Jump to content

epeeist

Members
  • Content count

    8604
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

epeeist last won the day on May 3

epeeist had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2994 Good People

1 Follower

About epeeist

  • Rank

  1. Switch tutor or over reacting

    [strikethrough added to annoyingly to make it annoying, and to be annoying] Wait, you did indicate you welcome correction of your use of the English language, did you not? Or if you were being meta, kudos!
  2. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    I not only expected them to, their not doing so is the kind of thing that if a lower court had ignored (not distinguished, not overruled as the SCC can) a case like that, the SCC would have been highly critical of that court for failing to do so. I mean, now, does this mean that after a few years administrative bodies can ignore SCC precedent on Charter rights if they think it's no longer reflective of society? Prostitution and assisted suicide the argument was new evidence. Here, there's more support for and less discrimination against LGBT people generally, not to mention law students and lawyers. Actually, on that note, is there some future in which discrimination against LGBT people is so de minimis that a university like TWU can have a law school because to not allow it would be discrimination against a severely disadvantaged (Evangelical) minority?
  3. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    Okay but - and here's one of many things the SCC failed to answer - are the law societies okay because it's lawyers? What do you think? Is it lawyers are special? Or is it because it's professions? Or simply because administrative bodies get more deference on constitutional matters than a lower court would? Given Wall a few weeks before, it makes it even more confusing. Especially because the SCC didn't say because lawyers are special TWU is a problem, they said any decision the LSBC made was reasonable. The failure of the SCC to do anything with TWU 2001 is deplorable. When you have a case that some benchers said they felt bound to follow and so voted in favour of TWU, why wouldn't you at least try to distinguish it, if not overrule it? Oh, and at least when it comes to professions in Ontario (trades are now a profession) as was discussed, it's okay to go to a school in another country that discriminates against women, and still have your qualifications recognized here. Is that purely discretionary, or is it because they're not lawyers, or because they're blue collar even if technically a profession?
  4. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    Wait, why is having a mosque - let's say one at which men and women are separate, and they have a policy that people sign about premarital and gay sex stricter than TWU - more important than having a university which people attend and comply voluntarily? The only university in BC, incidentally, which will admit homeschooled students (i.e. provides additional access to education)? Or are you arguing that a mosque, church, etc. can't have conditions of membership that are enforceable? If so, how do you reconcile that view with Wall?
  5. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    But, assuming your interpretation is correct, how did they provide assistance to administrative bodies in making such decisions in future? We can't even figure out whether or not teachers could or couldn't revisit TWU 2001. They said the standard for balancing Charter values is reasonableness not correctness, and that either accrediting or not accrediting would both have been reasonable decisions? And that membership vote is adequate reasons? I also get tired of, oh, the SCC will clarify things in future. WTF, if you don't want to clarify, don't grant leave. Don't grant leave and then punt (borrowing description of SCOTUS behaviour re Masterpiece Cakeshop and others). And, if the SCC is intellectually dishonest, is that scandalous? Shouldn't intellectual honesty be more important than bilingualism? I mean, if they were driven by the result they wanted not reasoning, they could still have adopted McLachlin's reasons and had the same result and more clarity and addressed TWU 2001 (not that McLachlin did a great job distinguishing in my opinion, but she tried).
  6. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    But you said one can't prohibit access to public spaces based on, say, religious attire. Are you now conceding that was wrong and that yes, a university is not a public space and can impose rules about attire, say, on its students (and faculty etc.)? As was discussed a while ago, let's say QC passed a law, every university receiving money from the government (including tax breaks) must prohibit all students, staff, and faculty from wearing religious attire. Let's say McGill chooses to comply. Should law societies in BC and Ontario, at least, remove accreditation from McGill?
  7. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    [emphasis added] A university isn't public and isn't a public space. So shouldn't a university be allowed to, say, restrict access to those who wear religious attire? And have its graduates judged on competence and individual character, not shunned because they attended a school that required, say, all women going there to wear a hijab?
  8. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    There was some discussion back in April in hatred OT thread (and possibly other times), I suggested that it's fairer to e.g. allow all police officers who want to to wear a hijab/headscarf/turban, than to allow only those with a religious reason to do so. Or allow all motorcycle riders not to wear a helmet, not only Sikh motorcyclists (depends on province - I'd be okay with limiting to adults, minors must either wear helmet or not ride motorcycle until an adult, but what about bicycling and children? That's an OT topic!). Which takes us back here, I want adults free to do stupid/wrong things with other consenting adults. Whether for religious reasons or otherwise. I saw (and still see) TWU and their covenant as a private club setting rules for what goes on in the bedrooms of adult members of the same club that shouldn't be the government's business, or a self-regulated profession's business, unless it impacted upon individual character and fairly providing services to all (which the law societies insisted it didn't...). If a hockey league composed of adults who choose to be a member of that league set a rule, no sex the nights before games, sign your agreement - or contrariwise, if they set a rule, must have sex the night before games, with at least one other person (studies on athletic performance are mixed...) so long as it's all adults choosing to join such a hockey league, what's it matter? Or if the rule was, no sex at all during the hockey season, as ridiculous as that might be to outsiders, if it's adults choosing that, so what? Or if the season goes beyond a season, and extends to 3 years, again if it's adults... Though in theory (though now it seems, not in practice?) whether something is religiously-motivated or not matters both for HRC and Charter purposes.
  9. How much law school should be aimed at preparation for practice is oft-discussed and whether it should be more academic or practical, etc. But, just as law schools are obliged to teach real estate, criminal law, family, etc., even if not all those are required courses, if someone were unable to take family law because their law school offered only a small section course every year, well, that would be ridiculous. Similarly, however much or little people litigate and while most cases settle, common-law lawyers in Canada are admitted as both barristers and solicitors. Not just solicitors. Isn't it reasonable to expect that any law student who wanted courses aimed at barrister skills, would be able to take some? In addition to mock trial/moot experience.
  10. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    I figured you would be! I was thinking more of some others; my impression is that some of the people who are anti-TWU are also anti-QC (and some European, like French) laws or proposed/potential laws against hijabs, burkas, yarmulkes/kipas/skullcaps, turbans, etc., which seems inconsistent to me. You may be a swaggering, overbearing, tin-plated dictator with delusions of grandeur (original Star Trek quote is godhood, but given your position, I went with something more secular), but you're not being inconsistent...
  11. Switch tutor or over reacting

    This is general, not about OP who even I think people went on too much about. One of the rules of this site is don't be a jerk. I'm not Morgan, I'm not a mod, but if someone posts a question that is unclear, lengthy, hard to understand, HAS SHOUTING, ridiculous formatting, demonstrates the person hasn't even Googled the subject themselves, etc., and expects law students and lawyers to take time to try to understand what they're saying, do research themselves, and answer the question asked, only that question, politely, with no snarkiness, and not giving any advice outside what was asked, isn't that a case of the questioner being a jerk both by how they asked the question and what their expectations are? And if someone chooses to try to help the poster in such a case, even if their advice is something beyond what the person asked or includes advice to work on English or whatever, isn't that more helpful than simply ignoring them?
  12. Switch tutor or over reacting

    I tried being helpful before, I did think too many people went on about your first post, but I'm not in agreement with this one. 1. In this forum, if one wants help, make it as easy as possible for people to give help. Be clear and as concise as possible (people like me may indulge in arguably overlong responses, but your questions should be as brief and clear as possible). Long, rambling, incoherent questions mean that the best way for people to be helpful is to encourage the poster to improve their writing and how they ask questions so that more people will be willing to respond in a helpful way. 2. You want free advice, including from people who normally charge hundreds of dollars an hour? Okay, some of the advice you get may not be what you want to hear. 3. Sometimes - often - telling someone what they don't want to hear is trying to be helpful.
  13. Switch tutor or over reacting

    [emphasis added] QFT. I have no idea whether the OP's tutor is wonderful or terrible or average, but don't keep doing what ain't working. Caveat: If OP's tutor says e.g., the best way to improve is to do these problems and then we can discuss them when we meet, and OP doesn't do those problems (or something like that, not trying to be accusatory but didn't really understand OP's first post), then the OP hasn't really tried to do what the tutor suggests. But, that may still mean the tutor's not good for the OP. I do have sympathy for OP not being a morning person. But, that means, if the tutor's good, you may put up with their schedule. If they're not, why put up with it?
  14. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    Different (briefer!) thoughts. 1. Let's say the Barreau du QC decides, as legal professionals we need to be secular and promote such. Not like what the government was proposing, but as legal professionals. Therefore every lawyer appearing in open court may not wear any religious headgear, including but not limited to hijab/burka/niqab, kipa/yarmulke/skullcap, turban. We support of course the rights of non-lawyers to wear such religious attire, but not lawyers in court. 2. Let's say they also impose, all lawyers in the province must formulate and adopt a statement of principles expressing support for this secularization of the legal profession, and certify annually that they have adopted such a statement. So long as there's debate and the intent is to improve the public perception of lawyers as neutral, including religiously neutral, so long as seen as reasonable balancing, doesn't this get upheld on the, every profession gets to set its own rules, this is for the benefit of the public?
  15. Trinity Western Loses 7-2

    [emphasis added] If that's what you mean, that's where I disagree, and why I have the most problems with the SCC decision. They said essentially, whatever the LSBC members (not benchers, members) voted to do was okay. No matter which way they went. To me, that's not fair, reasonable, and in compliance with Charter values. Is it okay with you that, assuming you hate TWU's covenant, a law society could reverse its opinion to not accredit? Shouldn't there be a clear Charter answer set by the SCC? And it seems particularly contrary to Wall. As much as I disagree with Gorsuch on any number of things, I agree with questioning undue Chevron deference to administrative bodies, and likewise in Canada. And, why is studying at a private university different than visiting any other private group with rules? Is it because it's a university, or because it's law, or both? What about studying theology, can a religious university impose rules for those students? Only non-professional students? Or even if bodies should be given deference, here, again, the majority should have addressed TWU 2001. Many benchers (LSUC and LSBC 1st time) stated in discussion that they felt bound by TWU 2001 to make the decision they did. Okay, now the SCC has said no you weren't, but could you do more than mention the case once in parentheses? Distinguish it as McLachlin did/tried, overrule it, something, don't virtually ignore it.
×