No Trinity graduates in this Norway wilderness company................

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Locke

Trolling was the first thing that came to mind.

I was in my bunker the other day folding my tinfoil hats and wondering who would have had anything to gain out of this ordeal and the answer that kept springing immediately to mind was; Christian Trinity Grads...

But then I double-checked my stocks of rice and boxed water (its better) and spent a few hours oiling my rifles and thought to myself that that couldnt be.

Simply put, Trinity grads wouldnt do that. Well...they might try, but lets be honest, it'd probably be obvious...

Especially considering two other people (non-Trinity grads) came forward since then with similar bizarre experiences. It might just be that this person gets off on this sort of thing.

[monkeyman]

I'd like to preface this by stating this is only my opinion based on speculation.

I think Amaruk is also the owner of pawgi.org, the "not-for-profit organization" that offers several wilderness certification programs for a cost of between ~$200 - ~$1000. Certification you must have prior to qualifying for one of their plumb jobs. Amaruk, it would appear is the only company listed on the pawgi site as a training partner.

1. set-up training website for wilderness certification.
2. post well-paying job requiring above certification.
3. rebuff all applicants regardless of certification.
4. profit.

http://www.pawgi.org/certifications/CAG.html

[chemgear]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...oval-1.2818540

Members of the Law Society of British Columbia have voted 74 per cent in favour of reversing the society's earlier approval to recognize graduates of Trinity Western University's School of Law.

Victoria lawyer Michael Mulligan says more than 8,000 of the society's 13,530 members voted.

[Temporary_User]

Tin foil hat: Would this wilderness company that is getting sued have been able to "buy" this vote?

[Titan]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

Tin foil hat: Would this wilderness company that is getting sued have been able to "buy" this vote?

LOL Wut?

Pay off 8000 BC lawyers?

Yes. Yes, that is exactly what happened.

[CaptainCrunch]

So I want to ask the question. Are they voting deny based on the religious beliefs of the school and the students, or are they voting to deny based on the students receiving an improper education?

If its the first doesn't that open the way for a massive lawsuit under denial of religious freedoms?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Titan

LOL Wut?

Pay off 8000 BC lawyers?

Yes. Yes, that is exactly what happened.

Victoria lawyer Michael Mulligan says more than 8,000 of the society's 13,530 members voted.

But 5,530 lawyers didn't vote...suspicious...possibly bought off with viking gold? Intimidated by stock photos of bearded Norse men?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

Tin foil hat: Would this wilderness company that is getting sued have been able to "buy" this vote?

I doubt this wilderness company has a pot to piss let alone money to bribe anyone.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10...hts-complaint/

I disagree with the Law Society's decision, but I certainly understand why people don't like the covenant that the school makes students agree to, I just don't think that it affects their ability to be lawyers.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I doubt this wilderness company has a pot to piss let alone money to bribe anyone.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10...hts-complaint/

I disagree with the Law Society's decision, but I certainly understand why people don't like the covenant that the school makes students agree to, I just don't think that it affects their ability to be lawyers.

See this is why I asked the question. do an extraordinary number of students not pass the bar exam. Do a large number of them get disbarred due to incompetence or poor education?

I can't find stats on that anywhere.

I guess I don't understand enough about the Law Society to even understand if the voting for exclusion based around religious reasons is legal.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

See this is why I asked the question. do an extraordinary number of students not pass the bar exam. Do a large number of them get disbarred due to incompetence or poor education?

I can't find stats on that anywhere.

I guess I don't understand enough about the Law Society to even understand if the voting for exclusion based around religious reasons is legal.

It would be interesting to know. The Supreme Court ruled that TWU has the right to ask members to agree to a covenant (lots of private institutions have moral covenants, religious or otherwise).

Unless this decision relates to competency of TWU law school graduates, I think there needs to be a review of the legality of excluding them from the law society.

[Chill Cosby]

The school is being denied not because of religion, but specifically because of the covenant that restricts the right to equality as set out by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They were also away of the right to religion, and carefully considered that when making their decision.

As has been discussed in this thread previously, the covenant is damaging to the students of that school. It has nothing to do with their religion. Why should they recognise law degrees from a school that violates the right to equality?

[CaptainCrunch]

This is what I'm asking.

I personally don't know.

But I thought that you could deny based on the level of teaching and the competency of the student coming out of the school.

Would it be likely that this thing becomes a charter challenge?

[Chill Cosby]

Well Trinity is already challenging the decision in Ontario, and plan to challenge this one, so it'll be very interesting to see what the court decides.

Honestly, it'll be interesting to see if it blows up in their face.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

The school is being denied not because of religion, but specifically because of the covenant that restricts the right to equality as set out by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They were also away of the right to religion, and carefully considered that when making their decision.

As has been discussed in this thread previously, the covenant is damaging to the students of that school. It has nothing to do with their religion. Why should they recognise law degrees from a school that violates the right to equality?

TWU has already been through this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity...ge_of_Teachers


It doesn't restrict their (the pupil's) Charter rights because the Charter only guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of government (yes, that was a copy and paste).

It's not unlike when people on here get in trouble from moderators and then claim that they have a freedom of speech. If someone is asking for optional membership into private a club or organization, it is not a Charter issue. Terms and conditions for membership are normal.

Not to mention that the Charter (section 29) guarantees the rights of religious schools in Canada.

[Chill Cosby]

In what way does the decision of the BCLS violate section 29?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

In what way does the decision of the BCLS violate section 29?

It does only if it is decided that it is based on religious discrimination. The BCLS is an extension of the BC government (the BoG is appointed by the BC governor general).

TWU technically does not decimate when it comes to who they allow in. They claim to even have gay students that attend the university. They just make them sign a covenant to not have sex outside of a married, heterosexual union. While it certainly deters a gay person (or even a non-married person) to attend the school, it isn't technically discrimination.

Similarly, the Free Masons make all their members declare a belief in a god or higher power if they want to join. It's not discrimination, it is just a club for people with common beliefs.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

In what way does the decision of the BCLS violate section 29?

It doesn't. That's what he's saying

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I doubt this wilderness company has a pot to piss let alone money to bribe anyone.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10...hts-complaint/

I disagree with the Law Society's decision, but I certainly understand why people don't like the covenant that the school makes students agree to, I just don't think that it affects their ability to be lawyers.

Firstly it's discriminatory.

Secondly it does affect people's ability to be good lawyers. It's a covenant that most people won't uphold. You're essentially selecting lawyers willing to break an oath. Not a good start to a law career.

I voted against Trinity. As did the vast majority of younger lawyers.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

TWU technically does not decimate when it comes to who they allow in. They claim to even have gay students that attend the university. They just make them sign a covenant to not have sex outside of a married, heterosexual union. While it certainly deters a gay person (or even a non-married person) to attend the school, it isn't technically discrimination.

Similarly, the Free Masons make all their members....

It's discrimination as they don't recognize gay marriage.

The Freemasons are an independent club, not a law school training people to be part of a public law society. Bad analogy.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's discrimination as they don't recognize gay marriage.

The Freemasons are an independent club, not a law school training people to be part of a public law society. Bad analogy.

TWU is independent as well. It's really no different. No one has a "right" to join either.

I don't see how not recognizing a type of marriage is discrimination. It might be backwards, archaic and just plain rude, but it isn't discrimination from a Charter point of view.