How NOT to be a progressive: using the law to shut down your opponents

My regular readers know that I am deeply engaged for fostering tolerance towards homosexuals and overcome the notion that a committed and loving gay couple is necessarily wicked.

Bild

That said, I am often put off by the reprehensible strategies the liberal lobby use for promoting this desirable goal.

 

One recent example from Canada caught my intention:

 

University bars sexual intimacy that ‘violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman’

Trinity Western University students must sign a covenant recognizing the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.

Trinity Western University students must sign a covenant recognizing the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.

The Law Society of Upper Canada has voted 28 to 21 against the accreditation of Trinity Western University’s proposed new law school in B.C.

The vote means graduates from the B.C. university would not be able to practise in Ontario.

“Benchers took this issue very seriously, and did not find it easy to reach a decision,” said the Law Society of Upper Canada’s treasurer, in a written statement.

“As members of the legal profession, we recognize the entrenched values of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and Ontario’s Human Rights Code, including the right of equality and the right to freedom of religion, and the foundational nature of those rights to our democracy.”

Trinity Western University students must sign a strict Christian covenant governing behaviour, including abstaining from sexual intimacy “that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.”

Critics say the covenant essentially bans anyone in a gay relationship from enrolling in the school.

Earlier this month, the West Coast Legal Education Action Fund, a non-profit organization founded to ensure women’s equality rights under the law, argued against the university law school’s accreditation in B.C.

But the B.C. Law Society voted to accredit the school. 

B.C. Law Society decision challenged

However, that fight isn’t over.

Michael Mulligan

Victoria lawyer Michael Mulligan is trying to overturn the Law Society’s earlier decision by gathering enough signatures to trigger a rare special general meeting. (CBC)

Earlier this month, Victoria criminal lawyer Michael Mulligan launched a petition to trigger a vote to overturn the decision.

This week, Mulligan announced he had collected and submitted more than 1,000 signatures from B.C. lawyers opposed to the decision, more than twice the number required to trigger a vote.

That means the society has 60 days to hold a special general meeting to allow all members vote on the recent decision.

 

Mulligan believes the vast majority of lawyers take issue with the university’s covenant, which he says is at odds with a core principle of the lawyer’s oath to uphold the rights and freedoms of all according to the law, and will vote against it.

“Some of the benchers, while they spoke about finding the policies of this school as being, as I’ve indicated, as abhorrent and objectionable, some of them cast their vote thinking there was a legal requirement to do so.

“But the majority of the benchers in Ontario disagreed with the majority here, so it may well be influential.”

In December, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada gave Trinity Western University preliminary approval for its law school program and said it was up to provincial law societies to decide whether to recognize degrees from the school.

 

It is one thing to require from Canadian judges to sign a statement according to which they pledge to impartially apply Canadian laws, even if they find some of them objectionable.

But it is quite another thing to take legal measures for hindering or even preventing the employment of people having moral objections against Gay marriage, even if this might never play out during their professional life.

Imagine now a graduate from this university having no strong feelings on this issue and UNABLE to find a livelihood because his or her degree is no longer recognized.
Is it not an unjust punishment? Is not likely to turn her into a very resentful person?

By acting like this, the slaves of political correctness (I’m unwilling to call them “progressives”) prove they are the foes of an open society. They clearly display a fascistic mindset.

And I think this is a slippery slope.

While I am against the legal prohibition of abortion, I expressed why I consider it morally wrong when the health of the mother is not endangered, expressing a feeling many progressive Christians have towards what has been called “pregnancy cessation”, especially if mentally handicapped children are killed in this fashion.

 

I would not be that astonished if in one or two decades, the European Union were to issue a directive banning people from public jobs if they express such a view on the ground that it (allegedly) violate the right of a woman to dispose of her body.

BildWelcome to our brave new world where totalitarian laws are used to enforce “fundamental liberties”.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “How NOT to be a progressive: using the law to shut down your opponents

  1. the notion that a committed and loving gay couple is necessarily wicked.

    It’s not. It’s the sex that’s the problem – always has been, always will be. Being loving and committed, sex and sexual attraction aside, has pretty much no condemnation in play.

    By acting like this, the slaves of political correctness (I’m unwilling to call them “progressives”) prove they are the foes of an open society. They clearly display a fascistic mindset.

    The problem is, you say you are “unwilling to call them progressives”. Have you ever thought that perhaps you’re just not a progressive? That you’re a social liberal of some sort, to some degree, but at the end of the day you just have a fundamental divide between yourself and what is otherwise largely recognized as “progressive” politics? Do you really think the Canadians are passing laws like this with the support and backing of people who don’t call themselves “progressive”?

    I’m getting in my comment early, but really, let’s see if anyone shows up here and says that no, it should be totally legal to do what the Canadians did. If they disagree with you and support the legal assault, will you call them non-progressives?

    Maybe it’s time to say goodbye to the “progressives” intellectually. That doesn’t mean become a conservative, or join some other group. Recognize your intellectual independence.

    • It’s the sex that’s the problem

      But, but, doesn’t intimacy entail sex?

      Maybe it’s time to say goodbye to the “progressives” intellectually.

      There is a time to fight for the definitions of words, and a time to give up and pick new ones. The pen is truly mightier than the sword. I wonder which situation this is. I’d play with fighting for a better definition of ‘progressive’, given the power of the word ‘progress’. I’d argue that the Bible has a very clear stance on whether or not more law results in better behavior.

      • I’d play with fighting for a better definition of ‘progressive’, given the power of the word ‘progress’.

        I think that’s important – but at the same time, I think it’s by now clear that “progressives” just aren’t what Lothar takes them to be in the broad sense. You don’t get motions like this passed as a result of a tiny group of extremists going against the grain of “progressives” as well as their opponents. It simply is what “progressives” do, what they support – passively and actively.

      • Ha, I’m the last guy who should pick a better and -positive- word for “progressives”. Not exactly playing fair there. 😉

        That said, I suspect (not certain of, but suspect) that ‘progressive’ has some unique baggage attached to it. To give an example: I freely admit to having some views that aren’t ‘conservative’, both economically and morally. I can do that with ease. Can a “progressive”? I mean, Lothar may correct me, but I get the impression he’d choke rather than say “Oh I don’t have progressive views on race relations.” Because, like you said – there’s that punch of the word “progress”. You’re against progress? What kind of monster are you!? Etc, etc.

        I don’t think the word can be recovered in the forseeable future. And when words can’t be recovered, the next best thing is to junk them.

      • Too intellectual, if you’re suggesting that as a move. Maybe the best way to junk it is to take it?

        Hello, I’m Crude. I oppose women’s ordination in the Church, I oppose gay marriage – and I’m a progressive! A conservative progressive!

        Probably not, but hey, at least it makes me grin. I think I’ll call myself a progressive for the next two days just for the fun of it.

    • Hello Crude.

      As Luke put it, it all depends on one’s definitions.

      For me, being a progressive means disregarding dogmas while trying to foster the well-being of people.

      There can of course be real progressives who are completely misguided and support such a ban.

      Still, according to my own experience, many people who call themselves “progressives” are just slaves of political correctness who (above anything else) serve the Zeitgeist and want to be admired by other people, instead of seeking Justice for its own sake.
      This is something Jesus has always preached against, and a serious temptation we should be wary of.

      Cheers.

      • Lothar,

        There can of course be real progressives who are completely misguided and support such a ban.

        Can be? I ask you a serious question – do you think the majority who voted for that ban would say ‘Oh, I’m not progressive. I embrace dogmas and I’m not interested in fostering the well-being of people.’? Do you think they make their moves with the understanding that “progressives” don’t back them and will speak up against it?

        If you were talking about an errant blog post or newspaper article or even organization, I think you’d be able to play the game of ‘these are just fringe extremists’. But when you’re dealing with the machinations of organizations and states like this, you can no longer – at least in that state – play the ‘unfortunate minority’ card. It turns out that they’ve got the support, passive or active, of people on that issue.

        Do you expect a “progressive” outcry about this? And if you do, can you point me at it? Or did it just not show up? At what point do you come to the conclusion that the self-described “progressives” are by and large a breed distinct from whatever you like to think of yourself as?

        Still, according to my own experience, many people who call themselves “progressives” are just slaves of political correctness who (above anything else) serve the Zeitgeist and want to be admired by other people, instead of seeking Justice for its own sake.

        Funny, that’s my experience too.

      • For me, being a progressive means disregarding dogmas while trying to foster the well-being of people.

        You do realize that it’s incredibly confusing if you aren’t clear about this, right? I might go as far as to suggest that you prefix ‘progressive’, for the time being. Maybe ‘retro-progressive’, hahaha. You want actual progress, not the illusion of progress. Maybe there’s a good Latin or Greek word for that. Progress in actua instead of forever progress in potentia.

  2. At issue here is the school’s covenant to discriminate (regardless of why this is enshrined in the school’s policy) AND being accredited as a non discriminatory academic institution. As Trinity Western is finding out, you can’t have it both ways.

    • Do you think prohibiting sex outside of marriage would be ‘discrimination’? I’m honestly curious. Personally, I would fight for lifelong monogamy before fighting against homosexual acts, and I’m not even decided on whether homosexual acts are necessarily immoral. These days, I’m inclined to leave it up to people’s consciences, knowing that a beachhead of sin always grows.

      • Of course it’s discriminating. It’s interfering with the private choices of another individual. Can Muslims prohibit sex between people who have not entered a Muslim marriage? How about Hindus?

          • I’m trying to understand what you believe, not what other people believe. If you’d rather be coy, we don’t have to continue talking.

          • What I believe is that freedom of religion is the right to apply the tenets of religion to one’s own life- not to oblige others to do the same. That best exemplifies individual freedoms.
            One can choose to ‘not’ eat pork, but one can’t marginalize fellow tax-paying citizens who eat pork.
            It’s all about differentiating behaviours that affect society actively vs. passively.

          • I’d love to see you come up with a definition of ‘religion’ that passes muster. Most cannot. I’ll bet you really are just calling ‘religion’ those beliefs which you don’t want imposed on you, and ¬’religion’ those beliefs you wish to impose on others. All in the name of ‘freedom’. It’s always done in the name of ‘freedom’.

          • Ah, so as long as you don’t worship a supernatural power, it ain’t religion? Nix the supernatural and you can set whatever ultimate purpose you want for humans and force them to adhere? I mean, in public—they can believe and do whatever they want, in private.

  3. But it is quite another thing to take legal measures for hindering or even preventing the employment of people having moral objections against Gay marriage, even if this might never play out during their professional life.

    That is not what the law societies are doing. They prevent education of lawyers in an institution which discriminates against gay people. Someone with that conviction can be educated as a lawyer, but cannot be insulated from people who disagree. I find the insulation harmful, and contrary to the spirit of a university, which should enshrine the free exchange of ideas. Because of this requirement, arguably students there would not get a sufficient legal education.

    And- if the institution’s degrees are not recognised, cannot those educated there take other exams showing their knowledge, and qualify that way? (I don’t know, I am not Canadian, but it is possible in the UK.)

    • So your definition of enshrining the free exchange of ideas is to try desperately to squelch organizations and groups that have opposing views? You find insulation to be harmful, and that’s precisely why a university which officially views marriage as between a man and woman must be attacked with the force of law?

      Do you also promote diversity, and think the biggest barrier to it is the presence of all these damn minorities in your pure country?

      • Diversity means that each free citizen can make their own choices and has the free will to apply their ideology to their OWN LIFE. Don’t mangle the concept.
        An orthodox jew may choose to not eat bacon- but he does not have the right to coerce everyone in society to submit to the tenets of his faith.

      • Diversity means that each free citizen can make their own choices and has the free will to apply their ideology to their OWN LIFE. Don’t mangle the concept.

        Oh, so we can’t apply our ideology to others – which means the firing of Eich, and the actions of this legal body, are reprehensible?

        Or wait – is it only that some ideologies are the kind we can apply to other, and a certain elite group shall decide what rules we can and cannot force others to live by?

        I’m not mangling the concept, I’m pointing out its inconsistencies.

        An orthodox jew may choose to not eat bacon- but he does not have the right to coerce everyone in society to submit to the tenets of his faith.

        But LGBT activists can decide that everyone else must submit to the tenets of their faith? And where do these ‘rights’ come from anyway – do they just happen to be whatever you make up and feel strongly about at the time, backed by enough people who feel the same way?

        You’re not opposed to enforcing ideology on people. You’re just selective about which ideology you wish to enforce.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s