Mick wrote:

Acetone wrote:

Mick wrote:

Acetone wrote:Good, they shouldn't have a law school nor any other schools which receive government funding and whose students receive government financial assistance.

Just like Ontario should do away with fucking Catholic public elementary schools.

That's tied into confederation.

Who the fuck really cares?

Because it's tied into the constitution and founding of this country.

Dunno why we ran from the Protestant-Catholic school system we had-at least we knew who we were. We had an identity. Canada is a clusterfuck of identities and values. It is incoherent, really.

Again, who the fuck cares about some compromises made nearly 150 years ago? I could care less what they wrote back then.

Mick wrote:

Acetone wrote:

Mick wrote:

Acetone wrote:Good, they shouldn't have a law school nor any other schools which receive government funding and whose students receive government financial assistance.

Just like Ontario should do away with fucking Catholic public elementary schools.

That's tied into confederation.

Who the fuck really cares?

Because it's tied into the constitution and founding of this country.

Dunno why we ran from the Protestant-Catholic school system we had-at least we knew who we were. We had an identity. Canada is a clusterfuck of identities and values. It is incoherent, really.

Canada still has an identity, it might not be one you personally like but that doesn't make it not exist. Also having a religious school system doesn't mean you know who you are, that is just more religious wibble about how only religion makes life meaningful which is flat out bullshit.

Every country would be better off with a secular only school system.

Shrunk wrote:

Nicko wrote:It could well take the form of the people currently lobbying statutory bodies to exclude an institution for reasons outside their remit instead lobbying democratic bodies for legislative change.

I'd say that's exactly what's happening, isn't it?

No.

Shrunk wrote:And I still take issue with your claim that anything other than academic competence of graduates is outside the remit of an accrediting body.

Not my claim.

My claim is that anything outside the academic quality of the curriculum of a university are outside the remit of a law society. The law society's remit when deciding whether or not to accredit a law school is to judge whether or not the school can produce graduates qualified to begin their articles.

It also has a remit to judge the individual graduates produced by the various law schools. They can refuse admission to the bar any graduate who holds views that would make them unable to act professionally. They can expel from the bar anyone whose bigotry is only revealed after their admission. It's not like they don't have enough tools at their disposal to deal with bigoted lawyers.

I would love for Canada to legislate into existence an accrediting body that could stop educational institutions from mandating agreements like TWU's "community covenant" as prerequsites to entry or employment. If you believe that TWU's behviour towards it's students and staff is discriminatory, then it is discriminatory whether the student or teacher is studying or working in any faculty.

As I've said, if TWU does not violate anti-discrimination laws as they are currently written, lobby elected representatives to change the law. Release all the students and staff at TWU from the "community covenant" rather than just saying, "You can't treat law students like that. If you do, we will punish you by refusing to recognise their degrees. But do please carry on treating everyone else at the school any way you want."

Shrunk wrote:Acetone has already explained that there are many other factors that are taken into account. Another example is that of Penn State, whose accreditation was threatened because of the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal.

Not relevantly similar.

Nicko wrote:My claim is that anything outside the academic quality of the curriculum of a university are outside the remit of a law society. The law society's remit when deciding whether or not to accredit a law school is to judge whether or not the school can produce graduates qualified to begin their articles.

You keep saying that, but you have yet to cite any legislation that actually supports your position.

Mick wrote:

Acetone wrote:

Mick wrote:

Acetone wrote:Good, they shouldn't have a law school nor any other schools which receive government funding and whose students receive government financial assistance.

Just like Ontario should do away with fucking Catholic public elementary schools.

That's tied into confederation.

Who the fuck really cares?

Because it's tied into the constitution and founding of this country.

And it has been eliminated in other provinces.

Dunno why we ran from the Protestant-Catholic school system we had-at least we knew who we were. We had an identity. Canada is a clusterfuck of identities and values. It is incoherent, really.

And this is a problem because....? (Please bear item 1.2b of the Forum Users' Agreement in mind when you reply.)

.

Acetone wrote:

Mick wrote:

Acetone wrote:

Mick wrote:

That's tied into confederation.

Who the fuck really cares?

Because it's tied into the constitution and founding of this country.

Dunno why we ran from the Protestant-Catholic school system we had-at least we knew who we were. We had an identity. Canada is a clusterfuck of identities and values. It is incoherent, really.

Again, who the fuck cares about some compromises made nearly 150 years ago? I could care less what they wrote back then.

Do you feel the same about the BNA? Various treaties between whites and native Americans?

Shrunk wrote:

Nicko wrote:My claim is that anything outside the academic quality of the curriculum of a university are outside the remit of a law society. The law society's remit when deciding whether or not to accredit a law school is to judge whether or not the school can produce graduates qualified to begin their articles.

You keep saying that, but you have yet to cite any legislation that actually supports your position.

The legislation in question is the various Acts of Parliament establishing the provincial Law Societies. Let's take Ontario's. I understand that it is the oldest and the Act that established it was used as a model for the Acts that established the Lawsocieties of the other provinces.

The text can be found here. It includes:

Function of the Society

4.1 It is a function of the Society to ensure that,
(a) all persons who practise law in Ontario or provide legal services in Ontario meet standards of learning, professional competence and professional conduct that are appropriate for the legal services they provide; and
(b) the standards of learning, professional competence and professional conduct for the provision of a particular legal service in a particular area of law apply equally to persons who practise law in Ontario and persons who provide legal services in Ontario. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 7.

Principles to be applied by the Society

4.2 In carrying out its functions, duties and powers under this Act, the Society shall have regard to the following principles:
1. The Society has a duty to maintain and advance the cause of justice and the rule of law.
2. The Society has a duty to act so as to facilitate access to justice for the people of Ontario.
3. The Society has a duty to protect the public interest.
4. The Society has a duty to act in a timely, open and efficient manner.
5. Standards of learning, professional competence and professional conduct for licensees and restrictions on who may provide particular legal services should be proportionate to the significance of the regulatory objectives sought to be realized. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 7.

Interpretation – standards of professional competence

41. A licensee fails to meet standards of professional competence for the purposes of this Act if,
(a) there are deficiencies in,

(i) the licensee’s knowledge, skill or judgment,
(ii) the licensee’s attention to the interests of clients,
(iii) the records, systems or procedures of the licensee’s professional business, or
(iv) other aspects of the licensee’s professional business; and
(b) the deficiencies give rise to a reasonable apprehension that the quality of service to clients may be adversely affected. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 37.

Nowhere in the Act is there provision to reject an applicant for a license to practice law if a large enough group of people have a personal political disagreement with the administration of the school the applicant went to. And it should be pretty obvious to anyone who values the principle of equality before the law why the fuck not.

And of course, there is Section 27.3; "Duty to Issue License":

If a person who applies to the Society for a class of licence in accordance with the by-laws meets the qualifications and other requirements set out in this Act and the by-laws for the issuance of that class of licence, the Society shall issue a licence of that class to the applicant.

I'm sorry, Nicko. I can't seem to find the part where it specifies the limitations, which you keep insisting exist, on criteria the Law Society may use when deciding whether to accredit a law school . Could you point them out to me?

When it says the Law Society must "ensure that all persons who practise law in Ontario or provide legal services in Ontario meet standards of learning, professional competence and professional conduct that are appropriate for the legal services they provide,", that does not mean it can not also apply other criteria above and beyond this, consistent with its legal madate to "protect the public interest." Specifically, there is not mention above of applicants having attended an accredited (by the LSUC) school of law, but obviously that should be one criteria.

IOW, if the LSUC did accredit TWU, and then refused to allow one of its graduates to article in Ontario, they would have to justify this based on the criteria enumerated in the Law Society Act. But it does not in any way follow from that that they have to accredit TWU just because some other body has done so.

Mick wrote:

Acetone wrote:

Mick wrote:

Acetone wrote:
Who the fuck really cares?

Because it's tied into the constitution and founding of this country.

Dunno why we ran from the Protestant-Catholic school system we had-at least we knew who we were. We had an identity. Canada is a clusterfuck of identities and values. It is incoherent, really.

Again, who the fuck cares about some compromises made nearly 150 years ago? I could care less what they wrote back then.

Do you feel the same about the BNA? Various treaties between whites and native Americans?

You see, unlike you, I respect legislation... actually anything really, solely based on it's merit. Not because it was written a long time ago.

Which British North America Act??? You do know BNA is plural, as in there are multiple acts...??? Seeing as what you said before I assume it to be the original... British North America Act 1867.... pretty fucking useless today. Just want to note: there are actually no BNAs today in Canadian legislation, any that were not repealed or previously renamed were all renamed to 'Canada Act' when Trudeau patriated our constitution.

Treaties between whites and natives have also been pretty useless, we should do much more to help them.

So you think Canada never should have patriated it's constitution, the Statute of Westminister never should have happened... on and on and on... You think we shouldn't do more for the Natives who got the shit end of the stick and live in conditions today rivaling those found in 3rd world nations. Alas, these treaties were written long, long ago, innerrent and infallible... After all, it's the natives faults for their situation right?

Sorry, but 'it was written long ago into the constitution and provincial legislation' is not an argument to support why religious schools should exist.

Acetone wrote:So you think Canada never should have patriated it's constitution, the Statute of Westminister never should have happened... on and on and on...

He may not:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/news- ... 44865.html

As expected:

Trinity Western launches court action to defend law school

Shrunk wrote:As expected:

Trinity Western launches court action to defend law school

Well, it worked for them the last two times, didn't it?

Nicko wrote:

Shrunk wrote:As expected:

Trinity Western launches court action to defend law school

Well, it worked for them the last two times, didn't it?

I'm only aware of one. What was the second?

Anyway, as I said before, I welcome this. If other law societies are approving this school, not because they believe it's the right thing to do, but because they feel they have no other legal option, it would be good to have the courts confirm that is actually the case.

Shrunk wrote:

Nicko wrote:

Shrunk wrote:As expected:

Trinity Western launches court action to defend law school

Well, it worked for them the last two times, didn't it?

I'm only aware of one. What was the second?

I was under the impression it was both teachers and nurses. Checking their wiki page, only the teachers sued.

Shrunk wrote:Anyway, as I said before, I welcome this. If other law societies are approving this school, not because they believe it's the right thing to do, but because they feel they have no other legal option, it would be good to have the courts confirm that is actually the case.

And if TWU wins - which seems likely given the Supreme Court's previous ruling - they get to use the slogan, "TWU Law School: We know the law better than the law societies."

Solution? Change the law.

Nicko wrote:

Shrunk wrote:Anyway, as I said before, I welcome this. If other law societies are approving this school, not because they believe it's the right thing to do, but because they feel they have no other legal option, it would be good to have the courts confirm that is actually the case.

And if TWU wins - which seems likely given the Supreme Court's previous ruling - they get to use the slogan, "TWU Law School: We know the law better than the law societies."

Solution? Change the law.

If it is unconstitutional to for a law society to deny accreditation to TWU because of its religious practices, then it is unconstitutional for the government or any other body to deny accreditation because of its religious practices. If you are correct that TWU will win its case, then "changing the law" is not an option. I don't know why you cannot grasp this.

Shrunk wrote:I'm sorry, Nicko. I can't seem to find the part where it specifies the limitations, which you keep insisting exist, on criteria the Law Society may use when deciding whether to accredit a law school . Could you point them out to me?

When it says the Law Society must "ensure that all persons who practise law in Ontario or provide legal services in Ontario meet standards of learning, professional competence and professional conduct that are appropriate for the legal services they provide,", that does not mean it can not also apply other criteria above and beyond this, consistent with its legal madate to "protect the public interest." Specifically, there is not mention above of applicants having attended an accredited (by the LSUC) school of law, but obviously that should be one criteria.

IOW, if the LSUC did accredit TWU, and then refused to allow one of its graduates to article in Ontario, they would have to justify this based on the criteria enumerated in the Law Society Act. But it does not in any way follow from that that they have to accredit TWU just because some other body has done so.

Sorry, I thought I addressed this earlier.

The bold is not true. The thing we are discussing here is not the rules of some private club, it is an Act of Parliament establishing a statutory body that is not part of the government itself only by reason of the possibility of a conflict of interest. Very definitely, the Law Societies cannot just decide to expand their mandate in order to endorse a particular political position.

And like it or not - not, in my case - until there is either a legal ruling - or, more likely, a change in the law - that TWU's "community covenant" constitutes discrimination under the law, disapproval of said covenant is merely a political position. A personal opinion, no matter how widely shared.

Accreditation of Law Schools is a formality to obviate the necessity of going over the full education of every single applicant to the Bar. The societies agree that a particular curriculum prepares a graduate to begin their articles. That's it.

Nicko wrote:

Shrunk wrote:I'm sorry, Nicko. I can't seem to find the part where it specifies the limitations, which you keep insisting exist, on criteria the Law Society may use when deciding whether to accredit a law school . Could you point them out to me?

When it says the Law Society must "ensure that all persons who practise law in Ontario or provide legal services in Ontario meet standards of learning, professional competence and professional conduct that are appropriate for the legal services they provide,", that does not mean it can not also apply other criteria above and beyond this, consistent with its legal madate to "protect the public interest." Specifically, there is not mention above of applicants having attended an accredited (by the LSUC) school of law, but obviously that should be one criteria.

IOW, if the LSUC did accredit TWU, and then refused to allow one of its graduates to article in Ontario, they would have to justify this based on the criteria enumerated in the Law Society Act. But it does not in any way follow from that that they have to accredit TWU just because some other body has done so.

Sorry, I thought I addressed this earlier.

The bold is not true. The thing we are discussing here is not the rules of some private club, it is an Act of Parliament establishing a statutory body that is not part of the government itself only by reason of the possibility of a conflict of interest. Very definitely, the Law Societies cannot just decide to expand their mandate in order to endorse a particular political position.

And like it or not - not, in my case - until there is either a legal ruling - or, more likely, a change in the law - that TWU's "community covenant" constitutes discrimination under the law, disapproval of said covenant is merely a political position. A personal opinion, no matter how widely shared.

Accreditation of Law Schools is a formality to obviate the necessity of going over the full education of every single applicant to the Bar. The societies agree that a particular curriculum prepares a graduate to begin their articles. That's it.

And the part of the Act that explicitly says this is....

Shrunk wrote:

Nicko wrote:

Shrunk wrote:Anyway, as I said before, I welcome this. If other law societies are approving this school, not because they believe it's the right thing to do, but because they feel they have no other legal option, it would be good to have the courts confirm that is actually the case.

And if TWU wins - which seems likely given the Supreme Court's previous ruling - they get to use the slogan, "TWU Law School: We know the law better than the law societies."

Solution? Change the law.

If it is unconstitutional to for a law society to deny accreditation to TWU because of its religious practices, then it is unconstitutional for the government or any other body to deny accreditation because of its religious practices. If you are correct that TWU will win its case, then "changing the law" is not an option. I don't know why you cannot grasp this.

Because you are wrong.

Constitutions can be amended, if it comes to that, so changing the law is still an option and one much more legitimately subject to public opinion. One possibility would be - as I said earlier - regulating the issuing of degrees.

Nicko wrote:Because you are wrong.

Constitutions can be amended, if it comes to that, so changing the law is still an option and one much more legitimately subject to public opinion. One possibility would be - as I said earlier - regulating the issuing of degrees.

Fair enough. Technically, you are correct. In practical terms, there is absolutely no chance the gov't will reopen the constitution to deal with this issue. If it came to that, I would much prefer they first amend the constitution to do away with publicly funded religious schools. And that's not happening any time, soon, either.