I was reading this news in the media recently about how there was this law school called Trinity Western University that has a program that teaches law. From what I gather the school apparently has some kind of personal conduct pledge that states students are restricted to sex between a man and a women. Because of that the law society voted to blacklist the school and essentially making it an unaccredited institution to study law. This was the first video I saw when looking it up:
I am no lawyer, but from what I gather from reading everything essentially that code of conduct is perceived as discrimination against gay people. So I suppose in theory if you allow people to practice law who have those kinds of beliefs then they will be say the future judges of the country and will push those ideologies in their rulings as well. Course the other argument is in Canada people have the freedom of choice to believe in what they want and that doing this is violating that right.
You know what was the scariest thing of reading this news? It wasn’t so much the whole discrimination issue but rather it just feels like the whole legal system is designed where it’s like a clique club. Essentially, it’s almost like a bunch of private corporations that have a stranglehold on the market where they get together and deem what they think is best for the industry. You would think an important issue like this should require the public’s input.
I don’t know enough about this case in general to really make an educated conclusion. But if the whole notion of this blacklist is that it protects say the general public from a questionable judge or lawyer I personally think in a way it’s a smokescreen to the real issues of preventing things like that. Case in point with my experience, about four different judges each producing extremely different results.
This is an over exaggerated and in some ways a ridiculous example, but in theory if we took say the most racist, foul mouth and sexist person in Canada and have him/her sitting as a judge shouldn’t a case be all about the facts anyways? Basically, isn’t a judge supposed to throw all that personal stuff aside and just focus on the facts? If the judge was impeccable at analyzing the facts and applying the law to it does the other stuff matter? Example, should I care if the person is straight, gay or prefers to be say a meat eater or vegetarian?
Unless you tell me flat out that is not the case as every judge has say an extreme bias in some way which is for some reason acceptable. That would sure open up a can of worms though. This whole story just makes me think how there is not enough public education and input about the whole “legal industry” as a whole to truly make it designed for the people.