Trinity Western’s law-school bid gets provincial approval despite same-sex intimacy ban

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Trinity Western’s law-school bid gets provincial approval despite same-sex intimacy ban

''''''''''''''''''''''

NorthReport

Liberals are just rewarding their political donors. The sooner the challenge to this goes to court the better.

Trinity Western’s law-school bid gets provincial approval despite same-sex intimacy ban

A proposed law school at a B.C. Christian university that critics accuse of being discriminatory against the LGBTQ community has cleared its final hurdle with approval by the province’s Ministry of Advanced Education.

Minister Amrik Virk announced his decision to green-light a law school at Trinity Western University in Langley on Wednesday, two days after the private faith-based university won preliminary approval from the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. Critics have argued that a covenant requiring all students, staff and faculty at the school abstain from “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman” violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

---------------------------------

The controversial program has led some in the legal profession to question whether it is appropriate to teach contemporary, constitutional law in such a venue, and whether the school’s principles could narrow a graduate’s job prospects. Jason Gratl, a prominent criminal and civil-rights lawyer with Vancouver-based firm Gratl and Company, for example, says he would be hesitant to hire a graduate from Trinity Western’s law school.

“It seems to me when you have restrictive entrance requirements, you lose a lot of very qualified teachers and students and the quality of the education just deteriorates,” he said.

The private school, which does not receive operating or capital funding from the government, has argued that students choose to adhere when they apply. As well, Trinity Western president Bob Kuhn says his university has been educating successful teachers and nurses for years, and that what is being attacked is the university’s faith-based values.

“If we're going to have pluralism in a country that reflects the diversity and mosaic of Canadian language, Canadian culture and Canadian religion, then we really have to be prepared to accept a broad range of views on subjects, some of which are highly personal and emotional,” he said.

He also stressed that at Trinity Western, “lawyers will be trained in the same skills as they would at a secular university,” only with “more credence given to some Biblical, Christian perspectives.”

The Council of Canadian Law Deans has said publicly that Trinity Western’s covenant is “fundamentally at odds with the core values of all Canadian law schools.” Its president, Bill Flanagan, who is also dean of law at Queen’s University, said in an interview he personally believes “it's denying to gay and lesbian people the ability to fundamentally express who they are, and to say that that is somehow not discriminatory or has no adverse impact on them is nonsense.”

Mr. Flanagan also criticized the decision of the Federation’s special committee that “there is no public interest reason to exclude future graduates of the TWU program” from bar admission, even though it concluded that LGBT students “would legitimately feel unwelcome at a TWU law school.”

“To suggest that this is not a matter of public interest, I find that very troubling,” he said.

Toronto criminal and civil-rights lawyer Clayton Ruby has called the covenant “a simple act of discrimination against gays and lesbians” and said earlier in the week “there will be a lawsuit launched” should B.C. green-light the school.

Mr. Virk said he is aware of the potential legal challenge.

“Many of the potential legal issues were identified in the [Federation’s] special report,” he said. “If a legal challenge is advanced, this will be a matter for the courts to decide.”

An online fundraising campaign aiming to raise $30,000 to launch a legal challenge had raised $3,500 by late Wednesday afternoon.

The school is aiming to launch the program in September, 2016, Mr. Virk said.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/trinity-westerns-la...

Unionist

Not in Ontario, assholes:

[url=http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/04/24/christian_university_asks_law... Law Society of Upper Canada has voted against accrediting B.C.’s Trinity Western University law school that bans gay sexual intimacy.[/url]

And:

Quote:
The Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society will vote on accreditation Friday and benchers at the Law Society of New Brunswick are expected to vote in June.

Surely they can just relocate to the U.S. where human civilization hasn't yet reached?

 

cco

Quote:

Bob Kuhn, president of Trinity Western University, made a plea to benchers Thursday morning, suggesting to vote no would be akin to “institutional bullying.”

“If you disapprove, your decision will have validated the vitriolic, verbal and written attacks made against my community,” he said.

Aww, look who has a "community" being "bullied" now. Wonder what community he means? The community of homophobic bible-thumping white men that's so persecuted in Canada?

Looks great on you. Now, go piss up a rope.

abnormal

It seems that the approval of Trinity's law school is going to be reviewed so it may not be a done deal after all.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-law-society-to-r...

However, the school's covenant requires all students, administrators and faculty to abstain from “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.” 

While any legal challenge would seem to be based on discrimination against couples involved in a same sex relationship, the covenant itself would seem to extend beyond same sex relationships to include pre-marital and extra-marital sex between straight couples.

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

It's not pre-marital sex if you aren't planning on getting married. 

Laughing

Caissa

Law Society of Upper Canada votes "No!"

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trinity-western-law-school-rejected-ontario-law-society-000457510.html

 

ETA: Unionist beat me to the punch.

abnormal

Maysie wrote:

It's not pre-marital sex if you aren't planning on getting married. 

Laughing

True.  How about "sex outside of a traditional male/female marriage"?  

[img]http://premium.wpmudev.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/smiley-small....

 

 

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

That is one smarmy emoticon.

Mr.Tea

Here's the problem with this policy: you can certainly make a good argument that those who hold certain viewpoints would not be able to properly represent certain clients and be good candidates for the legal profession. However, all this does is screen people out based on the school they attended, not their actual beliefs. So, I'm sure that there are people at this school who don't buy into all of its policies. On the other hand, I'm sure that there are law graduates from UofT or UBC or Osgoode Hall or wherever, who do hold deeply offensive views but because they went to a more mainstream law school, it's not something that's going to prevent them from practicing law.

Caissa

I think this issue will ultimately be deided by the courts.

pookie

I wonder what LSUC will do when TWU grads apply to the Ontario bar individually (as they inevitably will), or as a transfer from a province where they are allowed to be called?

Bacchus

Quietly accept them so they dont get sued

Unionist

Mr.Tea wrote:

Here's the problem with this policy: you can certainly make a good argument that those who hold certain viewpoints would not be able to properly represent certain clients and be good candidates for the legal profession.

That's nonsense. Since when do we discriminate against people based on viewpoints that they hold? It's illegal to do so. It's a fundamental human right. You want to hire a lawyer that hates people of colour, or loves people of colour, or thinks that homosexuality is a crime against nature - that's your right to hire them or not, and that's their right to think that way.

The problem here is not anyone's viewpoint - it is an institution which institutes discriminatory policies. Not recognizing their graduates is a feeble but important step. The proper course of action would be to padlock the place.

 

abnormal

Quote:
N.S. law society rejects accreditation as long as Trinity Western maintains same-sex covenant

">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/twu-president-casts-law-sch...

 

 

NorthReport

Trinity Western grad 'attacked' for being Christian in job rejection

Bethany Paquette had applied to work in Canada's North for Amaruk Wilderness Corp.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trinity-western-grad-atta...

lagatta

Well, the real problem is not this brainwashed young woman. It is the very fact that an institution of higher education enshrines homophobic bigotry and is allowed to be an accredited institution, or for that matter has anything to say about consenting adults having sex with one another, unless there is proof of duress (as in "an A for a lay").

And I'm sure a lot of Scandinavian women would have rather unkind things to say about those creepy "Norse" guys.

Slumberjack

Because the Vikings were such a peaceful lot until Christianity ruined everything.

Unionist

If she really wants to be a wilderness guide, she should just renounce her Christianity. Or her hatred of sex outside "marriage". Or her homophobia. Ya gotta make some compromises if you want to work with the Vikings.

I don't see the problem.

 

Slumberjack

Yes, it can certainly be made to go away, one person at a time.  I'm kind of glad its moved on to the Christians, if only to give the Muslims and the Jews before them a well deserved break.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Is Trinity-Western accredited as a bonafide university? I would hope not.

I have little sympathy for this woman based on what was reported so far. The surge of violent discrimination against white Christians hasn't rung any alarm bells for me.

6079_Smith_W

And really, I'd have no problem if he wanted to write a letter to Trinity Western.

As it is, he is an arrogant blowhard who only shows how much he can be like the bigots he is calling down, and might want to rethink his revisionist take on history.

Hard to say how the HR tribunal will come down, but some of us understand that making those sorts of comments to customers and prospective employees is out of line.

Sean in Ottawa

I don't consider saying "I would F*ck your god if I met him" to be tolerant. That is what he said to her.

I don't accept that a person who employs people can behave like that to someone applying for work.

I agree he can write what he wants to that excuse for a so-called university but he had no right to respond like that to a person based on her religion no matter what people might think of that religion.

Laws protecting workers from workplace harassment necessarily apply to applicants.

Aristotleded24

6079_Smith_W wrote:
And really, I'd have no problem if he wanted to write a letter to Trinity Western.

As it is, he is an arrogant blowhard who only shows how much he can be like the bigots he is calling down, and might want to rethink his revisionist take on history.

Hard to say how the HR tribunal will come down, but some of us understand that making those sorts of comments to customers and prospective employees is out of line.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I don't consider saying "I would F*ck your god if I met him" to be tolerant. That is what he said to her.

I don't accept that a person who employs people can behave like that to someone applying for work.

I agree he can write what he wants to that excuse for a so-called university but he had no right to respond like that to a person based on her religion no matter what people might think of that religion.

Laws protecting workers from workplace harassment necessarily apply to applicants.

Agreed. Say what you want about Trinity Western, but if it's simply an issue of qualifications, or lack of accreditation as may be the issue with Trinity Western, then the rejection statement needs to begin and end with, "Dear applicant, we appreciate your interest in the position, unfortunately we have decided that other candidates have the qualifications we are searching for. We wish you well in your future endeavours." It's soul-crushing enough to look for work these days without having to put up with such unprofessional, abusive behaviour as is on display here. Whoever wrote that rejection e-mail should be disciplined, if not fired on the spot outright.

NorthReport

Bethany Paquette, Trinity Western grad, has prejudice claim rebuffed by tourism company

Amaruk Wilderness Corp. says Bethany Paquette did not meet 'minimum requirements' for job

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bethany-paquette-trinity-...

Unionist

Holy fuck, nice way to turn Trinity Western homophobic dinosaurs into victims of religious discrimination. Smart folks like us getting sucked in by some MSM story? Never!!!

They should all be sent back to where they came from. Don't ask me where that is, because I don't even believe in hell.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I don't consider saying "I would F*ck your god if I met him" to be tolerant. That is what he said to her.

You're absolutely right. It's not tolerant. I would have said, "I respect your god too much to fuck him." Something like that.

 

Aristotleded24

Unionist wrote:
Holy fuck, nice way to turn Trinity Western homophobic dinosaurs into victims of religious discrimination. Smart folks like us getting sucked in by some MSM story? Never!!!

They should all be sent back to where they came from. Don't ask me where that is, because I don't even believe in hell.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I don't consider saying "I would F*ck your god if I met him" to be tolerant. That is what he said to her.

You're absolutely right. It's not tolerant. I would have said, "I respect your god too much to fuck him." Something like that.

What does any of this have to do with the woman's application? Would you be so forgiving of the company if they had said something that was clearly anti-Semitic or anti-Islam or disparaged atheists?

What is at stake here is whether or not she was qualified for the job that this company offered, and as horrible as TW's same-sex policy is, it has nothing to do with it, other than possibly a matter of accreditation. Either way, if she's not qualified, the appropriate resopnse begins and ends with "thank you for your application, but you do not have the qualifications looking for." That's it, and if that had been the response, this woman would likely have moved on and kept searching, and it would not have made the news. Instead, an employee of said company responded in an abusive manner and it was the company who brought religion into this, not the applicant. Any bad attention this company is experiencing it brought upon itself, and there are even atheists in this thread who get that. Hate religion if you want to, but you're letting your hatred of religion cloud your thoughts about this particular case.

NorthReport

These benchers are densers?

The BC Law Society is controversial for not accepting the results of their vote to not support TW's law school proposal.

B.C. law society will hold referendum on Trinity Western accreditation

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-law-society-will...

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/n-b-law-society-members-vote...

pookie
Unionist

We'll have to agree to disagree, A24. But please understand this has nothing to do with my hatred of religion. Rather, it's about my hatred of those who hide anti-human behaviour (like homophobia) behind the skirts of God. It is possible to be religious without being anti-human. There is no law in Canada - NONE - which prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of whether someone is a homophobe. It is perfectly lawful to say in a job posting: "Homophobes, misogynists, and racists not welcome." My Canada is like that.

NorthReport

Then why did a BC construction union win the largest human rights settlement in Canada which had plenty to do with racism?

Aristotleded24

pookie wrote:
The company might not exist, apparently.

">http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/amaruk-wilderness-questio...

Wow. It's hard enough to search for work while being mistreated by legitimate employers, never mind phony ones.

Unionist wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree, A24. But please understand this has nothing to do with my hatred of religion. Rather, it's about my hatred of those who hide anti-human behaviour (like homophobia) behind the skirts of God. It is possible to be religious without being anti-human. There is no law in Canada - NONE - which prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of whether someone is a homophobe. It is perfectly lawful to say in a job posting: "Homophobes, misogynists, and racists not welcome." My Canada is like that.

So you can read this woman's mind and you know for a fact that she's homophobic? Based on...?

How do you even determine upon hiring whether or not someone is homophobic, misogynistic, or racist? The whole point of human rights legislation is to regulate behaviour in the workplace, not private thoughts. It's only when behaviour becomes manifest, for example "joking" around or harassing co-workers, that action can be taken, and I have no problem with action being taken in those circumstances.

For someone who talks about being progressive, sometimes you come across as needlessly making things personal.

A_J

pookie wrote:

The company might not exist, apparently.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/amaruk-wilderness-questio...

CBC wrote:

Clermont's application was met with a number of emails asking awkward questions — some of them sexual — followed by more that became insulting.

"We are very un-Canadian in the sense that we do not embrace mediocrity," one of the emails reads, apparently from Eric Teheiura, vice president South Pacific. "We are not about to hire just anybody to assist a CEO, consular official, and member of one of Europe's wealthiest families."

Sophie Waterman applied for the same job, but soon believed it sounded too good to be true. She withdrew her application after a friend in the tourism industry warned her Amaruk might not be all that it seems.

"When I cancelled the interview, I received about 15 emails in quick succession," she says. "All pretending to be from different people involved with the company, and all very litigious, accusing me and my friend of slander. My feeling is that it's all one person."

What a bunch of creeps (or, perhaps more likely, a singular creep).

Unionist wrote:
It is possible to be religious without being anti-human.

And it is also possible to attend TWU without being a homophobe.

Maybe you know more about this woman's beliefs than I do, but I'm not going to assume that she's a homophobe, misogynist or racist simply based on where she went to school.

Unionist

Aristotleded24 wrote:
So you can read this woman's mind and you know for a fact that she's homophobic? Based on...?

A_J wrote:
Maybe you know more about this woman's beliefs than I do, but I'm not going to assume that she's a homophobe, misogynist or racist simply based on where she went to school.

Why don't you both review the thread if you're interested in what I think or what I know:

Unionist, on April 25 wrote:

Since when do we discriminate against people based on viewpoints that they hold? It's illegal to do so. It's a fundamental human right. You want to hire a lawyer that hates people of colour, or loves people of colour, or thinks that homosexuality is a crime against nature - that's your right to hire them or not, and that's their right to think that way.

The problem here is not anyone's viewpoint - it is an institution which institutes discriminatory policies. Not recognizing their graduates is a feeble but important step. The proper course of action would be to padlock the place.

A24, when you hear me say "homophobe, misogynist, racist" - you presume I'm talking about people's beliefs!? Just thought I'd correct the record. It's about what they preach, practice, and pass over in silence.

An employer who says, "No graduates of TWU need apply" - bravo!! It has nothing to do with the individual at all. It's about boycotting this dirty little throwback institution. That's what various law societies have courageously done. It's not in the least unlawful. It's noble.

It's about degrading and destroying TWU.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist, you are confusing the school with its student.

In the first place, she didn't set up the discriminatory policy; she just had to comply with it in order to attend. I have a friend who attended Catholic school for a year. If I wanted to I could make accusations against her about being anti-choice and homophobic, but I expect I'd get laughed out of the room.

But she's my friend, which brings me to the second point. You aren't supposed to mention certain things in a job interview process, or to cutsomers. I have missed at least one very good opportunity to jump on my own high horse (like Mr. Viking) because I am aware of that one. Too bad. Is it just that I am too scared to stand by my principles that I don't want to wind up with a human rights complaint, or am I just selling out for the money?

In any case religion is one of those personal things that have no place in dealing with customers or workers. It has nothing to do with the school or the fact that we have to jump on the bandwagon to shut it down. Nothing to do with the religion, even (in fact, in Manitoba you CAN hire and fire based on religion, in certain circumstances, though it came down to ability to do the work).

But in this case, it is personal discrimination against the applicant.

(edit)

And what the law societies were talking about is not recognizing degrees given by the university. And they are law societies, so one might expect that, given their relationship with the law. Extending that to making sure anyone who attends there never works again, even as a dishwasher? I know there's a precedent for that one somewhere, but I don't think everyone is quite so committed to the cause that they'd go that far.

 

NorthReport

Thanks pookie.

So this whole job application show is a non-event as the company probably does not even exist.

Unionist

Smith - I make no accusations against this woman. I have no clue (and less interest) in what's going on in her head or in her life. I applaud the idea (even if it's not yet a movement) of publicly declaring an employment boycott against graduates of this ugly place. I would "grandparent" students who are already enrolled when the boycott is announced, but that's just me being nice.

Please acknowledge that a boycott of the kind I've just described - based on TWU's homophobic practices - would be perfectly lawful under current human rights legislation. I'm convinced it would. And I believe boycotts of this nature may be useful tools in padlocking these places.

Think of South Africa in the past. And Israel today. We don't boycott products, academics, etc. because of their individual beliefs. We're just trying to do harm to the oppressive systems they represented or represent. We managed to help padlock South African apartheid. Looking forward to the next victory.

 

6079_Smith_W

No, I am sure it is nothing personal (and that disclaimer also has a lot of precedent as an excuse for a lot of things). But whatever it is you think about her, the end result is that this tactic would mean she doesn't have the right to work.

(though at this point it seems like it might just be some troll)

I'm not so sure about its legality, and sorry, it would take more than a rallying call of past victories for me to get behind a discriminatory, divisive blacklist campaign like that. I have heard that before too.

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 But whatever it is you think about her, the end result is that this tactic would mean she doesn't have the right to work.

I don't care that much, but I'll try to pretend I do.

Quote:
I'm not so sure about its legality,

If they refuse to hire (say) evangelical Christians, they're outlaws. If they refuse to hire (say) graduates of the University of Saskatchewan, there's no law I know that stops them. If they refuse to hire (say) anyone who has ever publicly expressed an undisputed anti-Semitic opinion, they're within the law. If they refuse to hire people who believe that Jews are no good, then that would be lawful in some jurisdictions and possibly unlawful in others (those that protect political opinion), though it would be a hard case to make that that's a protected matter of conscience.

Note that I'm not advocating any of these exclusions. But if a movement started to deny employment to anyone who attends schools like TWU - and if appropriate advance notice was made known that this is happening (again, "grandparenting" should apply) - I'd seriously consider sending a donation. Why the hell shouldn't people put their words into deeds?

Quote:
... and sorry, it would take more than a rallying call of past victories for me to get behind a discriminatory, divisive blacklist campaign like that. I have heard that before too.

So, just for the sake of argument: 1) Do you think BDS is discriminatory and divisive? 2) How about a campaign calling on people not to enrol in TWU - would that be ok? 3) How about lobbying governments to deny TWU degree-granting privileges and any form whatever of public funds - would that be discriminatory and divisive?

See, I believe extremely strongly in putting words into deeds. This woman decided to make a public issue of her freedom of religion, or whatever. Do we have the same nerve when it comes to shutting down the hatemongers?

 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

See, I believe extremely strongly in putting words into deeds. This woman decided to make a public issue of her freedom of religion, or whatever. Do we have the same nerve when it comes to shutting down the hatemongers?

You say that as if to imply that the rest of us don't act on conviction, which is in fact a distortion.

And she didn't make a public issue of anything; She applied for a job.

In fact, I serve my customer not because I am afraid of the law, or of losing money. I do it because I think refusing service based on someone's politics or personal belief is fucked up, and a violation of one's rights. Sorry, but it IS acting on my convictions.

In this case, I think that tactic is as discriminatory as any other cart-before-the-horse blacklist.

Sorry if I don't answer your question exactly as asked, but I think the BDS is a valid tactic; I have no problem with a campaign to encourage people to not enroll in TW, or to reconsider its status because of this policy.

What does any of that have to do with a personal attack against an alumnus?

 

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Unionist wrote:

See, I believe extremely strongly in putting words into deeds. This woman decided to make a public issue of her freedom of religion, or whatever. Do we have the same nerve when it comes to shutting down the hatemongers?

You say that as if to imply that the rest of us don't act on conviction, which is in fact a distortion.

You're implying I'm a child molester and plagiarist. That's a gratuitous and egregious accusation, and I demand an apology.

See? Straw men are so much fun to build and knock down. Wanna go 2 out of 3?

Quote:
And she didn't make a public issue of anything; She applied for a job.

Oh, so I guess this never happened:

CBC wrote:

In her complaint to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, Paquette outlines a series of emails from executives from Amaruk Wilderness Corp.

I guess those darned talented investigative journalists of the CBC just dug up this incident on their own and staked out her home until she finally agreed to give an interview. And file a human rights complaint. Shucks, sorry for accusing her falsely of making a public issue. All she wanted was a job. My mistake. I'll try to read the background info more carefully in the future.

Quote:
In fact, I serve my customer not because I am afraid of the law, or of losing money. I do it because I think refusing service based on someone's politics or personal belief is fucked up, and a violation of one's rights. Sorry, but it IS acting on my convictions.

Gee. That straw man is back - you know, that I accused you of not acting on your convictions? 2 out of 3, by my count, the winner is, you! Oh and by the way, she wasn't denied any job because of any convictions of hers. The documentary evidence supplied by her showed that she was deemed unqualified - didn't hold the requisite certifications for the job - and the employer also made a gratuitous comment ridiculing TWU. The complainant interpreted this as having been rejected for being Christian (!). I guess her lawyer told her she needed to say that, otherwise she didn't have a sliver of a ground for a complaint.

Did you get that, Smith? She didn't have the minimum qualifications for the job. And now she's counting on God to help her jump the queue, or get some money. It's the Christian thing to do.

Quote:
Sorry if I don't answer your question exactly as asked, but I think the BDS is a valid tactic; I have no problem with a campaign to encourage people to not enroll in TW, or to reconsider its status because of this policy.

What does any of that have to do with a personal attack against an alumnus?

Personal attack?? Pay attention. She was attacked for being a Christian. Or being an alumnus of TWU. Or being a homophobe. I'll wait for her lawyer's submission to be made public before figuring out which fraudulent grounds they're going to lead with. Unless you know where there's a copy available.

Poor oppressed Christians, suffering religious discrimination, right here in Canada, under the jackboots of non-existent Scandinavian wilderness guides. Where is Harper's Commissioner for Religious Freedom (or whatever the title is)? Where is the emergency debate in the House? Where are the air strikes???

God keep our land glorious and free. We shall overcome.

 

Unionist

On a much more serious note, I may have been hasty in blaming this young job applicant for being a publicity hound.

In fact, it seems that "Trinity Western University encouraged Paquette to file a human rights complaint.", as we learn at 1:37 of [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trinity-western-grad-atta... video[/url]. Gotta watch the video, because the brilliant investigative journalist forgotten to mention this tiny fact in her story, or else it got edited out.

Which helps answer another question that was bugging me: How did this young woman manage to afford a lawyer to pilot her complaint?

So it's all about TWU trying to change the channel on the widespread and growing outrage against its hateful teachings and practices.

I'm feeling sorry for Paquette now.

Caissa

As more women who received bizarre and inappropriate responses to their job applications to wilderness company Amaruk come forward, efforts to reach the company's CEO have left CBC News questioning whether the business and its jobs even exist.

Amaruk Wilderness Corp. hit headlines this week after CBC News reported on a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal complaint, in which a Trinity Western University graduate — Bethany Paquette — claims her application to work for the company was rejected because she's Christian.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/amaruk-wilderness-questions-raised-about-company-at-centre-of-anti-christian-attack-1.2794452

6079_Smith_W

I call them as I see them, Unionist

You talk about "putting words into deeds" - the implication being that those who disagree with you do not. And posing the rhetorical question of whether we "have the nerve" - again, implying that those who disagree with you are just not up to the task.

She went public with an alleged case of discrimination. I don't think it would be in order to put the onus on such a claimant for "making a public issue of their freedom of discrimination against race, gender or orientation". Or do you think the proper course is to say nothing?

And I know Mr. Viking said she wasn't qualified; I mentioned it upthread, if you'd care to check. That probably doesn't erase the fact that he made an issue of her school and her beliefs.

And while we're on it, you can dispense with the "did you get that"  and "pay attention" gibes.

Yes, I can read, and the fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean I do not understand.

 

Unionist

So you were aware that TWU put her up to this? Good, wish you had mentioned it - I just discovered it by accident.

And carry on interpreting what you think I am "implying". It will lead you into endless debates with yourself.

6079_Smith_W

Saying they "put her up to this" or wondering about how she got the money for the complaint is a bit of a leap from the comment (unattributed) that they encouraged it.

And it really has no bearing on the main question.

But it does beg the question of whether you would spin this differently if it involved a group advocating action on an issue you support.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Saying they "put her up to this" or wondering about how she got the money for the complaint is a bit of a leap from the comment (unattributed) that they encouraged it.

It looked pretty definitive to me. And a lawyer? Gimme a break.

Quote:
And it really has no bearing on the main question.

What's the main question? Her broken heart? I think the main question is how to padlock this house of sin called TWU. Your main question is how to help her fulfill her dream of being a wilderness guide? I'm trying to care, honest I am.

Quote:
But it does beg the question of whether you would spin this differently if it involved a group advocating action on an issue you support.

Oh, tough question. If this were a pro-LGBTQ advocacy group encouraging a job applicant to file a human rights complaint because she was denied a job on the basis of consorting with known queers? I wouldn't "spin it differently", I would hail and celebrate it, and send money.

This young woman, allowing herself to be used as a tool by these anti-human fanatics, should give her head a shake. She should really be ashamed of herself.

 

Unionist

Oh.... Ms. Paquette's lawyer, worried that his juicy payout from TWU may be in jeopardy now that the jokers who mocked Paquette may not even exist, has issued a NEWS RELEASE saying, "we're ploughing ahead! For God and Bethany!" Or words to that effect.

A news release. Wow. And here I was accusing her of being a publicity hound. My bad.

 

6079_Smith_W

"For God and Bethany?"

Where did you get that? I think the release had more to do with the fact they have found the real face behind the fake steely blue eyes and red beard of that internet pic of Mr. Viking, and that that the company is registered in B.C., and that the real respondent and accused, a Mr. Frazzetti, is a B.C. resident.

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

"For God and Bethany?"

Where did you get that?

From a glass of wine I poured to celebrate dinner.

Why - is it offensive?

Here's Ezra Levant, from the "home of Canada's foremost freedom fighter", taking up the cudgels for poor unemployed Bethany:

[url=http://www.ezralevant.com/bethany-paquettes-human-rights-fight/]Bethany Paquette’s human rights fight[/url]

This whole human rights crusade fits in perfectly with the air strikes against ISIS/ISIL/IS/ISAL/Whatever. They murder Christians, I believe. The war has now come home.

Onward Christian soldiers!!!

 

 

Unionist

Oh wait - this shit is even better:

Ezra Levant wrote:

The CBC’s investigative reporter, Natalie Clancy, got her story half-right. Bethany was the subject of an anti-Christian tirade. But she didn’t lose a job over it – there was no job to be had. It was an elaborate hoax. [...]

The CBC was just as much a victim of a hoax as was Bethany. But the CBC shouldn’t abandon the story now. They should find out who has been impersonating a tourism company – and even filing fake reports on an Industry Canada website. Amaruk’s Twitter feed has just one entry on it – but follows a host of B.C.-based environmental extremist groups and gay activists. It could be that Amaruk is a bizarre secret project of a public B.C. leftist activist. Will the CBC follow up?

It’s too bad that the first time the CBC took a serious interest in anti-Christian bigotry, they were duped. I hope that doesn’t turn them off the subject. There are plenty of real anti-Christian bigots in Canada, who attack Trinity Western all the time. Right now, law societies across Canada are debating banning TWU’s graduates from practicing law. That’s just as vicious as the fake trolls at Amaruk. But they’re real, and unafraid to use their real names.

Fuck yeah! Save the Christians!

Pages