I've always been grateful for Canada's charter or rights and freedoms. Canada has become a model in the world for rights and freedoms, particularly those laws which protect it's citizens from the injustices associated with discrimination in its many forms.
I believe it is important that we in the Christian community who engage in reconciliation with activism also take care to walk in the shoes of those whose experience is one of tainted by discrimination and the threat of violence.
Trinity Western University 's covenant expresses a profound alignment and fidelity to its evangelical faith commitments. Yet in the context of a law school and the legal profession its stance remains at odds with the rights of others in society and perhaps to the interests of society as a whole.
This case, like those involving medically assisted dying in Canada serve to illustrate that we Christians needs to do a far better job explaining why it is that our rights claims as a matter of conscientious objection and religious commitment supercede the rights claims and needs of those whose creedal commitments and lifestyles happen to be different than ours.
Who of us wants to live in a society where a faith community can so alter the legal profession as to have it's members advocate only for those who share their core values and creedal commitments. I hate to imagine a world where lawyers who are Christian would not advocate for the rights of the LGBT community as afforded them under Canada's charter of rights and freedoms. Surely this is the logical outcome if Trinity Western University were to be granted standing in the light of its creedal requirement.
I applaud the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and hope that Trinity Western withdraws its creedal requirement and thus moves forward in establishing a law school whose understanding of what it means to be a Christian and a lawyer employs a perspective and approach to law which respects both the obligations and opportunities of life in a pluralist society.
All of us ought to be grateful that members of the LGBT community in Canada can sleep at night knowing that their rights are respected under the Charter and Canadian law. Those of us who appreciate Christian schools and Christian organizations understand that we drink from that same fountain of protections. However, as the Supreme Court of Canada correctly points out that protection and freedom has limits to ensure that the common good is upheld.
I think your post paints altogether too dark picture of the ruling and the state of freedoms we Christians enjoy in Canada. A victim approach may not serve us well particularly if we want to do more than advocate just for ourselves. Why would we Christians feel the need to bind the conscience of everyone?
The country of Canada is not Christian indeed it is made up of a vast number of communities who require equal protection under the law. And I doubt that protection can be achieved by abrogating the rights of some entirely especially the opportunity to obtain a legal education that truly upholds the very principles of Canadian law.
I wished you would have written more as to how what I write on a specific point is fundamentally wrong. You do not explain how my position is wrong and limit your comments to sharing your firm belief that it is possible for TWU to maintain its internal requirement of applicants and thus not lead to the outcome I describe. The Court clearly found TWU's creedal requirement discriminatory when set in the context of legal education. The ruling is rather well reasoned.
I would urge denominational leaders such as yourself to formulate a position which is rich in its specific claims. Productive dialogue requires it lest the Christian Reformed denomination be perceived, as I'm afraid it sometimes is, as reactionary if not fringe. I imagine that our tradition offers developed thinking on this matter. Surely we have voices within the CRC of Canada who are members of the legal profession who might assist you and others to comment in an even more informed way.
I do remember the informal litmus tests for a good Christians. I recall a time where whether or not a Christian Reformed family sent their children to the church affiliated christian school was key to the understanding of whether or not they were good members. I remember that as being profoundly hurtful to many and counter productive to spiritual health of families and the congregations to which they belonged. TWU seems entrenched in the same thinking and practice. Our community has abandoned such informal enforcement long ago and perhaps TWU could learn from us.
I appreciate the manner in which you engaged me in this blog.
Thank you Doug for your post. It is interesting to see an American lawyer and citizen contribute to a discussion of what is in the best interests of Canadians and the Christian community there. There are challenges in being a bi national church but that is always tempered by the fact that we are citizens of the kingdom of God first and foremost.
Canada's charter of rights and freedoms enjoys specific 'meaning' and much of Canadian law differs in its orientation from that of federal and state law in the United States. As a regulator I appreciate the profound difference between the two jurisdictions on an almost daily basis. Indeed representation of clients in the U.S. requires a far different skill set and knowledge base than that of Canada. The Canadian and American legal systems differ to such a degree that lawyers trained in their respective traditions need to be employed.
This case in my reading and understanding centers on discrimination and the peculiar place a law school plays in society given the charter of rights and freedoms. It is a very specific ruling tailored to a very specific circumstance and one ought not I believe presume that the court would rule similarily in an other sphere of Canadian life.
TWU 's creed requirement on the part of incoming students flies in the face of the charter and the Canadian legal tradition. Americans, American lawyers especially, may not readily appreciate the fact that the conventions pertaining to the separation of church and state in Canada means something different than it does in the U.S. In recent years in the U.S. religious organizations have found greater legal protection to discriminate against those who do not subscribe to their creed. This impacts employment decisions and the extent of insurance coverage for employees. In Canada it might not be possible to engage in such practices in corresponding ways given the Charter and case law to date.
In the public /private interface I believe your analysis is correct. In Canada it is more difficult to be 'separate' as an institution and organization particularly when the wider interests of society are engaged. There are clear limits to religious freedom and as time goes by those limits are is being further defined in case law.
Christian day schools in Canada for example often enjoy public funding and in matters of cirriculum, policy and standards are subject to government regulatory requirements as enforced by departments of education in the respective provinces. This is generally accepted as a healthy balance and protective of student well being as citizens of a wider society. There are limits I believe to what those schools can impose on the parents of the children such schools enroll.
I suppose it comes down to where the fence line is drawn as you describe so eloquently in your comments. I suppose someone who is already willing to defend the rights of the gay, lesbian and transgender community would ultimately have no difficulty in advising future clients where the fence line lies when it comes to creedal requirements in the case of a law school. I think the Supreme Court wanted to ensure that lawyers in Canada are all trained in the same way when it comes to an understanding of the law and it's practice. That reasoned decision appears driven by the notion of the common good. Yes, i think you are correct, it does limit TWU 's admission practices and likely has implications for the kind of accreditation supervision that would be applied to it's future law school.
Trinity Westerns Board is report to be engaged in an internal conversation now that they know where the fence line is for their law school given the decision of Canada's highest court. There are press reports which indicate that their Board is preparing to withdraw the current creed requirement. I think it important their law school move forward for it is important that Christian law schools come to exist in Canada. It seems a wise choice for it might help the school dynamic to welcome students who have differing lifestyles, understandings and commitments to enjoy exposure to Christian commitments and perspectives .
I appreciated you comments and the apparent energy to seek what is 'just' and 'true' .
I'm certainly not in a position to judge your credentials, nor can I evaluate your ability to apprehend, interpret, and apply Supreme Court decisions in the Canadian context. Perhaps you are as able to accomplish such tasks as are the two Canadian Supreme Court justices which you cite in support of your conclusions.
Further to your point. It strikes me that your interpretation of the court's decision is correct/accurate. The framing of the ruling's result as you state "that the rights of LBTQ + citizens to have un-inconveinced access to all law schools, public and private trumps TWU's right to apply its student requirements of the covenant as used by TWU?" seemed well formulated to me.
When the TWU covenant is set in the legal and proposed educational context the use of that requirement in the admission's process the university would have engaged in a practice which is discriminatory. This admission requirement violates the Canadian legal tradition for it stands in oppostion to charter rights provisions. The law society of B.C. etc was correct in law to deny TWU's law school application on that basis.
I believe you read it all correctly until you suggest that the majority of the justices are saying that TWU must conform to the Canadian government mindset about LGBTQ behavior. Your conclusion seems to miss the point of the Court entirely and becomes ideological to a large extent. In my post I have suggested that the Supreme Court of Canada decision might very well be the preferred judgment offering continued protection for its citizens regardless of sexual orientation and practice. There are good reasons to have that community's rights trump the preferences of others particularly when sexual orientation and expression has nothing to do with one's ability to engage in legal education from a Christian perspective. There are no legally compelling reasons available in Canada to require persons who are not hetrosexual in practice to negate their identity and preferences. This reality is yet to be tested in many spheres and perhaps the TWU case was the first of many.
I would agree that some faith communities in Canada may have difficulty establishing schools and even law schools if they are unwilling to adopt educational practices that do not infringe on the rights of Canadians and /or are in violation of other Canadian laws, conventions and regulations.
Posted in: Trinity Western University and the Supreme Court of Canada
Thank you for your post Pastor Darren.
I've always been grateful for Canada's charter or rights and freedoms. Canada has become a model in the world for rights and freedoms, particularly those laws which protect it's citizens from the injustices associated with discrimination in its many forms.
I believe it is important that we in the Christian community who engage in reconciliation with activism also take care to walk in the shoes of those whose experience is one of tainted by discrimination and the threat of violence.
Trinity Western University 's covenant expresses a profound alignment and fidelity to its evangelical faith commitments. Yet in the context of a law school and the legal profession its stance remains at odds with the rights of others in society and perhaps to the interests of society as a whole.
This case, like those involving medically assisted dying in Canada serve to illustrate that we Christians needs to do a far better job explaining why it is that our rights claims as a matter of conscientious objection and religious commitment supercede the rights claims and needs of those whose creedal commitments and lifestyles happen to be different than ours.
Who of us wants to live in a society where a faith community can so alter the legal profession as to have it's members advocate only for those who share their core values and creedal commitments. I hate to imagine a world where lawyers who are Christian would not advocate for the rights of the LGBT community as afforded them under Canada's charter of rights and freedoms. Surely this is the logical outcome if Trinity Western University were to be granted standing in the light of its creedal requirement.
I applaud the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and hope that Trinity Western withdraws its creedal requirement and thus moves forward in establishing a law school whose understanding of what it means to be a Christian and a lawyer employs a perspective and approach to law which respects both the obligations and opportunities of life in a pluralist society.
All of us ought to be grateful that members of the LGBT community in Canada can sleep at night knowing that their rights are respected under the Charter and Canadian law. Those of us who appreciate Christian schools and Christian organizations understand that we drink from that same fountain of protections. However, as the Supreme Court of Canada correctly points out that protection and freedom has limits to ensure that the common good is upheld.
I think your post paints altogether too dark picture of the ruling and the state of freedoms we Christians enjoy in Canada. A victim approach may not serve us well particularly if we want to do more than advocate just for ourselves. Why would we Christians feel the need to bind the conscience of everyone?
The country of Canada is not Christian indeed it is made up of a vast number of communities who require equal protection under the law. And I doubt that protection can be achieved by abrogating the rights of some entirely especially the opportunity to obtain a legal education that truly upholds the very principles of Canadian law.
Posted in: Trinity Western University and the Supreme Court of Canada
Thank you for your response
I wished you would have written more as to how what I write on a specific point is fundamentally wrong. You do not explain how my position is wrong and limit your comments to sharing your firm belief that it is possible for TWU to maintain its internal requirement of applicants and thus not lead to the outcome I describe. The Court clearly found TWU's creedal requirement discriminatory when set in the context of legal education. The ruling is rather well reasoned.
I would urge denominational leaders such as yourself to formulate a position which is rich in its specific claims. Productive dialogue requires it lest the Christian Reformed denomination be perceived, as I'm afraid it sometimes is, as reactionary if not fringe. I imagine that our tradition offers developed thinking on this matter. Surely we have voices within the CRC of Canada who are members of the legal profession who might assist you and others to comment in an even more informed way.
I do remember the informal litmus tests for a good Christians. I recall a time where whether or not a Christian Reformed family sent their children to the church affiliated christian school was key to the understanding of whether or not they were good members. I remember that as being profoundly hurtful to many and counter productive to spiritual health of families and the congregations to which they belonged. TWU seems entrenched in the same thinking and practice. Our community has abandoned such informal enforcement long ago and perhaps TWU could learn from us.
I appreciate the manner in which you engaged me in this blog.
Posted in: Trinity Western University and the Supreme Court of Canada
Thank you Doug for your post. It is interesting to see an American lawyer and citizen contribute to a discussion of what is in the best interests of Canadians and the Christian community there. There are challenges in being a bi national church but that is always tempered by the fact that we are citizens of the kingdom of God first and foremost.
Canada's charter of rights and freedoms enjoys specific 'meaning' and much of Canadian law differs in its orientation from that of federal and state law in the United States. As a regulator I appreciate the profound difference between the two jurisdictions on an almost daily basis. Indeed representation of clients in the U.S. requires a far different skill set and knowledge base than that of Canada. The Canadian and American legal systems differ to such a degree that lawyers trained in their respective traditions need to be employed.
This case in my reading and understanding centers on discrimination and the peculiar place a law school plays in society given the charter of rights and freedoms. It is a very specific ruling tailored to a very specific circumstance and one ought not I believe presume that the court would rule similarily in an other sphere of Canadian life.
TWU 's creed requirement on the part of incoming students flies in the face of the charter and the Canadian legal tradition. Americans, American lawyers especially, may not readily appreciate the fact that the conventions pertaining to the separation of church and state in Canada means something different than it does in the U.S. In recent years in the U.S. religious organizations have found greater legal protection to discriminate against those who do not subscribe to their creed. This impacts employment decisions and the extent of insurance coverage for employees. In Canada it might not be possible to engage in such practices in corresponding ways given the Charter and case law to date.
In the public /private interface I believe your analysis is correct. In Canada it is more difficult to be 'separate' as an institution and organization particularly when the wider interests of society are engaged. There are clear limits to religious freedom and as time goes by those limits are is being further defined in case law.
Christian day schools in Canada for example often enjoy public funding and in matters of cirriculum, policy and standards are subject to government regulatory requirements as enforced by departments of education in the respective provinces. This is generally accepted as a healthy balance and protective of student well being as citizens of a wider society. There are limits I believe to what those schools can impose on the parents of the children such schools enroll.
I suppose it comes down to where the fence line is drawn as you describe so eloquently in your comments. I suppose someone who is already willing to defend the rights of the gay, lesbian and transgender community would ultimately have no difficulty in advising future clients where the fence line lies when it comes to creedal requirements in the case of a law school. I think the Supreme Court wanted to ensure that lawyers in Canada are all trained in the same way when it comes to an understanding of the law and it's practice. That reasoned decision appears driven by the notion of the common good. Yes, i think you are correct, it does limit TWU 's admission practices and likely has implications for the kind of accreditation supervision that would be applied to it's future law school.
Trinity Westerns Board is report to be engaged in an internal conversation now that they know where the fence line is for their law school given the decision of Canada's highest court. There are press reports which indicate that their Board is preparing to withdraw the current creed requirement. I think it important their law school move forward for it is important that Christian law schools come to exist in Canada. It seems a wise choice for it might help the school dynamic to welcome students who have differing lifestyles, understandings and commitments to enjoy exposure to Christian commitments and perspectives .
I appreciated you comments and the apparent energy to seek what is 'just' and 'true' .
Posted in: Trinity Western University and the Supreme Court of Canada
Thank you for engaging me.
I'm certainly not in a position to judge your credentials, nor can I evaluate your ability to apprehend, interpret, and apply Supreme Court decisions in the Canadian context. Perhaps you are as able to accomplish such tasks as are the two Canadian Supreme Court justices which you cite in support of your conclusions.
Further to your point. It strikes me that your interpretation of the court's decision is correct/accurate. The framing of the ruling's result as you state "that the rights of LBTQ + citizens to have un-inconveinced access to all law schools, public and private trumps TWU's right to apply its student requirements of the covenant as used by TWU?" seemed well formulated to me.
When the TWU covenant is set in the legal and proposed educational context the use of that requirement in the admission's process the university would have engaged in a practice which is discriminatory. This admission requirement violates the Canadian legal tradition for it stands in oppostion to charter rights provisions. The law society of B.C. etc was correct in law to deny TWU's law school application on that basis.
I believe you read it all correctly until you suggest that the majority of the justices are saying that TWU must conform to the Canadian government mindset about LGBTQ behavior. Your conclusion seems to miss the point of the Court entirely and becomes ideological to a large extent. In my post I have suggested that the Supreme Court of Canada decision might very well be the preferred judgment offering continued protection for its citizens regardless of sexual orientation and practice. There are good reasons to have that community's rights trump the preferences of others particularly when sexual orientation and expression has nothing to do with one's ability to engage in legal education from a Christian perspective. There are no legally compelling reasons available in Canada to require persons who are not hetrosexual in practice to negate their identity and preferences. This reality is yet to be tested in many spheres and perhaps the TWU case was the first of many.
I would agree that some faith communities in Canada may have difficulty establishing schools and even law schools if they are unwilling to adopt educational practices that do not infringe on the rights of Canadians and /or are in violation of other Canadian laws, conventions and regulations.
Best,
Fred Koning