#nshrc

Trinity Western has filed applications for judicial reviews of provincial law society decisions to deny accreditation of future law school graduates in Nova Scotia, Ontario and British Columbia. Last week, the first judicial review was heard in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court by Justice Campbell. On Friday, December 19, the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission (NSHRC) made particularly disturbing comments reminding us why these cases are of such great importance. 

The NSHRC is an independent government agency responsible for administering the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act (NSHRA). Its stated mandate is “to help build inclusive communities and protect human rights in Nova Scotia”. The NSHRC was the only intervener to speak in favour of the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society (NSBS) denying accreditation. Speaking for the NSHRC, lawyer Lisa Teryl noted she was making her submissions “not just to this court, but to the evangelical Christians in the courtroom, on the webcast and in her family". As one such evangelical Christian watching the webcast, I have felt compelled to respond. 

The topic for the NSHRC’s remarks was: “Why evangelical Christians should want the NSHRC’s vision of Canada rather than the one suggested by TWU.” The NSHRA, Teryl claimed, provides “greater freedom of religion” and “greater freedom to participate in every aspect of society”. According to Teryl, evangelical Christians are “complex individuals” with “many needs and desires”, and “due to their uniqueness as human beings they seek greater freedoms than what TWU as an institution and a party here seek”. 

I’m not that complex. I also do not need the NSHRC to tell me what my needs and desires are. 

The NSHRC goes on to explain that evangelical Christians “need a civil society that ensures their Christianity will never be a factor in having less opportunities for full employment, less opportunities for full housing and less opportunities for service.” It was in attempting to articulate how TWU’s existence results in a loss of those opportunities that they really lost me. A plurality of faith-based schools, the argument goes, may result in some schools with codes against evangelical Christians’ religious values and therefore those institutions would not be open to them. So the NSHRC is trying to protect evangelical Christians. “The irony,” Teryl claims, “is that the less secular we are in our general mainstream, the less freedoms an evangelical person has.” 

What freedoms are these? To go to whatever public or private institution we want? Private religious schools already exist for more than one faith. One does not become less free by having more options, even if those are not options that you would consider. Moreover, a state does not become "less secular" by treating religious groups equally; a secular state is areligious not anti-religious. 

The unstated premise undergirding the NSHRC’s comments seems to be that by going to a faith-based institution one’s future acceptance in civil society is limited. One must go to a publicly-endorsed institution in order not to have less opportunities in employment, housing and service. This only rings true, however, if the rest of Canada thinks like the NSHRC. That is, operates on an understanding that at “TWU-like institutions” evangelical Christians only learn how to “hang” within their “Mennonite-type” bubble (these phrases are taken from the submission). According to the NSHRC, the “TWU vision” only works if they can create a self-sufficient society, presumably absorbing all of their graduates. Fortunately, the broader Canadian society has recognized the outstanding quality of education at TWU and has proven far less ignorant than that. 

When venturing beyond the "supportive walls" into the secular world, TWU alumni have thrived. They have thrived around the world, reaching success in every type of vocation imaginable. They have thrived because TWU is not just a place to “hang”.

I chose to complete two degrees at TWU prior to entering law school at University of Toronto, and would do so again in a heartbeat. My years at TWU prepared me in a way that no other institution could. My life goal wasn’t (and isn't) to blend into society to maximize my freedom, so perhaps the NSHRC doesn’t know what’s best for me.

What if, in order to fulfill my goals, I needed an environment where I could understand how my faith interacts with my vocation? What if I desired to focus on character formation alongside the development of my mind? What if I neither needed nor desired to have a government agency “protect me” by taking away my choices?

The NSHRC made clear their objection is with far more than just a law school. They condemn any “carving up” of the secular world with institutions holding religious covenants. An inclusive society, however, need not be uniform. Under the facade of “equal opportunity”, the NSHRC (and NSBS) is seeking to restrict freedom to just one option. A truly “neutral secular” state would not fear a plurality of faith-based institutions, but welcome the diversity. It would ensure academic standards are upheld and leave the rest to the individual, whether that limits or expands their opportunities. It would support individuals in choosing their religious beliefs and the academic institution that helps further their life goals, whether they understand them or not.

The TWU applications for judicial review aren't just about a law school. As the NSHRC has demonstrated, they are about defending a vision of Canada that includes real freedom and real diversity. They are about defending a Canada in which all minority groups have space to develop.

-Jessie Legaree

--