Jump to content

Pyke

Members
  • Content count

    9007
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    56

Pyke last won the day on December 24 2016

Pyke had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3458 Good People

1 Follower

About Pyke

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

7812 profile views
  1. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    I don’t think TWU represents all Christians, but I think it’s difficult to reconcile sincerely held religious beliefs with public duties that may be inconsistent with those beliefs. In some ways, I think TWU and their ilk are more honest with themselves or society in taking the position they are not reconciliable. I feel like other folks are probably favouring their public duties over their religious beliefs (while not acknowledging as such to themselves) or are allowing their religious views to bleed into their public duties (without acknowledging such is occurring).
  2. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    On the facts, it was the most sensible decision, but I don't think we could rationally expect a majority decision to conclude as such, given so many people do have the background of Malicious Prosecutor.
  3. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    Which, as a personal belief, you're totally entitled to. However, in your capacity as a crown prosecutor, I don't think you're entitled to base any decisions on that belief (any more than Jeff Sessions should be entitled to use the Bible as the purported justification for his abhorrent decisions on immigration issues). Moreover, if you are going to bring those personal beliefs into the public sphere, I think they should be entitled to the withering scrutiny of any other beliefs. For example, the absurdity of believing that a random Mesopotamian human was born of a virgin, the "son" of some divine being, which created the world in seven days and died for our "sins". A set of beliefs, which, as it happens, are not all that different from a bunch of popular cults that existed around the same time... and a holy book that was largely written by accounts decades (and in some cases), centuries, after the fact. Can you imagine writing a first hand narrative about what happened to Laura Secord (1812) or at Gettysburg (U.S. Civil War)? Does it really stretch the imagination to believe that maybe your account might leave out a whole bunch of key facts? Then, imagine that two hundred years from now, a bunch of people would get together to decide which of these accounts, which, as we've established, are incredibly accurate, should be included in the holy book? All of which, would be fine, if the subject was confined to whether the people who believe in this fantasy wanted to practice their beliefs in the privacy of their own homes. The problem is, they want to take advantage of public benefits and exclude people who manifestly do not agree with them. That's where we have to draw the line, as a society.
  4. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    Honestly, it does. There will come a day when every major sect is held as seriously as belief in Valhalla or Roman or Greek gods. The passage of time lets us move beliefs from "religion" to "mythology", and appropriately put all of the texts in the "Fiction" section of the local library (or computer database, as it were).
  5. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    I still don't understand how people can think that's there's no problem with denying services to a group on the basis of prohibited grounds... See, this is the problem I have with religious rights in our society: their most zealous advocates seem to believe that they get to permeate into all aspects of their public life. The right to swing your first necessarily has to be limited by the space where your neighbour's nose begins. That's the first fundamental issue I have. The next fundamental issue that I have is that, at it's core, no matter how sincerely held your religious beliefs may be, they are a choice. You could choose to be any particular sect or faith. This is fundamentally different from virtually every other protected ground, in that, they are almost all universally immutable characteristics. In fact, even "family status" is often analyzed through the lens of things which are choices as opposed to legal responsibilities/obligations. This is even worse in situations like TWU, where the desire to have a particular covenant is a choice within a broader choice. It is ridiculous.
  6. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    Oh, I don't know if that's true. We agree on a variety of topics, just we have different views on some important things. In any event, I'm happy with the outcome, even though I preferred the concurring reasons which did not find an infringement of religious rights on the facts of the case.
  7. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    I very much got the impression the LSBC decision was the more comprehensive of the two.
  8. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    Well, for what it's worth, I was consistently and vigorously on the side of the majority here -- the public interest mandate of the law societies distinguished TWU (2001) from TWU (2018).
  9. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    It's a pet peeve of mine that my law society doesn't seem to be all that concerned about the fact that there is no legislation about the "Law Society of Ontario". edit: Apparently Ontario updated the law society act since I last looked.
  10. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    LSUC wins. TWU loses. =)
  11. TWU and the SCC

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/supreme-court-to-rule-on-accreditation-of-trinity-western-s-law-school-1.3973745 We get a decision TOMORROW folks!
  12. TWU and the SCC

    So you're saying soon?
  13. I mean, I have not applied to law schools in more than a decade, so I suppose, things could have changed. That said, I would say, no, schools usually make decisions sooner. However, you wrote a February LSAT, which is not ideal at all for admission to law schools, particularly since many students are admitted in December, January, or February. It's like letting someone who is hosting a party know you're interested in attending half way through them completing their guest list. Sure, you might still get an invitation to the party, but at that point they are probably going to be a bit more careful about who they decide to include. In addition, unless things have drastically changed since I was in shoes similar to yours, your LSAT score is likely not competitive at most Ontario law schools.
  14. I articled at a large Bay Street law firm. I was not hired back. I was however provided with multiple reference letters from senior partners at the law firm, including some who were very significant advocates for me. I had a position lined up before finishing my articles and that experience was true for all but one of my colleagues. Just focus on building strong relationships and doing excellent work, and what you will find is that even if you are not hired back, there will likely be lots of support to find another position. It's worth noting that: (a) Firms understand that big firms only have so many spots and not being hired back is not necessarily a reflection on your skill set or abilities (it could be as simple as no openings in a given practice area); (b) Firms will often appreciate the skills and experience you bring to the table; and, (c) Firms are looking for strong students who will become strong lawyers and they recognize that some of the folks who were not hired back at Bay Street firms fit that description.
  15. 2L Summer Employment Dilemma

    Diplock, I think you're making a lot of assumptions and putting on your small practice blinders. You're giving tremendous benefit of the doubt to the lawyer (and the "employer") while according practically none to the student (and the "employee"). I don't think you're being at all reasonable in your assessment of the situation. Certainly, there are a lot of facts that we don't know, and we can probably all agree that whatever legal rights the OP may or may not have, there could be professional consequences for pursuing them in any meaningful way. There is, however, a tremendous difference between acknowledging that and pretending that the conduct is remotely acceptable, presuming it is as described.
×