding and acceptance of how our constitution and the laws should be interpreted. In the US there are two very opposing views on how the US Constitution should be interpreted. The more strict conservatives (like Scallia was and Thomas and Gorsuch are) are "originalists" who are of the view that the constitution should be interpreted the way it would have been by its framers at the time it was drafted. For more see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

Liberal judges have a more expansive view and use one of a number of principles to interpret the constitution within the context of a more modern society. For examples see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation

Wikipedia actually has a very good page respecting the ideological/"political" leanings of the various USSC justices that's worth reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices

It's this "political" division which creates so much of the friction in the US and which creates the "revisionist judge" backlash down there which really doesn't exist in Canada except in the most minor of ways.

 :cheers:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Jul 2018)

There is one more small thing to keep in mind, Chris.

I'll quote one of my favourite show, Star Trek TNG: In the "Measure of a Man" episode, the JAG, acting as judge on the case of Data's status and finding that it's way over her pay grade to decide - really - says: "... But I've got to make ruling."

And that is one thing people who complain about "activist" courts don't seem to get. You see, courts don't want to get involved in complex political cases, but it's not their choice to do so or not. 

If two litigants bring a case to a court that ought to be decided by the elected officials, but they haven't decided it yet or are unwilling to do so, and there is a triable issue - meaning there is an issue between the parties that pits them against one another and it is an issue that will have an effect on one of the parties depending on the decision, then the courts have no choice but to try it. They, unlike the (cowardly) elected official, cannot pass the puck or ignore it. It is brought before them and there is a triable issue: they MUST make a decision.

So before claiming that the courts are actually perverting democracy by their decisions in matters that would be better left to elected officials, always ask yourself: did the court actually want to delve into that matter or was it forced to make a decision because the legislator refused to deal with it.

Just saying.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jul 2018)

So, I am assured that all the "t"s are crossed and the "i's are dotted,  that every comma and apostrophe is in its appointed place.  

I can stop worrying now.  

The peculiar thing is that when I used to play rugby I knew the rules of the game.  If necessary I could run touch judge and with a bit of effort stand in for the referee.  

Why is it, that after continuing discussions with learned gentlemen like yourselves I can't shake the feeling that your caste may as well be speaking Latin and referencing not just the word but also interpreting it in light of received wisdom?  That I, an average citizen, will never fully comprehend the rules of the game and am to leave my fate in the hands of those who are my betters - people who apparently share a language that divides us and leaves me wondering whether my values and theirs coincide?

My apologies, but I was not raised to hand my fate over to experts.  No matter how much I can enjoy their company and respect their efforts.

Your health gents - but I fear I was right the first time.  And this is a discussion that will continue with us talking past each other.

 :cheers:


----------



## a_majoor (5 Aug 2018)

Since trying to silence Trinity  Western and deprive graduates from employment is using political power to silence expression, this piece by Rex Murphy seems very appropriate. Two interesting asides: one of my soldiers is a Laurier alumni, and he was already pissed at how the University had handled the issue. I doubt he will be making many donations or gifts to Laurier from now on. The second aside is I looked at the academic biography of the maoist who led the struggle session against Ms Shepherd. Outside of the fact none of the people with me could understand what his actual research area was, I also noted that I was (at the time) better qualified to be in his position by virtue fo having more papers published in a professional journal...maybe I should apply for his job.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-now-laurier-wants-to-ditch-free-speech-for-better-speech-can-we-converse



> *Rex Murphy: Laurier, trading 'free speech' for 'better speech,' proves unspeakably clueless still*
> It’s only when progressives lose control of an issue that they agree to even have it discussed. This is then called a conversation
> Rex Murphy
> August 3, 2018
> ...


----------



## Xylric (6 Aug 2018)

I tend to phrase things in a manner which is difficult to understand for some people, but it boils down to holding the idea that the *capacity* for disagreement is something that must be held sacrosanct if we are to have a society which truly values the freedom and independence of speech. Suppose I agree with Trinity Western's behavioral contract out of religious affiliation - why on _Earth_ would that necessarily mean that I expect people whom hold a different religious or political tradition to be equally bound by it? Or, for that matter, why should people presume a contract that I agreed to _for the duration of my enrollment_ at TWU to influence my behavior after I have graduated, or for that matter, after my beliefs have grown and changed?

Anthropology research that was conducted nearly a century ago suggests that a society which holds sexual restraint as an important value in the wider public sphere may well actually be healthier in regards to economic and societal development than one which is far more hedonistic. After all, was it not generally the monasteries of the religious traditions which maintained literacy in the wake of the collapse of the Roman Empire?

I accept that provinces have the authority to deny graduates of TWU the right to practice law within them as a result of this dispute, but I reject the reasoning used in arguing the case, since it could potentially set a dangerous precedent. Suppose that it was a school from a different religious tradition which was at the center of the case. Would we not run into the same fundamental issues presented by the case if it was a Hindu university?

I hold a Bachelor of Religious Education, granted by a Bible College affiliated with the Mennonite tradition. As a condition of my enrollment at that college, I was required to sign a document very similar to the one TWU requires. Since I signed that contract, by the same logic laid out in the arguments against TWU, shouldn't I be prohibited from attempting to join the Canadian Forces? 

The only thing that can really be done is what has been done - evaluating a person's belief structure and determining whether or not it introduces a bias into their practice. The thing is, I'd insist this be done universally, because the unfortunate reality is that humans are vengeful creatures, even if we may not consciously realize it. Looking at this whole matter from the lens of tribalism, I'm struck by something odd. Having reviewed the current iteration of TWU's community covenant agreement, I find nothing inherently objectionable as far as it relates to creating a recognizable "tribe" within TWU's community. Every society has its laws and customs as it relates to marriage, and we Canadians do tend to be respectful of differences provided that those differences are not inherently harmful. I'd go so far as to say that I don't doubt that there would be those who object to my own personal definition of marriage (which is very simple - it is the widespread social and political recognition of the biochemical reality of mate selection) due to the fact that it's easy to argue the definitions of the terms involved.

The simple reality is that a person's belief structure is so intrinsic to their identity and personal ethics and morality that it is _*impossible*_ to fully separate belief and practice. As a person ruthlessly dedicated to empirical and logical evaluation of matters, devoid of any emotional entanglements (to a certain point), the simple reality is that while the interpretations of evidence vary tremendously as people interpret it through their own set of lenses, the evidence and facts themselves do not. Holding that the capacity to disagree must be held sacrosanct simply means that a set of definitions must be mutually accepted for any discussion to occur, and that if any person involved in a discussion has a dispute with the definitions involved, they ought to be able to fully explain why they dispute the definitions, and thus propose an alternate term of use. The person(s) they are speaking with would be thus free to reject any proposed redefinition of terms, offering their own replacement definition. The capacity to disagree ultimately results in something very critical - _*an escape hatch*_.

Without such an escape hatch enabling a person to leave a discussion, we have to introduce an entirely different aspect of the law into consideration - harassment.


----------



## FJAG (6 Aug 2018)

Xylric said:
			
		

> . . .
> The simple reality is that a person's belief structure is so intrinsic to their identity and personal ethics and morality that it is _*impossible*_ to fully separate belief and practice. As a person ruthlessly dedicated to empirical and logical evaluation of matters, devoid of any emotional entanglements (to a certain point), the simple reality is that while the interpretations of evidence vary tremendously as people interpret it through their own set of lenses, the evidence and facts themselves do not. Holding that the capacity to disagree must be held sacrosanct simply means that a set of definitions must be mutually accepted for any discussion to occur, and that if any person involved in a discussion has a dispute with the definitions involved, they ought to be able to fully explain why they dispute the definitions, and thus propose an alternate term of use. The person(s) they are speaking with would be thus free to reject any proposed redefinition of terms, offering their own replacement definition. The capacity to disagree ultimately results in something very critical - _*an escape hatch*_.
> 
> Without such an escape hatch enabling a person to leave a discussion, we have to introduce an entirely different aspect of the law into consideration - harassment.



I think the above highlited words are at the heart of this matter. It's not the later issue about discussion. No one has a problem with discussing issues.

Trinity's Community Covenant is the problem. The vast bulk of it is perfectly acceptable and even laudatory. This one element however is the one that critics point to. 



> sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a
> woman16
> 16 Romans 1:26-27; Proverbs 6:23-35.



This item is an overt rejection of homosexuality and directly prevents any member of a homosexual marriage from being a student (unless of course they are prepared to lie or become celibate like the unmarried students). It's not simply a restriction on premarital sex. They could have achieved that by simply leaving the last six words out.

The simple fact is that several law societies have decided that students who have been inculcated with this standard of ethics and morality would find it difficult, or as you say, impossible to separate belief and practice and thereby not be fully able to meet the required professional standards of lawyers.

 :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Aug 2018)

All a lawyer has to be able to do is stand before a judge and represent his client.  Suppose the client preferred a representative that shared their beliefs?

The contract, the covenant if you will, is between the client and his advocate.


Edit:  I would also offer, in support of the position, this brief from The Lawyer's Daily of May 8, 2017 -

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/3113



> Non-lawyer representation boosted by decision
> 
> A recent decision by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in entering a stay of proceedings, ruling that the Ontario Court of Justice (OCJ) had unreasonably refused to permit a defendant’s family member to represent him on a speeding charge, reflects the growing trend in Canada of non lawyers representing defendants in court cases.
> 
> ...





> “Although representation by a friend or relative doesn’t apply in higher level civil or criminal matters, the court here is signalling that where it is permissible, it should not be discouraged unless the proposed representative is not competent or his or her involvement will clearly interfere with the proper administration of justice,” he added.
> 
> Julie Macfarlane, a professor of law at the University of Windsor, is director of the National Self-Represented Litigants Project (NSRLP), an organization “committed to advancing understanding of the challenges and hard choices facing the very large numbers of Canadians who now come to court without counsel.”
> 
> ...



The Guild is at risk if it insists on maintaining a monopoly on a service deemed essential while establishing fees that only 50% of the population feels they can afford.

If an individual remanded to appear before the courts is free to represent themself, without having the necessary inculcated beliefs, or can be assisted by a family member without the necessary beliefs, or by a friend, or by a paralegal then what grounds are appropriate to justify the exclusion of any lawyer on the grounds of their beliefs.

Historically belief was used to keep protestant advocates out of catholic courts, and catholics out of protestant courts.  And no doubt would cause any honest atheist required to swear on a bible a degree of discomfort.  Belief systems have nothing whatever to do with being able to research, read, apply the law and argue effectively in a coherent manner before respected representatives of the community - whether Judges, Justices of the Peace or Jurors.  

On the other hand a catholic defendant going before a court in a predominantly protestant, or atheist, jurisdiction might find themselves more at ease with a catholic lawyer.


----------



## Xylric (6 Aug 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I think the above highlited words are at the heart of this matter. It's not the later issue about discussion. No one has a problem with discussing issues.
> 
> Trinity's Community Covenant is the problem. The vast bulk of it is perfectly acceptable and even laudatory. This one element however is the one that critics point to.
> 
> ...



If we're going to be addressing biblical text as evidence in this particular case, I'd point out that the Good Book also says that one is to live in peace with those around them, as far as it is possible to do so. Which does seem to mean that Christians are not required to expect their neighbors who do not believe to follow the same moral code. Except, even if it is impossible to fully separate belief and practice, one can still judge a matter fairly based on reason and evidence. One could thus argue that the convent in question is being used as an indication that a student of TWU's law school would be insufficiently trained in logical discourse and critical thinking, and as such would be forced to rely on antiquated religious ideology.

Here's a hypothetical question - should a student who obtains their law degree at TWU be able to join the law societies which reject the school's community covenant if they demonstrate that their beliefs have become such that they reject those established by TWU?

If the answer is no, there is a *much* bigger problem that needs to be addressed.

If the answer is yes, then there are a few other questions that need to be asked - many Christians do not have any problem with accepting same-sex marriage, just as many do not have an issue with abortion and other complicated social concerns. The key question which would then be asked would be if those who believe religion is inherently toxic to mental health ought to be allowed to join these same law societies - or those who believe that vaccines are dangerous, for that matter. It seems more important to measure a candidate's acceptability to be admitted to a law society based on observable practices and actions than any stated belief.

Suppose I associated with members of an anti-vaccination group, while studying for a medical degree. If I were incredibly vocal about advocating against vaccines, no governing body would likely be inclined to grant me the right to practice medicine. But suppose the only evidence I belonged to such a group was the fact that I associated with those who were already members, and there was nothing in my actions or the material that I was studying that indicated I accepted the premise which defines the group. Could not one make the case that I'd be a perfectly appropriate doctor _despite_ my associations? Especially considering that one would have to know the reason behind why I associate with such a group to be able to make any fair judgement about their applicability as a concern - perhaps I merely associate with members of said group because one or more of them are the parents of children that I have volunteered with in the past?

People are not static beings, our beliefs grow and mature, and the stability of civilization is dependent on not interfering with that process. I believe that the decision of the law societies was one made out of an insufficiently detailed examination of all applicable factors. I do not know to say whether or not the decision is correct or incorrect, only that it is far from sufficiently rigorous.

I do, however, recognize that I should bow to the experience of those who know the workings of the law better than I, and as such appreciate your outlining of matters. I'm just somewhat ill-at-ease with what appeared to be carelessness on the part of those who rendered the decision which caused this discussion.


----------



## FJAG (6 Aug 2018)

Xylric said:
			
		

> If we're going to be addressing biblical text as evidence in this particular case, . . .
> 
> Here's a hypothetical question - should a student who obtains their law degree at TWU be able to join the law societies which reject the school's community covenant if they demonstrate that their beliefs have become such that they reject those established by TWU?
> . . .



I just want to clear up two points.

First, the biblical reference in my earlier post, isn't mine but are the references put in by Trinity Western as a footnote to their covenant as justification why marriage must be between a man and a woman.

https://www8.twu.ca/governance/presidents-office/twu-community-covenant-agreement.pdf

You may have been led astray by my (and other people's) mention of the possibility that graduates from Trinity Western would have beliefs which would make them unsuitable to practice law. That's not so much the case for the Law Societies involved and has nothing to do with the Supreme Court decision.

What the two Law Societies (BC and Ont) did was argue that they have no control over the law school with the exception of either accrediting it or not accrediting it. They argued further that by including the man/woman marriage provision in it's covenant, Trinity had restricted members of the LGBTQ community from attending Trinity Western's proposed law school and that this was against the public interest. Therefore they decided to deny accreditation.

The Supreme Court in the Law Society of Upper Canada case held:



> [11]                          At the outset, it is important to identify what the LSUC actually decided when denying accreditation to TWU’s proposed law school. The LSUC did not deny graduates from TWU’s proposed law school admission to the LSUC; rather, the LSUC denied accreditation to TWU’s proposed law school with a mandatory covenant. . . .
> 
> [19]                          In this case, the LSUC interpreted its duty to uphold and protect the public interest as precluding the approval of TWU’s proposed law school because the mandatory Covenant effectively imposes inequitable barriers on entry to the school. The LSUC was entitled to be concerned that inequitable barriers on entry to law schools would effectively impose inequitable barriers on entry to the profession and risk decreasing diversity within the bar. Ultimately, the LSUC determined that the approval of TWU’s law school, as proposed, would negatively affect equitable access to and diversity within the legal profession and would harm LGBTQ individuals, which would be inconsistent with the public interest.
> 
> ...



So you see that the focus of both Law Societies' objections and the court's decision relate not to the proposed law school's output or quality of its graduates but the self imposed restriction that Trinity put on those who could attend its proposed law school through the use of their mandatory covenant. The Law Societies were not acting to restrict avowed Christians from practicing law but to deny accreditation to a law school that discriminated against admitting certain classes of individuals.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17141/index.do

Hope that clears things up.

 :cheers:


----------



## Xylric (6 Aug 2018)

It does, yes, thank you.

Though since I personally know a gay person attending TWU (because TWU was cheaper to attend due to both parents being alumni), I got a very interesting answer when I asked him about the matter. He didn't feel at all restricted by the covenant because being a rather sensible fellow, he has no interest in any sort of romantic relationship until he's finished his education and is free of debt. He plans on attending law school at UBC, and would still refrain from any sort of relationship until he finished.

Given that he's voluntarily accepted the covenant (because he agrees with everything_ else _in in it, why wouldn't he if he can negate the relevance of the point in issue as far as it relates to him?), his position is very simple - what's going to stop people from attending other accredited law schools while retaining the beliefs that resulted in TWU being denied accreditation? Not that the position of one person directly impacted by a matter changes anything about the decision, it's just interesting to me that there's easily ways for TWU students to gain admission to law societies - they'd just have to attend another school.

I apologize for my confusion on the rest of the discussion. I'm sure you'd agree that barring someone as unsuitable to practice law in the absence of evidence that they'd be unsuitable is something which should be held as unacceptable. It is quite true that there are beliefs that, if held, ought to disqualify someone for a particular position - can you imagine hiring a geography or geology professor who believed the world was flat?

Now, of course, I imagine there would be an entirely different issue if a TWU student who later attended and graduated UBC's law school (for example) was rejected from these law societies....


----------



## FJAG (6 Aug 2018)

It doesn't matter if one person or more can either accept the covenant or work their way around it. Quite simply the covenant systemically discriminates against members of the LGBTQ community and that's the sole issue.

Law Societies do not discriminate against any graduate of an accredited law school who has graduated, meets the law society's bar admission requirements and is of good character within the meaning of the respective provincial law society (see here for Ontario's as an example: https://www.lsuc.on.ca/licensingprocess.aspx?id=2147502201. That relates to crimes and such and religious convictions and beliefs never enter into it.

Subsequent to being called to the bar, the lawyer must, however, meet the continuing requirements of the law society's Professional Code of Conduct (again see here for Ontario's: https://www.lsuc.on.ca/lawyer-conduct-rules/) which includes numerous provisions including those under section 6.3.1 _Discrimination_ which requires respect of the human rights laws of the province and imposes a duty to not discriminate.

Don't let yourself be fooled by the rhetoric. It is usually religious groups who discriminate against certain individuals or groups as part of their dogma that then cry foul and consider themselves to be discriminated against on religious grounds when they are called out for their own intolerance. The problem here is Trinity, not the law societies who are fighting for equal rights for all candidates.

 :cheers:


----------



## Xylric (6 Aug 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter if one person or more can either accept the covenant or work their way around it. Quite simply the covenant systemically discriminates against members of the LGBTQ community and that's the sole issue.
> 
> Law Societies do not discriminate against any graduate of an accredited law school who has graduated, meets the law society's bar admission requirements and is of good character within the meaning of the respective provincial law society (see here for Ontario's as an example: https://www.lsuc.on.ca/licensingprocess.aspx?id=2147502201. That relates to crimes and such and religious convictions and beliefs never enter into it.
> 
> ...



Indeed, it appears to be as you say.

I do wonder at how the accreditation process for a lawyer immigrating from a country in which homosexuality was a criminal offence would be managed.

Now, You stated earlier in the thread that you believe that human rights are layered. It strikes me that can potentially present a dangerous precedent when abused, though in principle the observation is accurate. The characteristics which are innate and thus largely immutable ought to take precedence over those which are largely selective. Could not one say that there is a problem which comes as a result of the fact that most characteristics to which this applies significantly overlap, and it could become difficult to discern the characteristic which is most at issue? Likewise, given the extreme variable of the degree to which a characteristic is selective, one might be able to argue that there are potential cases in which the selective ought to take precedence over the immutable.

I agree with the idea of rights being layered in principle, but it strikes me that it's rather simplistic to only give it two layers (innate vs. selective), due to the vast amount of overlap between the characteristics. After all, isn't it a general feature of our systems of laws that a greater understanding frequently results in a revision (and possibly rejection) of laws and decisions which are no longer applicable? I wouldn't be surprised if there are quite a few features of a person's being currently thought of as being selective are much more accurately viewed as intrinsic and immutable, and vice versa.

I think the better position would be to center the hierarchy of rights along a scale, measuring from the strictly internal (applying to one's self directly, such as sex, skin colour, etc) to those which are strictly external (as influencing one's interactions with others, which includes gender, religion, political ideology, and language, along with other considerations). Considering how closely linked sex and gender are for the majority of the population, I think this neatly illustrates the challenges created by attempting to define such a hierarchy of rights.

I refuse to play games when it comes to rights, because in truth it seems the only winning move is to ensure that the game continues. As soon as you make a decision about the sharp lines between various rights, someone is invariably going to be cut on them, and it strikes me that the core duty of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to _minimize_ the potential for abuse and harm.

If I am asked to weigh the rights granted me around my own religious beliefs (such as they are) against someone's rights granted from physical characteristics (say, autism, for example), the reality is that my religious beliefs would actually require me to work to the benefit of the person whose physical characteristic is being set against my religious beliefs. _There would be no conflict _ because I would remove the cause for one. However, the situation must be one in which the rights of both parties (myself and the autistic individual in question) are potentially violated. If only one party's rights were violated (or even merely threatened), there would be no question as to the appropriate solution.

We're still only in the early part of the third century of life for a society which personal liberty was truly valued as a concept, so clearly there are still many matters remaining to be settled, of which the issue of precedence in regards to the rights of individuals is likely paramount. My personal position is that so long as the goal of minimizing harm is maintained, conflicts between individuals whose rights are in opposition can be neatly settled by introducing other variables. As far as the conflicts between religious beliefs and the LGBTQ community is concerned, I'm afraid I don't understand the vehemence coming from both sides. As such the only thing I can safely say about it is that even if my religious tradition held certain homophobic beliefs, it would still ultimately be my personal choice to adopt them for myself. Since it's clear to me that doing so would likely cause harm and conflict, there's a higher religious principle which I need to follow - to do no unnecessary harm.


----------



## YZT580 (7 Aug 2018)

It isn't often that I find myself agreeing with anything that PET said but in this case I will make an exception:'The government has no business in the bedroom, or words to that affect.  Neither does the Law Society have any right to decide whether a school's code of conduct is acceptable or not.  By doing so they are being as discriminatory as the organisation that they are decrying.  Provided  that their academics are sound there should be no reason why a Christian based university can't teach law: there is nothing sacred about the law.    By the way, even an atheist is religious. He just hasn't decided who his personal god is or won't admit it.  I would far rather send my child to a school that has a clear-cut standard for its students to live up to; teaching moral conviction by example is always good.  And yes the news is full of hypocritical preachers who have been caught with their pants down so to speak.  But the point is that they (the school) is trying to maintain a standard.  You don't have to agree with it but honour their right to set those limits. Having standards is why the catholic public schools are inundated with non-catholic applicants whilst public schools are being shuttered.


----------



## Journeyman (7 Aug 2018)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> By the way, even an atheist is religious. He just hasn't decided who his personal god is or won't admit it.



No, an atheist is anyone who doesn't believe in any gods; an agnostic is anyone who doesn't claim to know whether any gods exist or not.


ThoughtCo:  The Difference Between Atheists and Agnostics


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Aug 2018)

>The simple fact is that several law societies have decided that students who have been inculcated with this standard of ethics and morality would find it difficult, or as you say, impossible to separate belief and practice and thereby not be fully able to meet the required professional standards of lawyers.

Ergo, students who have attended TWU and thus been "inculcated" are unfit to be lawyers and should not be admitted to any law school.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Aug 2018)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The simple fact is that several law societies have decided that students who have been inculcated with this standard of ethics and morality would find it difficult, or as you say, impossible to separate belief and practice and thereby not be fully able to meet the required professional standards of lawyers.
> 
> Ergo, students who have attended TWU and thus been "inculcated" are unfit to be lawyers and should not be admitted to any law school.



So where is the argument to ban Islamic students from Law schools, since their religious upbringing should (by the arguments used against Christian students) make them unable to separate beliefs and practices? Indeed, anyone with a deeper understanding of Islam will recognize that for the truly religious, there _is_ no separation of the secular from the sacred and they are less likely to separate belief from practice.

The argument fails because it isn't applied equally, and when looked at the narrow application it is more a means to target a group than a statement of principle or belief.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Aug 2018)

> [11]                          At the outset, it is important to identify what the LSUC actually decided when denying accreditation to TWU’s proposed law school. *The LSUC did not deny graduates from TWU’s proposed law school admission to the LSUC; rather, the LSUC denied accreditation to TWU’s proposed law school* with a mandatory covenant. . . .





> *Law Societies do not discriminate against any graduate of an accredited law school*...



So TWU can teach law but the graduates can not find placement at the bar because the law school is not recognized on the basis of its confessed beliefs.

The LSUC argument seems to be that they are not discriminating against TWU graduates on the grounds of their training and capabilities but on the grounds that they were trained by an institution whose beliefs were incompatible with the beliefs of the LSUC.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Aug 2018)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So where is the argument to ban Islamic students from Law schools, since their religious upbringing should (by the arguments used against Christian students) make them unable to separate beliefs and practices? Indeed, anyone with a deeper understanding of Islam will recognize that for the truly religious, there _is_ no separation of the secular from the sacred and they are less likely to separate belief from practice.
> 
> The argument fails because it isn't applied equally, and when looked at the narrow application it is more a means to target a group than a statement of principle or belief.



Arguably, one way to diffuse the tensions between new Muslim Canadians and their new country would be to let their own lawyers argue their cases before Canadian judges and juries, some of whom will undoubtedly be Muslim, as well as Christian, Pagan, Naturalists, Sikhs and Hindus etc.

The point is to be willing to hear all ideologies and argue them in a setting that the interested parties deem "fair" - and part of that is letting any litigant be represented by an agent in whom that litigant has trust.  Often that trust is first given to a member of one's own community.   A stranger, speaking a foreign tongue is unlikely to be as well received - particularly when the bad news that the litigant has lost has to be delivered.


----------



## FJAG (7 Aug 2018)

Let me repeat. This case and the law societies' actions have nothing to do with what a particular graduate thinks or believes. The case stands for nothing more or less than.

1 Trinity does not now or ever had a law school and therefore there are no graduates.

2. Trinity wanted to have it's law school accredited so that any future graduates there would be eligible to be called to the bar in any given Canadian province.

3. BC and Ontario believed that the covenant that Trinity requires students to sign discriminates against the enrollment of members of the LGBTQ community at Trinity and therefore refused to accredit Trinity because of Trinity's discriminatory practice.

4. The SCC agreed that the covenant discriminated, that such discrimination was a valid consideration and that the two law societies had the authority to refuse to accredit Trinity.

That's all the decision says.

If you want to keep arguing that the law societies are discriminating against Christians graduates but not Muslims or Pastafarians or whatever than that's on you but has nothing to do with the actual decision. Read the case.

I'm leaving this thread. FJAG, Out. 

[cheers]


----------



## Xylric (7 Aug 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Let me repeat. This case and the law societies' actions have nothing to do with what a particular graduate thinks or believes. The case stands for nothing more or less than.
> 
> 1 Trinity does not now or ever had a law school and therefore there are no graduates.
> 
> ...



Thanks again for the clarification, FJAG.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Aug 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Let me repeat. This case and the law societies' actions have nothing to do with what a particular graduate thinks or believes. The case stands for nothing more or less than.
> 
> 1 Trinity does not now or ever had a law school and therefore there are no graduates.
> 
> ...



The crux of the argument is highlighted: if this applies to one, then it applies to all, or it is just a raw power play directed against one group.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (8 Aug 2018)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The crux of the argument is highlighted: if this applies to one, then it applies to all, or it is just a raw power play directed against one group.



Okay, so be it.  What other Canadian law school has policies that similarly discriminates against any identifiable group but have not been so sanctioned by a law society?

Somehow, the term "raw power play" doesn't seem to apply when the consultation and decision processes for the two law societies that were party to the Supreme Court decisions are examined.  In both instances, they were public and involved the wider membership of this self-regulated profession, as well as the public and the parties involved.  I guess Nova Scotia wasn't significant enough to warrant TWU's objections.

This analysis from the UNB law journal (via CANLII) was written prior to the Supreme Court rulings, but does discuss in detail the processes (particularly Ontario's) that led to the non-accreditation decisions.



> 66 U.N.B.L.J. 78 (2015)
> Trinity Western University's Law School and the Associational Dimension of Religious Freedom: Toward Comprehensive Liberalism
> Thomas M.J. Bateman
> 
> ...



It goes on and on as probably only a law professor can drone. It may interest some.  But if anyone is interested in the public convocation that resulted in the LSUC decision, you can watch all several hours on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BFIXJxz470

And examine all the submissions here http://www.lsuc.on.ca/uploadedFiles/For_the_Public/About_the_Law_Society/Convocation_Decisions/2014/convapr102014_submissions.pdf


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Aug 2018)

I'll take just a few little issues with that article. If the oversupply of lawyers is a problem (and it is a real and genuine problem) then why does the LSO look so favourably on Ryerson's move to offer a law degree. It is by no mean a special or new type of degree, despite all the huff and pug Ontario has been producing technology and IP lawyers for 20 years.

Further, would this have gone the way it did if Trinity was a Christian school serving primarily a racialized Christian community (for example Hispanics and Phillipino's who happen to be devout Catholics?) with the same rules and criteria as Trinity??


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Aug 2018)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The crux of the argument is highlighted: if this applies to one, then it applies to all, or it is just a raw power play directed against one group.



Because few of us believe the Law Society will have the balls to do the same to Muslim or other non-Christian group. Attempts to create legitimacy for Sharia law in Canada is just one reason why there is no faith. (for the record I also oppose Torah based rulings as well)


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Aug 2018)

The largest barrier to entry is the number of first-year slots open to applicants (medicine has the same problem).  Not accrediting does nothing to lower that barrier; accrediting lowers that barrier, albeit imperfectly.  The course of action chosen doesn't support the stated aim.

There would be more diversity (of thought) in the profession if there were more schools with particular ethoses, rather than a bunch of law schools all expressing the same herd biases found on most Canadian university campuses.

The number of potentially harmed individuals is not zero, but it is very, very small.  Setting aside people who return to (law) school after some time pursuing some other career, most students should be expected to be in the age range 22-25.  Marriage of any kind is uncommon among university-educated adults that young.  The fraction of SSMs among those marriages should be expected to be small.  The harm of not accrediting (not increasing student seats) is probably several orders of magnitude larger.

I assume "oversupply of lawyers" means more lawyers serving the same client base, which promotes competition.  That should mean more legal services available to Canadians at lower costs, which is in the public interest.  Limiting the supply of lawyers (or doctors) is guild behaviour, not professional behaviour.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Aug 2018)

My opinion of the Law Society here in BC dropped significantly watching my wife go through the grinder to become accredited here. The fact that they made her take a tax course as a requirement, when it's an elective at UBC, but the required textbook was written by the then head of the Law Society made me wonder. Then making them go through "practice court" When she had 7 years of practice in Malaysia and her counterpart for that part was a ex-judge from Germany, the instructor admit that they seemed to be really, really well versed in courtroom procedure. Then make her article with a lawyer who was technically her junior and she had to spend time saying "yea you can't do that, or that". It was painfully clear that the Law Society main purpose appeared to be a gatekeeper to protect the new lawyers coming from anointed Institutions such as UBC.


----------



## Remius (14 Aug 2018)

And more news on this...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trinity-western-drops-mandatory-covenant-forbidding-sex-outside-of-heterosexual-marriage-1.4784924

Curious to see if that changes anything.


----------

