Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
WestCoastRunner

Ontario has voted 'no' to accrediting Trinity University Law P

Recommended Posts

The Trinity University located in Langley, BC is starting a law program in 2016, however, students must abide by a covenant that requires them to abstain from sexual intimacy that "violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman".

The Ontario law society has said that graduates of this program cannot practice law in Ontario. I can't figure out how the law society of B.C.'s board allowed this school to go ahead and offer this program in the first place.

Read the story here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must have been a lot of pressure on the law society of BC to approve this one!

I can't understand how they got to that idea. I thought we were supposed to be a little "live and let live" out here on this coast. I do see in your article there is a Victoria lawyer with a petition headed for the law society to reconsider. If I see it I'll sign it. Somehow in all their "learnedness" the courts can't seem to seperate themselves from the church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trinity should sue.

The policies at this university will be contrary to public policy in Ontario. In Ontario, gay marriage is embraced and common-law relationships are recognized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't understand how they got to that idea. I thought we were supposed to be a little "live and let live" out here on this coast. I do see in your article there is a Victoria lawyer with a petition headed for the law society to reconsider. If I see it I'll sign it. Somehow in all their "learnedness" the courts can't seem to seperate themselves from the church.

Yes, I wonder what made the law society approve them. I think there is more to this story than is being publicized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ontario Law Society for violating Trinity and their students' freedom of religion.

The Ontario Law Society isn't preventing them from attending the university. They are just refusing them to practice law in Ontario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on a facet of their religion, not the quality of the education they receive.

Edited by Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on a facet of their religion, not the quality of the education they receive.

If they choose to cloister themselves in that sort of religious servitude, then that's their choice. If they can't find a job afterward, that's too bad. But they must pay for all of it themselves, no public funds. The rest of us have more liberal ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As distasteful as I find Trinity's policy, when did law societies start vetting member's personal beliefs before allowing them to practice? I think Ontario got this one wrong.

Edited by Wilber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they choose to cloister themselves in that sort of religious servitude, then that's their choice. If they can't find a job afterward, that's too bad. But they must pay for all of it themselves, no public funds. The rest of us have more liberal ideas.

Really ? Does that include public funding for Catholic schools in Ontario ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I cannot vote to accredit a law school which seeks to control students in their bedrooms, which threatens to punish those who want to be free to be themselves and to engage in loving and meaningful relationships but who must sign what I consider to be an offensive and morally diminishing agreement," he said.

They say the ban is not based on religion - perhaps not directly based on religion but on the restrictions they place on their students, based on religion ? Seems like it's effectively the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ontario Law Society for violating Trinity and their students' freedom of religion.

I can't help but wonder if you would feel the same way about Muslim lawyers. Of course, you'll say you would, but I could see more complaints about Sharia Law and overturning our Constitution and violating our values coming from you than support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help but wonder if you would feel the same way about Muslim lawyers. Of course, you'll say you would, but I could see more complaints about Sharia Law and overturning our Constitution and violating our values coming from you than support.

"You could see"? When have I ever complained about Muslims?

Certainly, if Muslim lawyers were trying to have Sharia law (which is not our law) enforced, I'd be opposed to having those arguments presented. But I certainly would not advocate for someone's law degree not being recognized just because their religion was islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly, if Muslim lawyers were trying to have Sharia law (which is not our law) enforced, I'd be opposed to having those arguments presented.

You'd be opposed to freedom of speech ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can speak it, I'm talking about presenting LEGAL arguments in court.

Yes, as I said - you're opposed to someone making an argument in court, ie. expressing their views ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm opposed to the court allowing sharia law to be the basis of a legal argument inside of a court where sharia is not the law. It's got nothing whatsoever with them expressing their views. Courts routinely decide if they will or will not hear arguments based on their legal merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm opposed to the court allowing sharia law to be the basis of a legal argument inside of a court where sharia is not the law. It's got nothing whatsoever with them expressing their views. Courts routinely decide if they will or will not hear arguments based on their legal merit.

That's not how the legal system works. You can't base your legal argument on an external system and expect that system to prescribe the ruling to the courts, be it the bible or Sharia law.

Looking at this statement again: "Certainly, if Muslim lawyers were trying to have Sharia law (which is not our law) enforced, I'd be opposed to having those arguments presented." I thought you were talking about lawyers trying to enshrine Sharia law into the legal system. Even if you weren't, if instead you were talking about a lawyer presenting a [bad] argument that quotes Sharia law for some reason... you said you were opposed to them presenting the arguments.... but maybe you just didn't choose your words carefully there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...