|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
Freedom Of Religion At Trinity
Western - Sort Of
These past few years have been dark and troubling ones for Canada's
Christians. In particular, they have been bashed with alarming frequency
by federal and provincial Human Rights Commissions and politically
correct special interest groups, which are intent on promoting and
imposing their own agenda on Canadians. Recently, however, there
seems to be some moderation - sort of - by the Supreme Court on
divisive issues such as religious freedom.
In this regard, on May 17, the Supreme Court of
Canada appears to have come down in support of religious freedom
in the case of Trinity Western University and the B.C. College of
Teachers - but not entirely.
Background to the Case
Trinity Western University (TWU) is a private university located
in Langley, B.C., which is associated with the Evangelical Free
Church of Canada. The university established a teacher training
program offering degrees in education consisting of a five-year
course, with four years at TWU and the fifth year at Simon Fraser
University. TWU applied to the B.C. College of Teachers (BCCT) for
permission to assume full responsibility for the teacher education
program, with the fifth year at TWU, because it wanted to have a
full teacher's program reflecting its Christian world view. The
BCCT refused to approve the application, claiming it was against
the public's interest to do so because TWU supposedly carried out
discriminatory practices. The latter conclusion was based on the
fact that students and faculty at TWU are required to sign a "Community
Standards" document by which they agree to abstain from "practices
that are Biblically condemned," which include drunkenness,
swearing or use of profane language, dishonesty, abortion, involvement
in the occult, viewing of pornography, and sexual sins, including
premarital sex, adultery and homosexual behaviour.
BCCT believed that TWU's community standards statement demonstrated
an intolerance toward homosexuals, which would prevent the proper
preparation of teachers for the public school environment, with
its diversity of students.
Interestingly, the evidence before the Court was that graduates
of TWU had become competent public school teachers and that there
was no evidence at all relating to discriminatory conduct by any
of TWU's graduates.
Decision of the Court
The decision of the Court was 8 to 1. The lone dissent was by Madame
Justice Claire L'Heureux Dubé, who in several public speeches
has announced her complete support of homosexuals and their agenda.
(See REALity, March/April, 2000 "Speeches by Judge Create
Controversy," page 16.)
The majority decision was written by Justices Iacobucci
and Bastarache who concluded that the BCCT did not have expertise
in human rights issues and that it was not equipped to determine
the scope of religion and conscience and to weigh these rights against
the right to equality in a pluralistic society. Further, the Court
held that BCCT had inferred an intolerance without any concrete
evidence that the views of TWU students would have a detrimental
effect on the learning environment in public schools. The Court
also stated, at paragraph 42, as follows:
We would add that the continuing focus of the
BCCT on the sectarian nature of TWU is disturbing. It should be
clear that the focus on the sectarian nature of TWU is the same
as the original focus on the alleged discriminatory practices. It
is not open to the BCCT to consider the sectarian nature of TWU
in determining whether its graduates will provide an appropriate
learning environment for public school students as long as there
is no evidence that the particularities of TWU pose a real risk
to the public educational system.
In considering the religious precepts of TWU
instead of the actual impact of these beliefs on the school environment,
the BCCT acted on the basis of irrelevant considerations. It therefore
acted unfairly.
The Court then awarded TWU its costs (for legal expenses) amounting
to approximately $1 million.
Concerns About the Decision
It is troubling, however, that the Court further stated that neither
freedom of religion nor the guarantee against discrimination based
on sexual orientation is absolute. Rather, it stated that a line must
be drawn between belief and conduct and that freedom
to hold a belief is broader than the freedom to act
on that belief. It stated, at paragraph 37, as follows:
Acting on those beliefs, however, is a very
different matter. If a teacher in the public school system engages
in discriminatory conduct, that teacher can be subject to disciplinary
proceedings before the BCCT.
The Court then upheld the lower court's condition that an independent
review by the BC Teacher Education Programs Committee (TEPC) of the
TWU training program must be conducted in four years time and that
a mandatory course teaching the virtues of non-discrimination must
be included in the TWU teachers' program.
The Globe and Mail, in keeping with
its rigid views on the issue of homosexuality and with its characteristic
lack of journalistic balance and integrity, in its May 18, 2001
issue, stated that the Court had upheld TWU's "anti-gay"
beliefs. It also emphasized the conditions placed on TWU's programs,
such as a review after four years, and warned darkly that TWU's
graduates "better not act" on their beliefs.
That is the disturbing part of this decision. In
effect, the Court has concluded that one is entitled to hold
religious beliefs, but that one may not publicly act or speak about
them (as in a classroom). In short, the Court appears to reinforce
the notion that religious beliefs are a private matter only, and
that they may not be applied in one's public actions or expressions.
This is the same conclusion reached in the infamous decision by
the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal in regard to a Christian printer,
Scott Brockie, who refused to print material submitted to his business
by a homosexual organization. (See: The Brockie Case," A Statement
by The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, p. 13.) In effect, Mr.
Brockie was told by the Tribunal that his private religious beliefs
must be kept at home and could not be applied in the public square.
This Tribunal decision has been appealed to the Ontario Courts,
where it will be argued this fall and, undoubtedly, will eventually
end up in the Supreme Court of Canada.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
