Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

THWOTH wrote:
Discrimination on the basis of being pro-abortion or anti-gay should not be condoned or tolerated.

50 years ago being pro-gay was not the norm. Should people with those views have been denied access? Not in a free society is my view.

A moot point, at best.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:My impression from your post to me was you approved of discrimination based upon a person's views. Was that not your expression?

And what gives you that impression?

THWOTH wrote: Would you want to be represented by a lawyer who had little or no respect for some of your fundamental legal and human rights?

I could give a shit about my attorneys' personal views, they are required by oath and license to protect my interests under law.

THWOTH wrote:

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:My impression from your post to me was you approved of discrimination based upon a person's views. Was that not your expression?

And what gives you that impression?

Because it's easier to troll you if he can start by pidgin holing you into that position.

It's what Jerome Da Gnome does. It's his total argument style in every thread here, and it's part and parcel of what got him kicked off of so many other forums.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

THWOTH wrote: Would you want to be represented by a lawyer who had little or no respect for some of your fundamental legal and human rights?

I could give a shit about my attorneys' personal views, they are required by oath and license to protect my interests under law.

And bodies like the Law Society play a role in upholding those standards and ensuring those oaths are maintained, in part by accrediting the qualification issues by relevant educational establishments. If, for example, such an educational establishment condones, promotes or supports discrimination on religious grounds then who is actually being ill-served, who is actually being punished, and should such an establishment have it qualifications ratified?

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

THWOTH wrote: Would you want to be represented by a lawyer who had little or no respect for some of your fundamental legal and human rights?

I could give a shit about my attorneys' personal views, they are required by oath and license to protect my interests under law.

And we all know that everyone obeys the law, especially lawyers who have never ever broken the law at all. And there is no way that personal views could lead to someone preforming in a subpar manor when dealing with a person from a group they don't like. Which is why it is fine to go to a racist lawyer when you are African American, there is no way the lawyer would let his racism get in his way.

/sarcasim

Here is your post in response.

THWOTH wrote:The point is that the body charged with ratifying a qualification has stated that it is not prepared to endorse qualification from universities which advocate or promote discrimination prohibited in law - they have not stated that they're not prepared to ratify qualification on the basis of FACT-MAN-2's personal opinion.

The body you refer to is access to the system. It is a denial of the individuals trained in an institution, not on the individuals' thoughts, but rather on a particular thought of the institution.

Could you provide a list of the thoughts which are to be disproved?

DarthHelmet86 wrote:And we all know that everyone obeys the law, especially lawyers who have never ever broken the law at all. And there is no way that personal views could lead to someone preforming in a subpar manor when dealing with a person from a group they don't like. Which is why it is fine to go to a racist lawyer when you are African American, there is no way the lawyer would let his racism get in his way.

That could happen, but it wouldn't last long. There are rules within the community which discourage sandbagging.

And of course it is so easy to prove when your lawyer isn't giving you a hundred percent, there could never be excuses that explain away why it looks like your lawyer fucked you over. Oh and lawyers as a group never ever act to protect their own. Especially when the group have similar views, old boys clubs just don't exist in the real world.

/sarcasim

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:Here is your post in response.

THWOTH wrote:The point is that the body charged with ratifying a qualification has stated that it is not prepared to endorse qualification from universities which advocate or promote discrimination prohibited in law - they have not stated that they're not prepared to ratify qualification on the basis of FACT-MAN-2's personal opinion.

The body you refer to is access to the system. It is a denial of the individuals trained in an institution, not on the individuals' thoughts, but rather on a particular thought of the institution.

Could you provide a list of the thoughts which are to be disproved?

OK. So you think the qualifications of any and all institutions are essentially equal and equivalent. You'll be happy to hear I've got six internet degrees in medicine, so if you could just drop your shorts and hop up on the couch I can apply the leaches to your scrotum to make sure you don't get the flu this winter. You owe me $299 for the consultation btw.

Weaver wrote:
It's what Jerome Da Gnome does. It's his total argument style in every thread here, and it's part and parcel of what got him kicked off of so many other forums.

Phil Plait was the first. He kick me off from JREF instead of answering a difficult question. He was President at the time.

Darat was embarrassed by the decision.

Not too much beyond that.



Weird to poison the well in such a fashion, in ignorance as well.

THWOTH wrote:[
And bodies like the Law Society play a role in upholding those standards and ensuring those oaths are maintained

An oath can't be maintained until tested. This is a disqualification prior to a test of the oath.

Jerome Da Gnome wrote:

THWOTH wrote:[
And bodies like the Law Society play a role in upholding those standards and ensuring those oaths are maintained

An oath can't be maintained until tested. This is a disqualification prior to a test of the oath.

As I said, you seem to think any and all qualifications from any and all institutions are essentially equal and equivalent. Either that or you're just not familiar with the concept of a governing body and their role in accrediting qualifications.

Ohh, I am fully aware. And you are advocating denial of access to the system based upon thought.

How can a society rationally think about a topic when views are silenced?

I prefer to live in a world in which GLAAD has a voice.

Which is why Jerome is happy to go to a doctor from a school that has stuff about germ theory being wrong in its rules of conduct. Its just thought guys, doctors would never let their personal beliefs in germs get in the way of treating people the right way. They even have rules about that in the society.

I feel bad for kids who pursue unaccredited degrees at TWU because the school IS accredited and the quality of education is the same as you'd get anywhere else plus some Jesus stuff, just not outside of BA programs. My concern is how many of these kids know the BSc they're pursuing there (or law degree or whatever) isn't accredited even though their sister's BA from the same institution is.

Lets get down to it. Which thoughts should be disallowed access to the system?

THWOTH wrote:People are not allowed to operate discriminatory practices even if they have discriminatory ideals. If a school of law does not maintain this basic legal principle, and, for example, condones, promotes or supports discrimination on religious grounds then who is actually being ill-served, who is actually being punished?

.

TWU's policies are not illegal discrimination under Canadian law. They fucking well should be, but they aren't.

THWOTH wrote:Is it a 'punishment' to be forbidden from discriminating against others?

Of course not. Pass a law making the discrimination practiced against homosexuals - among others - at TWU illegal, and it's done and dusted. Until then, the belief that TWU's policies constitute unfair discrimination is merely a private political opinion.

That it is an opinion held by a majority of members of the various Law Societies - as well as the majority of members here, including myself - is irrelevant.

THWOTH wrote:Would you want to be represented by a lawyer who had little or no respect for some of your fundamental legal and human rights?

Of course not, but to assume that a graduate has no respect for a group of people's fundamental legal and human rights merely because they obtained their degree from TWU is itself discriminatory. No evidence has been advanced in this thread that suggests that TWU graduates are necessarily homophobes. Having a degree from TWU does not mean a person is a homophobic bigot any more than having a degree from a different university means they aren't.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I feel bad for kids who pursue unaccredited degrees at TWU because the school IS accredited and the quality of education is the same as you'd get anywhere else plus some Jesus stuff, just not outside of BA programs. My concern is how many of these kids know the BSc they're pursuing there (or law degree or whatever) isn't accredited even though their sister's BA from the same institution is.

No lawyers have yet been given law degrees from TWU afaik, this is why they were trying to get accredited so that they could begin giving out law degrees. Perhaps I have that wrong.

However if a wannabe lawyer managed to get a degree from an unaccredited institution that gave them no access to the bar, I wouldn't have much faith in that person as a lawyer.

Onyx8 wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I feel bad for kids who pursue unaccredited degrees at TWU because the school IS accredited and the quality of education is the same as you'd get anywhere else plus some Jesus stuff, just not outside of BA programs. My concern is how many of these kids know the BSc they're pursuing there (or law degree or whatever) isn't accredited even though their sister's BA from the same institution is.

No lawyers have yet been given law degrees from TWU afaik, this is why they were trying to get accredited so that they could begin giving out law degrees. Perhaps I have that wrong.

However if a wannabe lawyer managed to get a degree from an unaccredited institution that gave them no access to the bar, I wouldn't have much faith in that person as a lawyer.

A moot point.

If someone in Canada is not a member of the relevant Law Society, it's illegal for them to hang out their shingle as a lawyer.