Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Pyke last won the day on December 24 2016

Pyke had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3610 Good People

1 Follower

About Pyke

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

8938 profile views
  1. Like any other test, the key is to study. It has been a long time since I was applying to law schools, but once upon a time, best was Power Score's prep books: https://www.powerscore.com/lsat/publications/ I agree with Hegdis that working on your English language skills may be valuable...
  2. Honestly I think that's skipping over the point I'm trying to make.
  3. I mean, I'm not going to dispute that there are arguments one could make in terms of quality of life or the costs associated with small town jobs. On the other hand, $100,000 in student loans remains $100,000 in student loans whether you're in Toronto or Thunder Bay.
  4. I wouldn't be surprised if there's lots of jobs at or under $50,000 in rural environments in Canada. Hell, I know of big cities where first year positions at smaller firms are paid at or below $50,000. I think the compensation comments in this thread are relatively high based on my observations of the marketplace. To be sure, there are places where first year lawyers make $75,000 or $85,000 (or $100,000+ on Bay Street), but that's not necessarily the norm.
  5. Well I mean, it's a question of degree. I certainly think people should be allowed to do what they want in their homes, I'm not sure the Quebec laws end up being positive (for a whole bunch of reasons), and I think there are probably better ways to achieve the desired ends... but in principle, I can't wear shorts and a t-shirt into court, and I see no difference between that and wearing a hat, whether it is a religious symbol or not. Believe in fantasy all you want, but it doesn't grant you special entitlements.
  6. I would be totally okay with #1.
  7. I don't agree. If that was the intended application, the legislature surely would have also included the law societies from the human rights codes. Moreover, as a practical matter, relief for one set of purposes should not (and cannot) be read as the intent to grant to religious universities absolute rights to discriminate and be entitled to all public benefits in all capacities. Also, TWU 2001 was arguably wrongly decided.
  8. I think we're on the same "side" insofar as there are "sides" in this discussion. However, I'm pretty sure that Trinity Western University is excluded in respect of the British Columbia Human Rights Code with respect to religious practices such as the Community Covenant. I recall looking this up (even though I don't practice law in British Columbia) when this matter was before the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Whether Trinity Western University is or isn't excluded from the application of the British Columbia Human Rights Code had no relevance in the decision, since it's clear that the Law Society of British Columbia and the Law Society of Ontario are not excluded from their respective provincial human rights codes in the administration of their statutory powers.
  9. I'm very liberal in my views. I am opposed to Trinity Western University having a law school, a teacher's college, and probably, a University (if I thought about it long enough). I'm definitely the opposition you're imagining with your statement. That said, I'm also against safe spaces, particularly in the University setting, but probably in general too. While I certainly believe people should be free from discrimination or harassment, I believe that the free exchange of ideas, information, and debate, is essential to the education and enlightenment of our youth (and arguably, society at large). There is no right to be free from exposure to ideas that differ from yours; the freedom of conscience cannot be extended that far.
  10. 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).
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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).
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  • Create New...