When tolerance becomes intolerance
Sometimes a well-intentioned
defense of one group’s rights becomes an expression of intolerance towards
another group. Such is the case
with the Law Society of British Columbia and Trinity Western University. TWU is a privately funded, evangelical
Christian university seeking to establish a faith-based law school.
TWU has faced an uphill battle
since it first submitted a proposal to the Federation of Law Societies of
Canada. After conducting a
thorough review of the proposal, the Federation granted its approval for a
faculty of law at TWU. However,
the law societies of BC, Ontario and Nova Scotia declined to accredit future
graduates of the school. There
have been court challenges in each of the three provinces, with differing
results.
In April 2014, after a rigorous
debate of the issues, the Benchers of the LSBC approved the school. A few
months later, they reversed their decision in response to pressure from members
of the Society. The matter went
before the BC Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. Both courts found for TWU.
The Appeal Court, in its November
2016 decision, found that the LSBC resolution not to approve the proposed law
school at TWU would have a “severe impact” on the religious freedom rights of
the faith-based community. LSBC
has said it will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The cause of all of this
litigation arises from one clause in the university’s Community Covenant. The controversial clause defines
marriage as between a man and a woman.
Critics say the clause is homophobic and discriminatory.
The clause may deter students in
same-sex marriages from applying to the faculty of law. In this sense, it is
discriminatory. However, this does
not mean that the TWU community is homophobic. In fact, hateful attitudes,
speech and actions against LGBTQ individuals would violate the covenant; the
covenant stresses the innate, God-given dignity, and worth of every
individual.
The innate dignity of the
individual is a basic principle of Christianity and is crucial to the Christian
identity – an identity that the TWU community takes seriously.
The evangelical Christian
identity is founded on a personal relationship with Jesus. Jesus was a friend
to the marginalized, the rejected, and the despised – in short, to the
“other”. While he may not
have always approved of an individual’s choices or lifestyle, he always
honoured and respected the individual. When members of the TWU community sign
the covenant, they are also pledging to be more Christ-like towards those that
are “other”.
TWU’s view of marriage goes
against the grain of contemporary society. Nevertheless, the TWU community must
be allowed to uphold its Biblical view of marriage. There is nothing inherently
discriminatory or intolerant about a group that makes a distinction between
sacramental and civic marriage.
The Appeal Court noted that there
is no “downstream” effect flowing from the TWU covenant. In other words, there
is no evidence that TWU graduates are homophobic. There is nothing to suggest
that TWU would turn out bigoted lawyers incapable of upholding the laws of the
land.
In their well-intentioned defense
of LGBTQ rights, some Benchers and members of the Society described the TWU
biblical view of marriage as “abhorrent”, “archaic”, and “hypocritical”. This is strong
language. Its intent may have been
to show support for same-sex marriage and LGBTQ human rights. Still, it reveals
an intolerant attitude towards religious sexual morality, in general, and the
TWU community, in particular. This makes the Society’s decision not to approve
the proposed faculty of law at TWU seem punitive.
In our attempts to protect one
group’s rights, we run the risk of becoming intolerant towards another. A
society serious about promoting tolerance must allow a minority group to hold
an unpopular view (providing it causes no harm to the public interest).
In the words of the Appeal
Court, “A society that does not
admit of and accommodate differences cannot be a free and democratic society –
one in which its citizens are free to think, to disagree, to debate and to
challenge the accepted view without fear of reprisal. This case demonstrates that a well-intentioned majority
acting in the name of tolerance and liberalism, can, if unchecked, impose its
views on the minority in a manner that is in itself intolerant and illiberal.”