Bloggers not: you ask me, "What does BMO HAS TO DO WITH IT!"
BMO & 72 Corporations Launch Assault #Money #investing #finance http://theproverbialfixisin.blogspot.ca/2015/01/bmo-72-corporations-launch-assault.html
Leak: Bank of Montreal now requiring business partners to conform to its pro-gay ‘diversity’ standards http://theproverbialfixisin.blogspot.ca/2015/03/leak-bank-of-montreal-now-requiring.html
SEE SIMON FISH LETTER ON BEHALF OF BMO
see also >>A factor in how
National Post View: In a liberal society Trinity Western should be free to educate according to its beliefs
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com%2F%2Ffull-comment%2Fnational-post-view-trinity-western-should-be-free-to-educate-according-to-its-beliefs
National Post View
Friday, Aug. 28, 2015
Friday, Aug. 28, 2015
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.
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.
National Post
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.
National Post
No comments:
Post a Comment