News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

Started by Josephus, March 22, 2011, 09:27:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Malthus

Heh, not sure the American news realizes just how odd it is the have the Seargent-at-Arms personally shoot an attacker dead in parliament - I was watching a US news channel, that stated that the attacker was shot dead "by security".

While technically accurate, it just seems a trifle understated ...
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

Jacob

Quote from: Josephus on October 22, 2014, 06:42:59 PM
She got off lucky, in hindsight.

Was she "a protestor masquerading as a page" as the article says? I thought she was a page, who decided to protest.

Barrister

Quote from: Jacob on October 23, 2014, 11:12:21 AM
Quote from: Josephus on October 22, 2014, 06:42:59 PM
She got off lucky, in hindsight.

Was she "a protestor masquerading as a page" as the article says? I thought she was a page, who decided to protest.

Yup.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Jacob

Quote from: Barrister on October 23, 2014, 11:38:25 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 23, 2014, 11:12:21 AM
Quote from: Josephus on October 22, 2014, 06:42:59 PM
She got off lucky, in hindsight.

Was she "a protestor masquerading as a page" as the article says? I thought she was a page, who decided to protest.

Yup.

Ah! Thanks for that detail, then :)

Jacob

Canadian Lawyers, I draw your attention to this: http://globalnews.ca/news/1646129/b-c-lawyers-vote-against-approving-trinity-western-law-school/

The BC Law Society has voted against accrediting a law program at Trinity Western, a private religious university in Langley.

What's your take on this?

crazy canuck

I have a fairly strong view about this but it appears to be very much the minority view amongst lawyers who bothered to vote. I would be interested to see what others think. 

Barrister

While I seriously doubt that we need yet another new law school, I think TWU should be allowed.  We have a long, long history of religious-based education in this country.  Heck the US has some religious-based law schools, and if you attend those schools and go through an accreditation program you can be qualified to practice law in Canada.

It's a private institution, not receiving government dollars.

Finally, I've even read a couple of accounts of gay students attending TWU.  The school was very supportive of the students.  What the covenant seems to do is to ensure that any deliberatively disruptive student will be asked to leave.  e.g. You're a gay student who wants to start a Pride Parade on the campus quad - please go, but if you're a gay student who wants to talk and pray about what that means would be accepted.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

crazy canuck

Turns out only BB had a view, so here are my two cents.

The claim is that the Covenant which requires students to promise not to have sex outside marriage (which is defined as between a man and a women) is discriminatory.  Following from that claim it is further claimed that the Law Society should not approve a law school which engages is discriminatory behaviour.


The first claim is false.  Our human rights code expressly allows religious schools to set their own standards according to their faith.  The reason that religious exemption exists is to recognize the importance of the Freedom of Religion which is enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  I have heard some say that even if TWU is not in violation of the Human Rights Code the Law Society should still not recognize the law school because the Covenant is discriminatory in the non legal broad sense of that word.  But what happened to the Rule of Law?  If it is not discriminatory under the law on what possible basis could the Law Society not approve the application?  Because the majority doesnt like the Covenant?  Isnt the Rule of Law and our Charter Rights supposed to protect minority groups from the tyranny of the majority?  Aren't lawyers supposed to understand that?

Grey Fox

I have an opinion but I am not a lawyer so I refrained.
Colonel Caliga is Awesome.

garbon

"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.


Grey Fox

Colonel Caliga is Awesome.

Jacob

Quote from: Grey Fox on November 05, 2014, 10:19:37 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 05, 2014, 10:09:41 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 05, 2014, 08:55:50 AM
I have an opinion but I am not a lawyer so I refrained.

why?

That's how Jacob formulated his post.

I am surprised by your deference to the formulation of my post.

Barrister

Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2014, 09:02:12 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2014, 09:49:59 PM
pray about what that means

Pray about what "what" means?

Pray about what it means to be a gay christian (and in particular a gay evangelical christian).  Does it mean you should try "conversion therapy"?  Does it mean you should embrace "gay identity and culture"?  Does it mean Jesus wants you to be celibate, or does it mean He wants to you only have gay sex within marriage?
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Malthus

Quote from: Barrister on November 05, 2014, 11:08:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 05, 2014, 09:02:12 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 31, 2014, 09:49:59 PM
pray about what that means

Pray about what "what" means?

Pray about what it means to be a gay christian (and in particular a gay evangelical christian).  Does it mean you should try "conversion therapy"?  Does it mean you should embrace "gay identity and culture"?  Does it mean Jesus wants you to be celibate, or does it mean He wants to you only have gay sex within marriage?

Depends on whether one means Jesus in the sense of the first century Jewish fellow, or Jesus in the sense of the God.

If the former, he'd probably be very muicj against gay sex - first century Jewish culture was pretty gay-unfriendly, as that sort of thing was associated with Greek culture, abhorred by all believing Jews (if pretty widespread nonetheless).

If the latter, it is hard to imagine a veritable God caring one whit about whether one enjoys sucking on cocks or cunts more.  ;)
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius