INTERVENERS SPEAK FOR AND AGAINST TWU LAW SCHOOL
Private evangelical institution mandates endorsement of Community Covenant
Humanists, atheists, lawyers, evangelicals, Sikhs, Seventh Day Adventists, Catholic bishops, secularists, teachers, charities …
The unprecedented list of interveners at the landmark Supreme Court of Canada hearing on freedom of religion went on and on.
“Time for lunch,” quipped Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, after reading the lengthy docket of lawyers appearing before the nation’s highest court Friday. “We await your words of wisdom at five minutes each.”
The sea of black-robed lawyers roared. It wasn’t the only moment the august room erupted in laughter as the judges and lawyers hypothesized about a basement law school run by a retired chief judge, a Jesuit law school and one devoted only to First Nations.
“Would it matter if we were talking about educating actuaries?” Justice Malcolm Rowe wondered.
The answer appeared to be, yes, given the central role lawyers play in civil society.
On the second day of discussion, the nine justices were inundated with advice about how they should rule and the care they should take given the potential fallout of allowing B.C.’s Trinity Western University to grant law degrees.
The Langley-based private evangelical institution wants to open a law school in 2019 if possible.
But the Ontario and B.C. law societies have decided the university’s mandatory requirement that all students, faculty and staff endorse a controversial Community Covenant violated equality guarantees in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In B.C., the courts said the legal regulator’s decision-making process was inappropriate, while in Ontario the law society’s ruling was upheld.
The 2,000-word recitation of Christian values, such as abstaining from sex outside of heterosexual marriage, is considered an affront, particularly to the LGBTQ community, people in common-law relationships and those of non-Christian faiths.
For TWU and its many, varied supporters, the decision by the law societies to refuse to accredit the proposed law school violated constitutional protections for minorities.
“This coercive imposition of the majority view is a straightforward breach of freedom of religion,” insisted Albertos Polizogopoulos, on behalf of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.
Others argued that corporations and organizations such as TWU do not enjoy the right of freedom of religion because they are not human and do not have a conscience.
“Canadians take pride as a pluralistic and welcoming society. However, the positions of the law societies are anything but,” warned Barry Bussey, for the Council of Christian Charities, which has 3,400 members across Canada.
He predicted the end of the Canadian mosaic and described the law societies’ refusal to accredit as the state imposing its views on a religious minority.
Other TWU supporters complained the c harter was meant to be a shield of tolerance that protected non-government institutions, but the law societies had reforged it into a sword to wield against TWU.
Opponents of the school, however, insisted the covenant hurts LBTGQ individuals and cannot be allowed because it is a barrier to a legal education.
“What about tuition fees — you talked about barriers to entry?” Justice Russell Brown responded.
As if he could read the collective mind of the assembled lawyers (Duh!), he answered his own question in good humour: “I think I just felt a shudder go up every law dean’s back.”
Susan Ursel, counsel for the Canadian Bar Association, said the case wasn’t about TWU’s right to hold the views expressed in the covenant, but whether those views can be used to exclude people.
“It’s not about belief, it’s about conduct,” she said. “Accreditation is a form of licensing benefit offered by the state through its law societies.”
She said the state in education should not be supporting discrimination, but eliminating it.
“There are limits to what the state should be called on to support,” Ursel maintained. “TWU has a right to its beliefs and covenant, but not state support for the same.”
Alan D’Silva, for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, cited former prime minister Pierre Trudeau’s shibboleth that the state had no place in the bedrooms of the nation. “The covenant offends modern concepts of equality and privacy,” he concluded.
While TWU might not be for everyone, the Ontario bar was, emphasized Guy Pratte, lawyer for the province’s law society.
“Merit should determine who gets admitted to law school,” echoed Chris Paliare, for the Advocates’ Society. “Who you sleep with or how you choose to live your private life should not be a factor in deciding who gets admitted to law school.”
The court reserved its decision. “We are pleased the Supreme Court afforded us the opportunity to have our case heard,” Earl Phillips, executive director of the proposed law school, said afterwards.
“We are confident they will decide in favour of a truly free, diverse and pluralistic Canadian society.”