Canadian law school ruling is a 'blow to religious freedom'

Canadian law school ruling is a 'blow to religious freedom' June 18, 2018

When the Supreme Court in Canada recently ruled that the law societies of Ontario and British Columbia are now permitted to deny Trinity Western University’s (TWU) proposed law school accreditation because of its Christian standards of morality, wailing and gnashing of teeth predictably followed.
According to this report, Gerald Chipeur, above, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) International attorney who represented TWU in the lawsuits, is now saying that the 7–2 decision clearly discriminates against Christians and violates their religious freedom guaranteed to all Canadians.

[Canada’s highest court] has abandoned the promise of freedom that led to the creation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 36 years ago, Individuals will need to turn to their legislators to protect freedom of religion.

And ADF International said in a statement:

[The Supreme Court of Canada] dealt a major blow to religious freedom and freedom of association.

ADF International Executive Director Paul Coleman contended that the high court’s ruling essentially strips faith-based academic institutions of their right to be run according to their religious beliefs.

[Religious universities and schools] should be free to operate according to the faith they teach and to which they adhere. We are deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision. Freedom of religion and association is not only essential for faith-based organizations, but for the functioning of democracy itself. Following this ruling, that vital freedom is now in jeopardy.

LGBT advocates of the two law societies that denied TWU accreditation argue that the proposed law school’s Christian code of conduct discriminates against members of the homosexual community, but six other Canadian law societies had no problem with Trinity upholding its biblical standards of morality.
Canadian Supreme Court Justices Russell Brown and Suzanne Côté were in the minority in the 7–2 ruling, arguing that TWU should not be refused accreditation because it practices a code of conduct this is protected by Canadian law.
However, the judges ruling against TWU saw things differently, maintaining that the two law societies can legally discriminate against Christians and thus refuse accreditation based on its religious code of conduct. The five justices wrote in their decision:

It is inimical to the integrity of the legal profession to limit access on the basis of personal characteristics. This is especially so in light of the societal trust enjoyed by the legal profession. The reality is that most LGBTQ individuals will be deterred from attending TWU’s proposed law school, and those who do attend will be at the risk of significant harm.

They also said that requiring a person to behave contrary to their sexual identity is:

Degrading and disrespectful and offends the public perception that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

Janet Epp Buckingham, above, a Trinity Western professor who helped develop the law school proposal, expressed disappointment.

This is something that has been a dream of mine for 25 years. We will not be starting a law school in the near future, and we will have to consider our options to determine how we’re going to go forward with this.

Earl Phillips, Executive Director of the proposed school, added in a statement:

All Canadians should be troubled by today’s decision that sets a precedent for how the courts will interpret and apply charter rights and equality rights going forward.

But Ontario Law Society Treasurer Paul Schabas saw the Canadian Supreme Court decision as a major win for the LGBT rights.

It is an affirmation of the critical work we have done and continue to do to promote equality, diversity and inclusion in the legal profession.

Hat tip: Vanity Unfair

"I think the citation that refers more accurately to POTUS 45, Jim Bakker, and all ..."

Donald Trump was sent by God ..."
"We used to visit Islay (Queen of the Hebrides) and enjoy tasting sessions. The peat ..."

Kristallnacht: Muslims extremists scream ‘death to ..."
"I think that is unfair. They should be giving the churches money to pay for ..."

New US tax law could extract ..."
"Deplorable, but not what I think should be a crime."

UK man who gave a Nazi ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • J

    Now that Canada is dictated through the courts you might as well give burning torches to factions of homosexual rights groups to start burning down all the evangelical church buildings across this nation once called Canada…for starters -for there are a lot of Protestant, societal, members to work through…or over….
    Go ahead, light the torches in the name human rights justice; set fire to whole communities with believers in them…Perhaps, linch a couple of them and stake them, by their hands and feet, to a pole in some major centre, as a warning to other believers NOT to tread on the sexual libations of the so inclined and thereby readily treat their bodies [one’s body] as gratifications of flesh as the primary, new societal objective… certainly of the flesh, into every orfice…certainly (now).
    Demand the vocal acknowledgement of upcoming young people to bow and to buckle under global minority rights and causes over the personal and importantly acknowledged dictates of their hearts, which exemplify love and charity…Yes, demand -if need by reasonable justifications of the applied law by whippings- the pronouncement of ‘one member a year be given over to a sexual minority group…’That they do what they see fit to these offered up, under the enhancement of society by ‘virtue’ of a deep proclivity to debasement and humiliating punishment…and then further: burn these peoples at the stake for finality; enforcing the new ‘good rule’ of a new equanimity ‘for all.’ !’
    -Keep up the good work with that Charter you’ve got there: sales for whips for flogging will _surely_ increase; people will truly continue to applaud at your form of justice from a place once called Canada {the land of the truly free} -now given over to new rules of what is based upon, what is called, reasonable rights(sic).
    Righteousness (in itself and whence it comes) is not ever (and will never be) based on:
    strictly the authority of/from any government whom are simply ruling over ‘a land.’
    It is established and set forth by God Almighty Yahweh Himself…and you cannot laugh (or corrupt) His ways; providence and eventual -final- ruling of sovereignty; that which will come against all darkness which portrays itself as justice and fairness for humanity under the hidden guise equity for all…when it is only lasciviousness. -For one’s attempt to laugh in the face of Jehovah God, Creator of the one’s very own being; consciousness and soul is quite literally damnation in itself.
    Thank God Almighty…Yahweh Himself for His sole power, mercy and greatness through Jesus Christ His Son, the Messiah.

  • barriejohn

    It’s a blow to religious privilege!

  • Barry Duke

    @ J. I think someone forgot to lock the nuthouse door.

  • Robster

    Congrats to the damaged “J” for using the splendid word “lasciviousness”! If the wrath of your god fairy is all there is to worry about, things are going well, there’s nothing to worry about.

  • barriejohn

    Wow – a civilized country being “dictated through the courts”. That will never do!
    (All that bollocks wasn’t on view when I posted my first comment. Another religious nutter gives us all a bloody good laugh!)

  • Stephen Mynett

    Long time since have had a nutter like this. His use of punctuation is particularly interesting, I hope he returns to explain it to us.

  • CoastalMaineBird

    one’s attempt to laugh in the face of Jehovah God,
    Trust me, J., no one here is laughing in the face of Jehovah God.

  • Carl

    Yes, we are a polite nation and will not be pushed around by a bunch of american crackpot evangelicals.

  • Angela_K

    Looks as thought “J” is another post-bilge-and-run religious, neo-fascist nut.”Wah, wah wah, my religious privilege to discriminate is being taken away”

  • andym

    I think the default position on posts like that should be “troll” rather than “nutter,” until evidence proves otherwise. They’re still very sad bastards, just sad in a different way. Your nutter won’t understand the criticism; your pathetic obese man in his parents’ back bedroom actually wants you to react to the persona.