"Without Prejudice" Soon you will hear "Peace and Security"
Those who have ears Hear ....
Those who have eyes See ....
Read the Signs of the Times .....
For the time is here when investors and bankers will not tolerate sound advise...
And they will flock to hear charlatans and wander off after their demise...
B.C. lawyers voted to deny accreditation to Trinity Western University law school over anti-gay sex stance. TRISTIN HOPPER/NATIONAL POST
The controversy surrounding the law school at Trinity Western University — whose code of conduct ban on extramarital sex has drawn the ire of several provincial law societies — is an ongoing education in society’s different expectations for democracy.
Some people see democracy as the condition of a crusade for social justice, rewarding the victims of past wrongs and punishing those who find themselves on “the wrong side of history.” Others believe it to be consensual, allowing for as many points of view and ways of life as possible, limited only by certain basic rights.
The latter interpretation is naturally more reasonable, which is why the forces against Trinity Western purport to argue on its grounds. They say that making the university an institution non grata is either not a violation of religious freedom at all, or that religious freedom doesn’t count when discrimination and equality are at stake.
It’s an argument that the B.C., Ontario and Nova Scotia law societies have all found compelling. Upon legal challenge, Nova Scotia’s Supreme Court sided with the school; Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice, meanwhile, favoured the provincial law society. After B.C.’s law society reversed its decision to give the school accreditation, the university took the case to court.
The movement to render the university unpalatable is not exactly the stuff of liberal tolerance. Indeed, Trinity Western’s opinion of extramarital sexual behaviour, whatever you may think of it, is derived from a genuine reading of its religious beliefs.
Furthermore, the university makes no claim on the right of people outside its walls to engage in whatever ante-marital activities they may wish; nor does it make any claim on any person to forcibly live and study within those walls. It simply posits that legal training and Christian belief are not antithetical enterprises, and vows to hold its voluntary students to a standard of both.
The movement to render the university unpalatable is not exactly the stuff of liberal tolerance.
So the B.C. Supreme Court, which began hearing the case this week, should find solidly in favour of Trinity Western, and force the Law Society of British Columbia to grant it accreditation.
The argument is literally between a justifiable claim of religious liberty and a social justice movement, which seems to find the language of fundamental freedoms to be only useful to its own cause, not to those who may hold a different opinion of how people ought to live.
Critically, the campaign against Trinity Western is not just an attack on the freedom of the university and the people who own, study at and work for it. Also at stake is the freedom of every prospective student who would be educated there.
This includes people who disagree with the university’s take on sexual morals, but who may still choose to pursue a law degree according to the school’s merits. Does it make any sense to take that choice away from them, any more that it would to arbitrarily discredit another school that has proved its ability to train lawyers?
The United States manages to tolerate small God-fearing law schools in abundance while still housing many secular and religious institutions alike, which budding Canadian lawyers — in fact, budding lawyers the world over — dream of attending. Does their existence provide a haven of sorts for Americans who hold views that may disgust the progressive-minded?
Perhaps so, but the U.S. system rightfully places common sense, pluralism and individual rights ahead of such pretence. The law belongs to everyone and competence in its workings by all societal groups is vital to ensuring that they can all protect their interests. It also ensures that the law is truly representative of the people it serves.
All of these factors are true of Canadian law as well, so why should ours exclude — indeed, discriminate against — societal groups who may be unpopular, but whose claim to the law’s protections are equal to everyone else’s?
But again, this is all presuming that living in a liberal, rule-of-law bound democracy is about finding a way to live together, despite inherent differences of lifestyle and faith, through a combination of enumerated rights and political representation.
The forces against Trinity Western may say that they are in the business of advancing rights and justice, but they are really on a crusade to subdue and punish everyone who does not see the world exactly as they do. Canadians who actually hold liberal principles should support the university’s efforts to have its law program duly recognized.
Dangerous Dollar Threatening Your Retirement?
Everyone knows that the U.S. Dollar has serious flaws. But few investors realize that an alternative currency exists. One that's free of government shenanigans. (Hint: It's not Bitcoin.) Not only can this currency protect you, it could hand early investors up to $56,700. Immediate Details Right Here.
BANK of MONTREAL (NYSE:BMO)
Smart Scan Chart Analysis confirms that a strong downtrend is in place and that the market remains negative longer term. Strong Downtrend with money management stops. A triangle indicates the presence of a very strong trend that is being driven by strong forces and insiders.
The Trade Triangle are generated using a proprietary algorithm that is comprised of weighted factors that include, but are not limited to - price change, percentage change, moving averages, and new highs/lows. The MarketClub trading strategy is based on the triangles, learn more here.
10830 My Pre-Diction BMO will reach .. TSX 32.00 and NYSE 40.00 respectively sooner than later....stay tuned....
BMO should have stuck with banking and keep its nose OUT of Canadian social and educational affaires... see my blog Archives.
BANK of MONTREAL (NYSE:BMO)
Smart Scan Chart Analysis confirms that a strong downtrend is in place and that the market remains negative longer term. Strong Downtrend with money management stops. A triangle indicates the presence of a very strong trend that is being driven by strong forces and insiders.
The Trade Triangle are generated using a proprietary algorithm that is comprised of weighted factors that include, but are not limited to - price change, percentage change, moving averages, and new highs/lows. The MarketClub trading strategy is based on the triangles, learn more here.
Open
High
Low
BMO Price
Change
48.4400
50.9100
48.1700
50.3888
-1.9612
MarketClub’s Trade Triangles for BMO
The long term trend has been DOWNsince Oct 14th, 2014 at 71.600000 my emphasis
The intermediate term trend has been DOWN since May 19th, 2015 at 63.100000
The short term trend has been DOWN since Aug 13th, 2015 at 55.260000
Smart Scan Analysis for BMO
Based on a pre-defined weighted trend formula for chart analysis, BMO scored -100 on a scale from -100 (strong downtrend) to +100 (strong uptrend).
The Federation of Law Societies of Canada (FLSC) has already approved the law program of Trinity Western University (TWU) as meeting academic and professional standards. The Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) admits there is nothing wrong with TWU's law program; its graduates will be fully competent to practice law. The LSUC also admits that there is no evidence that Christian, Muslim, Jewish and other religious lawyers treat LGBTQ people poorly.
Yet the LSUC -- now with the Court's approval -- won't recognize TWU's law degree solely because the person who earned that degree decided, while studying law, to join others in a religious community where people share a personal commitment to traditional marriage.
Messrs. Judson and Saguil correctly point to "the public interest obligations of law societies to promote equal access to the profession," and add that law societies should not meddle with university policies or religious doctrines, regardless of how unpopular they may be.
The LSUC upholds the public interest by not requiring Ontario's lawyers to espouse "correct" views on sex and marriage. Lawyers have the freedom to advocate for, and practice, their moral beliefs about sexuality. This reflects a basic respect for fundamental Charter freedoms. So why should it be any different for those seeking to enter the legal profession?
Is it contrary to the public interest that some law students make a commitment to follow a Christian moral code (including a commitment to abstain from sex outside of traditional marriage) while studying law? Of course not. And if these same individuals live together in a religious community while completing their law degree, how is that contrary to the public interest?
Judson and Saguil argue incorrectly that law schools are gatekeepers to the legal profession. In fact, the Law Societies in each province are the gatekeepers to the legal profession, not TWU. The LSUC is the party which engages in discrimination here, primarily against Christians but also against non-Christians who are welcome to attend TWU and who choose to do so.
If TWU was the only university in Canada with a law school, then the LSUC would have legitimate concerns about LGBTQ people having access to the legal profession. But TWU merely proposes to create an additional law school, one that would not interest the vast majority of students, for many different reasons. TWU would open an additional 60 spaces for law students. This does not close any doors on anyone. By way of analogy, if Muslims, Jews, or gays were to start a new law school, this would not diminish access to the legal profession on the part of non-Muslims, non-Jews, or non-gays.
Reading the column of Judson and Saguil, one would think that same-sex couples are actually interested in attending a university which publicly proclaims its adherence to traditional Evangelical Christian beliefs about marriage and sex.
The beauty of a free society is authentic diversity: Canadians have created literally tens of thousands of different charitable, cultural, ethnic, and political groups. None of these voluntary associations are welcoming towards those who disagree with the association's beliefs, goals or practices. Nobody is required to join a private institution. Forcing majority beliefs on voluntary groups destroys the unique characteristics of each one, and attacks the authentic diversity which is the hallmark of a free society like Canada.
Every voluntary association espouses views, and creates its own rules, that not everyone agrees with. This does not violate anyone's rights or freedoms.
Judson and Saguil assert that the public interest requires forcing private, voluntary associations (in this case TWU) to change their policies and practices to conform to majority opinion (in this case, opinions about sex and marriage), as a prerequisite for providing professional training programs.
This is the antithesis of a free society, which tolerates a broad range of opinions -- and associations -- on a broad range of issues. Why should a person have to agree with Out On Bay Street about LGBTQ issues in order to become a teacher, nurse, lawyer, or other professional?
The LSUC has launched a direct and aggressive assault on the Charter's fundamental freedoms of association, religion, and expression. To what end? To force a religious community to change its very nature, goals and mission, in order to please the majority of Canadians.
The LSUC's reasoning assumes a legal right to force changes on private associations that one disagrees with. This is incompatible with a free society that allows Canadians to form -- and join -- the charitable, ethnic, recreational, political, and cultural associations of their own choosing, free from state coercion.
In a free country, one should not be compelled, on pain of being excluded from a profession, to agree with the beliefs about sex and marriage that are held by Out On Bay Street, or by anyone else. The Supreme Court of Canada decisively rejected ideological conformity for professional accreditation in Trinity Western University v. BC College of Teachers. The same principle should apply to lawyers, nurses, doctors, pharmacists, accountants, and everyone else.
The LSUC could embrace diversity in legal education by recognizing TWU's law school, thereby improving public confidence in the openness of the legal profession. Instead, the LSUC seeks conformity in legal education, and discriminates against those who would engage in a religious lifestyle of which Out On Bay Street disapproves.
TWU does not impose its beliefs on anyone. The LSUC, a government body and the gatekeeper to the legal profession, is imposing the beliefs of Out On Bay Street (and others) on TWU, and on those who would wish to study law there.
Calgary lawyer John Carpay is president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (www.jccf.ca), which intervened in support of freedom of association in Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada.
Follow Bank Of Montreal Stock Quote & Summary DataBMO
$54.58*0.671.21 SEE FOR YOURSELF Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/bmo#ixzz3jK96TipN www.nasdaq.com/symbol/bmo ----------------------------------------------------
4:00 PM EDT 08/19/15 $71.49 CAD SEE for your self www.quotes.wsj.com/CA/BMO
CIBC Lowers Bank of Montreal Price Target to $77.00 (BMO) www.wkrb13.com/markets/740208/cibc-lowers-bank-of-montreal-price-target-to-77-00-bmo/ CIBC decreased their price target on shares of Bank of Montreal (NYSE:BMO) from $81.00 to $77.00 in a research report issued to clients and investors on Monday, MarketBeat.com reports. The firm currently has a “sector performer” rating on the stock. CIBC’s price target would suggest a potential upside of 39.37% from the company’s current price.
AND THE BEAT GOES ON>>>>> BMO Viral Spiral downward continues ... www.theproverbialfixisin.blogspot.ca/2015/01/bmo-viral-spiral-downward-continues.html
CIBC decreased their price target on shares of 
