Jump to content
almostnot

TWU - The Big Show

Recommended Posts

maximumbob    5952
3 hours ago, providence said:

Well, a big part of "who you are" is expressing your sexuality and/or being in a relationship/family unit with a partner. 

 

Is it?  If you don't have sex for 3 years does that mean you cease to be straight or gay, as the case may be?   Who you are is distinct from expressions of who you are.  To accept the truth of Hegdis' claim is to believe, falsely, that TWU bars gay students from attending.  It does not, either de jure or de facto, the claim is factually false.

Given that TWU limits the ability expressions of hetetorosexual sexuality, is it you view that it discriminates against heterosexuals too?  Strange, given the large number of them who presumably attend the place.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maximumbob    5952
4 hours ago, providence said:

whoa, some of those memoranda are brutal! (just skimming through)

And why are they all talking about international law? Doesn't seem necessary.

 

 

The international law one was the worst.  None of the purported international law "obligations" or "rights" it identified (none of which Canadians would recognize) are remotely binding on any of the parties.  It's embarrassing that someone would submit something so profoundly stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
providence    2331
2 hours ago, maximumbob said:

Is it?  If you don't have sex for 3 years does that mean you cease to be straight or gay, as the case may be?   Who you are is distinct from expressions of who you are.  To accept the truth of Hegdis' claim is to believe, falsely, that TWU bars gay students from attending.  It does not, either de jure or de facto, the claim is factually false.

Given that TWU limits the ability expressions of hetetorosexual sexuality, is it you view that it discriminates against heterosexuals too?  Strange, given the large number of them who presumably attend the place.  

 

 

I have gone 3 years without having sex before :( Of course in and of itself it does not take away your sexual identity. It is different though when it is something you freely choose, not something you have any external pressure upon you by signing a document, when you know that you can take steps to change that if you wish, when it is your business and no one else's, when you have opportunities and choose to turn them down, as opposed to not having it because you signed a document and you know you can't change your mind or take an opportunity if it comes your way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
providence    2331
2 hours ago, maximumbob said:

The international law one was the worst.  None of the purported international law "obligations" or "rights" it identified (none of which Canadians would recognize) are remotely binding on any of the parties.  It's embarrassing that someone would submit something so profoundly stupid.

I couldn't figure out why they would appeal to international law when we have so much of our own Charter jurisprudence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, providence said:

I couldn't figure out why they would appeal to international law when we have so much of our own Charter jurisprudence.

Maybe they saw this as their one chance to actually do some work even remotely related to what they wrote in the personal statements, way back when?

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maximumbob    5952
32 minutes ago, providence said:

I have gone 3 years without having sex before  Of course in and of itself it does not take away your sexual identity. It is different though when it is something you freely choose, not something you have any external pressure upon you by signing a document, when you know that you can take steps to change that if you wish, when it is your business and no one else's, when you have opportunities and choose to turn them down, as opposed to not having it because you signed a document and you know you can't change your mind or take an opportunity if it comes your way. 

People attending TWU aren't "free to choose"?  Really?  I wasn't aware attendance was mandatory. 

32 minutes ago, providence said:

I couldn't figure out why they would appeal to international law when we have so much of our own Charter jurisprudence.

I hate appeals to international law. 

Outside of cases where you're interpretating domestic laws that ostensibly given effect to treaty obligations, it simply shouldn't be considered.

At best, it merely provides "cover" for interpretations of domestic law (e.g., real law) that might be controversial (think about the cases dealing with prohibitions on the deportation of criminals).  I understand why the courts do that - judges care about how their judements get reported in the Star or the Globe - but it risks muddying the basis for their legal reasoning.  The reason Canada doesn't deport people to face torture is not because we signed a treaty precluding us from doing so, but because our constitution precludes us from doing so.

At worst, judges (inappropriately or unintentionally) use it to effectively amend domestic law.  The example of the latter approach was the complete reversal of the SCC over collective bargaining rights and the ability of governments to impose contracts.  The suggestion that because the federal executive had entered into a treaty which purports to provide the right to collective bargaining means that the authors of the constitution intended to incorporate that protection in section 2(d) of the Charter is preposterous (particularly given the actual practices of those governments of routinely legislating contracts to resolve strikes) - mind, that proposition (adopted by the SCC) is all the more preposterous given that Canada expressly reserved on the right to collective bargaining under the ILO treaty, meaning Canada expressly rejected the existence of such a right.  That the Court has not reversed its thinking on that point, despite the manifest error in its reasoning is an embarrassment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maximumbob    5952
43 minutes ago, providence said:

I couldn't figure out why they would appeal to international law when we have so much of our own Charter jurisprudence.

Were they one of the groups that was initially denied leave?  They should have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaggers    6118
3 hours ago, maximumbob said:

Is it?  If you don't have sex for 3 years does that mean you cease to be straight or gay, as the case may be?   Who you are is distinct from expressions of who you are.  To accept the truth of Hegdis' claim is to believe, falsely, that TWU bars gay students from attending.  It does not, either de jure or de facto, the claim is factually false.

The Supreme Court specifically disagreed with this in 2001. They clearly said the code is discriminatory, but that it's permitted discrimination and therefore s. 15 is not engaged.

When the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal considered whether a code of conduct of this nature is discriminatory, the respondent properly conceded the point.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2008/2008hrto22/2008hrto22.html

[86]       At the commencement of closing argument, counsel for Christian Horizons conceded that, on its face, the Lifestyle and Morality Statement discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Therefore, in order to avoid a finding that Christian Horizons violated the Human Rights Code by insisting all employees sign and comply with the Lifestyle and Morality Statement as a condition of employment it must bring itself within the special employment provisions of section 24(1)(a).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maximumbob    5952
Just now, Jaggers said:

The Supreme Court specifically disagreed with this in 2001. They clearly said the code is discriminatory, but that it's permitted discrimination and therefore s. 15 is not engaged.

When the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal considered whether a code of conduct of this nature is discriminatory, the respondent properly conceded the point.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2008/2008hrto22/2008hrto22.html

[86]       At the commencement of closing argument, counsel for Christian Horizons conceded that, on its face, the Lifestyle and Morality Statement discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Therefore, in order to avoid a finding that Christian Horizons violated the Human Rights Code by insisting all employees sign and comply with the Lifestyle and Morality Statement as a condition of employment it must bring itself within the special employment provisions of section 24(1)(a).

Well, no, section 15 wasn't engaged in TWU because TWU wasn't a state entity.  It was permitted so the BC Human rights code wasn't engaged.  

I agree with that (although, in the TWU case, only to the extent that TWU discriminates between married gay and straight students - it's hard to see how there is differential treatment of single students).  But saying it is discriminatory is not the same as saying that it bars people from attending because of who they are or that it deems someone as "undesirable" on that basis.  Giving a student or seniors rate on the TTC is discriminatory - but clearly permitted - it doesn't follow that non senior adults are barred from riding the TTC.  Requiring women to cover their heads to attend a mosque is discriminatory (and permitted) - in that imposes a differential obligation one group which is not imposed on another - it doesn't bar women from attending the mosque and doesn't mark them as unwanted.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
epeeist    2201
On 13/09/2017 at 9:00 AM, providence said:

I have gone 3 years without having sex before  Of course in and of itself it does not take away your sexual identity. It is different though when it is something you freely choose, not something you have any external pressure upon you by signing a document, when you know that you can take steps to change that if you wish, when it is your business and no one else's, when you have opportunities and choose to turn them down, as opposed to not having it because you signed a document and you know you can't change your mind or take an opportunity if it comes your way. 

I both disagree and agree re external pressure.

I disagree because it's adults choosing to attend TWU, they know what they're getting into, it's not a secret. They can go elsewhere if they don't like it - and in fact, I believe TWU is more expensive than most alternatives, so why would (most) people want to go there unless they actually thought the covenant was okay with them?

To reiterate yet again a point I've made before...I can recall one letter of support for TWU submitted by a graduate who said he was a gay male who complied with the covenant while he was there, though he disagreed with it, he knew what he was getting into.

And a contrary example I've noted before, that supports the external pressure argument you make, one lesbian woman opposed to TWU who said she had to go there (and keep her relationship a secret) because she had been home-schooled and no other BC university would admit her. Now, she faced external pressure that she had to go to TWU (or outside BC, if she could afford it). But her external pressure was imposed as I see it not by TWU, but by the BC government and other BC universities, the government for allowing home-schooling but not requiring BC universities to admit such students (based on testing perhaps, SAT or otherwise?), and other universities for not choosing to be willing to admit such students (I am assuming she was correct that no other BC university would admit her for that reason; if she were wrong, then she faced no external pressure).

Going back to an earlier point, re sex-segregated classes in college or university or first aid or whatever, if someone wants to offer such for religious or other reasons, there are many women-only fitness facilities, or women-only fitness classes, women-only strippercise classes, whatever (as well as segregated changerooms). Women can legally go topless, but that's not the same as saying that all women want to. If one person's sense of modesty (religious, cultural, or otherwise) when with the opposite sex is toplessness, someone else's is a bikini, someone else's is long sleeves, someone else's is a hijab, someone else's is a niqab, and if they want to set up a private club, or classes, or college, or university, to allow them to attend with only other women so that they can dress as they want and sit where they want, whether for religious or secular reasons, how is that a problem? My problem with women-only swimming hours is not that such is offered, but that there are no corresponding men-only swimming hours. Also quaere how many people object on principle to clubs that charge nothing or less for women to enter...

Lastly (for now), I think I had read something about how some women who had been assault victims liked TWU because the covenant meant that they didn't feel pressured to enter into behaviour or situations they felt uncomfortable with - I think that was mentioned as a fringe benefit not a reason for attending TWU, but it's one reason I mention the possibility of secular reasons for wanting a women-only class or college, or a coed place like TWU that still imposes restrictions on behaviour with other students, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
epeeist    2201

Alice Woolley column last week (includes links to other analyses) re the intervention kerfuffle and legal (and policy) problems with it:

"...Like I think many in the legal community, my first reaction to all of this was, “well that was weird”. And concerning. See, e.g., these terrific columns by Patrick Baud and Maxime St-Hillaire, Tom Harrison, and Omar Ha-Redeye, exploring the uncertain legal foundations for the Chief’s order (Baud and St-Hillaire), the general question of how much authority a chief justice has and should have over scheduling and assignments (Harrison), and the Chief’s order as an example of public dialogue and as a potentially troubling precedent (Ha-Redeye). Here I want to explore three thoughts about the Court’s response to Justice Wagner’s original order: that it was understandable; that it was regrettable; and that it shows a now urgent need to change the Court’s process for deciding applications to intervene...."

http://www.slaw.ca/2017/09/06/the-unfortunate-incident-of-the-twu-intervention-decisions/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×