Trinity Western- Religious Freedom vs Human Rights

And gives you a by when it comes to calling people stupid if their views are different then yours.

Did I call someone stupid?

just for enduramil

http://www.queensu.ca/humanrights/educationalressources/ebulletin/religiousdiscrimination/trinitywesterncollege.html

lol

Giggity.

7 pages and not one request for pics of sleeper's threesome? you disappoint me NBR.

just for enduramil

http://www.queensu.ca/humanrights/educationalressources/ebulletin/religiousdiscrimination/trinitywesterncollege.html

Both religious and non-religious people discuss this in detail at the LSUC Convocation with case law newer than twenty years old (with some decisions made by the Supreme Court of Canada).

just perused the covenant out of curiosity. while out of wedlock sexing appears verboten, gay sex is in the second group of 'voluntary' abstinence. ie, I take it that they'd rather you not do these things (like getting drunk, smoking, or watching porn), but they're not absolutely condemned. perhaps they've re-worded their stance to be less overtly discriminatory? here's the text:

. Community Life at TWU:

The TWU community covenant involves a commitment on the part of all members to embody attitudes and to practise actions identified in the Bible as virtues, and to avoid those portrayed as destructive. Members of the TWU community, therefore, commit themselves to:
•cultivate Christian virtues, such as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, compassion, humility, forgiveness, peacemaking, mercy and justice
•live exemplary lives characterized by honesty, civility, truthfulness, generosity and integrity
•communicate in ways that build others up, according to their needs, for the benefit of all
•treat all persons with respect and dignity, and uphold their God-given worth from conception to death
•be responsible citizens both locally and globally who respect authorities, submit to the laws of this country, and contribute to the welfare of creation and society
•observe modesty, purity and appropriate intimacy in all relationships, reserve sexual expressions of intimacy for marriage, and within marriage take every reasonable step to resolve conflict and avoid divorce
•exercise careful judgment in all lifestyle choices, and take responsibility for personal choices and their impact on others
•encourage and support other members of the community in their pursuit of these values and ideals, while extending forgiveness, accountability, restoration, and healing to one another.

In keeping with biblical and TWU ideals, community members voluntarily abstain from the following actions:
•communication that is destructive to TWU community life and inter–personal relationships, including gossip, slander, vulgar/obscene language, and prejudice
•harassment or any form of verbal or physical intimidation, including hazing
•lying, cheating, or other forms of dishonesty including plagiarism
•stealing, misusing or destroying property belonging to others
•sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman
•the use of materials that are degrading, dehumanizing, exploitive, hateful, or gratuitously violent, including, but not limited to pornography
•drunkenness, under-age consumption of alcohol, the use or possession of illegal drugs, and the misuse or abuse of substances including prescribed drugs
•the use or possession of alcohol on campus, or at any TWU sponsored event, and the use of tobacco on campus or at any TWU sponsored event.

Dammit. Good point.

See,this is why it's good to discuss things.

yes it is a good point, and tracks well into the abyss that is freedom of speech, freedom of thought, etc. as much as one person may not like another person's thinking on a certain topic, we don't get to rule on thought. a person can not like homosexuals or blacks for example and as much as i might find that objectionable or disagree with those views, they are entitled to them. the line is crossed when those peoples words or actions are discriminatory towards others.

that's the issue here, punishing TWU and it's students on the idea that they may discriminate against someone due to their faith involved education. we can't do that. it's similar to the idea of putting someone in jail for something they might do - our legal system doesn't permit that.

and KenN made earlier comment about how the law society in ontario concluded that TWU was in the wrong, the vote was 28-21 i think? that's hardly conclusive, it's a swing of only 4 votes, less than 10% of the total votes cast. clearly this is a devisive issue. for now, we can only point to the supreme court ruling that tacklebox pointed out in regards to TWU's teacher education program; the highest court in this land ruled that you cannot discredit TWU's program for hypothesized discrimination

and KenN made earlier comment about how the law society in ontario concluded that TWU was in the wrong, the vote was 28-21 i think? that's hardly conclusive, it's a swing of only 4 votes, less than 10% of the total votes cast. clearly this is a devisive issue.

Absolutely. There are strong points to be made on either side of the religious freedoms vs human rights debate. But the guiding principal should (IMO) be boiled down to "my right to swing my fist ends where my neighbour's nose begins".

for now, we can only point to the supreme court ruling that tacklebox pointed out in regards to TWU's teacher education program; the highest court in this land ruled that you cannot discredit TWU's program for hypothesized discrimination

In 1995, almost 20 years ago. And as we know, there has been no public perceptual or policy changes to recognition of LGBT rights since that time. None.

Absolutely. There are strong points to be made on either side of the religious freedoms vs human rights debate. But the guiding principal should (IMO) be boiled down to "my right to swing my fist ends where my neighbour's nose begins".

yes that's true and gay students at TWU are being offered the same educational opportunities as their straight counterparts.

In 1995, almost 20 years ago. And as we know, there has been no public perceptual or policy changes to recognition of LGBT rights since that time. None.

yes, that's right, they haven't gotten any worse. i agree that their policy does need to move forward, but for the time being it does not give fewer opportunities to gay students.

in all of this there has been no discussion on religious students attending non-faith based schools. if you're saying that these students cannot deliver fair and equitable law practice because of their faith and attendance at a faith based school then it's saying that any student of faith attending any school should be denied the right to practice law simply based on their faith association. how do you deal with that? twu is an easy target simply because they are clearly visible.

Did anybody even read the link I posted a few pages back of a gay kid at a faith based school?

i agree that their policy does need to move forward, but for the time being it does not give fewer opportunities to gay students.

It actually has moved, much in the same way the proponents of Intelligent Design has moved their goals.

Here is one speaker from the LSUC Convocation that touches on the Supreme Court ruling. (The numbers at the end are line numbers from the PDF).

Like others here, I have laboured over 6
these issues, but I have to say it was a joyous labour, 7
not only because a lot of time was spent with Mr. 8
McDowell in the process, but because these issues are 9
so fundamental to who we are. I welcome the 10
opportunity to educate myself about them. To that 11
extent I'm so grateful that this application is before 12
us. 13

But for me, as I said to Mr. McDowell, 14
in the end it really comes down to how you frame the 15
issue, and for me the question before us is very much 16
the way others have put it, most recently by Ms. Minor, 17
this case is about access to legal education and, by 18
corollary, access to the legal profession. And it is 19
about access in a world in which, as we all know if we 20
have young children or older children, many more 21
deserving students seek those great privileges than 22
will ever be given the opportunity. That is the 23
context. 24

With that context in mind, I think it's25
important to accept that we have a very broad public 1
interest discretion. Open textured, I think the 2
constitutional lawyers in my office would call it. 3
I agree with those who said already that 4
TWU 2001 cannot be said to bind our decision making, 5
let alone our consciences, but I do share the view of 6
many of my colleagues who say but it is the Supreme 7
Court of Canada and it is the careful thinking of some 8
of the greatest jurists in the land, many of whom we 9
very much - all of whom we respect. So I do think it 10
should be given prominence in our thinking and I have 11
spent a lot of time looking at that case and asking 12
myself what's different. 13

Here's what I've learned. We know from 14
the Supreme Court of Canada decision that the court 15
thought that the B.C. College of Teachers had a very 16
limited public interest making role, particularly with 17
respect to defining discriminatory practices, defining 18
and interpreting Human Rights Codes, reconciling 19
competing rights. 20

We know that they did not have, that is 21
to say, the BCCT, their own by-law making power, as we 22
do. We know that the only relevant by-law did not 23
oblige them to advance the cause of justice or 24
generally to take into account the public interest in25
everything that they do. 1

We know that the B.C. College of 2
Teachers had not established, as we have in our rule 3
504, standards which oblige each and every member of 4
that profession to take on a special responsibility, a 5
very special responsibility to respect the requirements 6
of human rights laws and everything that goes with it. 7
And so whether or not the B.C. College 8
of Teachers just had a paper deficit is likely the 9
case. Likely they aspired to all of that and their 10
decision reflects that they actually saw themselves as 11
having that role, but one can't read TWU 2001 without 12
noticing that the Court was very concerned that they 13
were actually meddling in somebody else's living. It 14
reluctantly ultimately concluded that it was 15
appropriate for them to consider the discriminatory 16
practices which were embedded in the covenant, but it 17
was, I'm going to argue, a fairly reluctant conclusion 18
by the Court. 19

The second thing that I've noted and 20
others have noted in the submissions that we've 21
received is that the covenant has, indeed, changed 22
since 2001. In TWU 2001 the Supreme Court of Canada 23
made no reference to there being a mechanism under 24
which the community standards document could discipline25
and expel a student who did not honour the covenant, 1
leading the court to conclude at paragraph 22, and I 2
saw this as so very important, that there was no 3
evidence that anyone had been denied admission or was 4
expelled because of a refusal to sign it. 5
And I pit it on that point because I do 6
not anticipate that in the future that kind of no 7
evidence conclusion would support the court's analysis 8
when the issue put before it was whether or not there 9
were, in fact, barriers to entry. 10
It was pivotal, therefore, to the 11
court's decision that it looked at, as Mr. Ruby so 12
carefully put it, something very different. It was 13
entirely peripheral, although noted, peripheral to the 14
Court's concern that there may be barriers to entry to 15
the teaching profession and that there may be barriers 16
to entry to a teaching education. 17
The Court's focus was on whether or not 18
the covenant produced teachers who would foster 19
discrimination in public schools, and I share the 20
court's conclusion that that was very much a freedom of 21
religion and freedom of conscience violation to make 22
such assumptions on the evidence before it. 23
So I say this case is different. I say 24
this case is fundamentally about access to legal25
education, access to the legal profession, such great 1
privileges that we, luckily, get to live every day. 2
And I ask myself these questions. Are we really living 3
here at the Law Society in a world where if a private 4
religious university prohibits admission to female 5
students, and I pick that example because I know TWU 6
does no such thing and would find it offensive to do 7
any such thing, but I do know that members of my 8
religious heritage have done such things in other 9
jurisdictions. I'm a Jew, and that has happened in 10
some of the orthodox communities. So I pick that for a 11
purpose. 12

I say to us, would we really say as 13
governors of this profession that we are obliged to 14
accredit that religious institution in the name of 15
freedom of religion? I ask myself the question if a 16
private religious university prohibits interracial 17
marriage, this example has been given, or interracial 18
dating, would we say it's any different because the 19
focus is on the behaviour and not the identity of any 20
particular individual? 21
Would we say that we are obliged in the 22
public interest to accredit such an institution in the 23
name of freedom of religion? 24
I ask myself the question if a private25
religious institution, a private religious university 1
had a covenant which required First Nations not to 2
engage in sacred practices while they were students at 3
that university, would we say we were obliged in the 4
public interest and in the name of freedom of religion, 5
to accredit that university? 6
And I ask us, what is different? What 7
is different if a private religious university 8
prohibits sex and intimacy between an unmarried 9
heterosexual couple; sex and intimacy between same-sex 10
couples, whether married or unmarried? And I say to 11
myself, although my mind is not closed, that is the 12
important question to ask. 13
The harm, in my view, Mr. McDowell, the 14
societal harm is not to be focused on the risk that TWU 15
lawyers will discriminate against anyone. I am 16
confident, based on what I've heard from TWU, that they 17
will endeavour not to, as we all do. The harm is that 18
this covenant surely has the practical effect without 19
evidence and without proof and without testimony of 20
denying admission to LGBT students, to unmarried 21
students, to a range of people, including from other 22
religions, and it perpetuates very negative, perhaps 23
noxious stereotypes that undermine their dignity and 24
worth and, of course, their equality.25

And that is my problem. Thank you.

Did anybody even read the link I posted a few pages back of a gay kid at a faith based school?

look, just go back to playing with your wrenches. the adults are talking here.

look, just go back to playing with your wrenches. the adults are talking here.

Piss off Splinks. It was relevant to your stance

Piss off Splinks. It was relevant to your stance

lol - gotcha!