Previous | Next 

PERSONAL OPINION
A victory for freedom

John H. Redekop

The May 17 Canadian Supreme Court decision that Trinity Western University in Langley B.C. has the right to offer its own final year of teacher training was a major victory for religious freedom. The Court rejected the attempt of the British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT) to declare than an evangelical Christian school is unacceptable for the training of educators. The venerable British Broadcasting Corporation deemed this decision so important that it selected it as the lead story on its World Service. Across Canada, in the United States and elsewhere, this Court decision has received broad coverage because of its unusual and historic affirmation of rights for Christian churches and other religious institutions.

In 1985, TWU, a fully accredited member of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, established a teacher training program. TWU offered the first four years, with the fifth year being taken at Simon Fraser University. In 1987, TWU applied to B.C.’s Minister of Education for full accreditation of the program. Although there was support in the Cabinet, the Minister deferred to the newly established BCCT, which had become the appropriate body to decide on the matter.

In 1988, TWU applied to the BCCT, which said that it was not yet ready to receive the application. In 1995, the BCCT finally agreed to receive TWU’s application. The BCCT then established a Program Approval Team (PAT) to assess Trinity’s program. After thorough investigation, the PAT recommended approval on March 21, 1996. On April 19, 1996, BCCT’s Teacher Education Programs Committee approved the PAT report. Then, unexpectedly, on May 17, 1996, the General Council of the BCCT rejected the report. A Council member had discovered TWU’s Community Standards policy and had convinced a majority of the Council to reject its own committee’s report. The bone of contention was TWU’s requirement, as part of the Community Standards document, that students and faculty abstain from homosexual behaviour.

TWU took the matter to court in 1997 and won. The BCCT was ordered to approve the TWU program. The BCCT then appealed to the B.C. Court of Appeal in 1998, where TWU won again. The BCCT was again ordered to approve the TWU program. As a last effort, the BCCT then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, where the case was heard on November 9, 2000.

Let us now review some of the statements found in the 8-to-1 Canadian Supreme Court ruling.

The Court agreed that the BCCT had “jurisdiction to consider discriminatory practices in dealing with the TWU application” but pointed out that “its expertise does not qualify it to interpret the scope of human rights nor to reconcile competing rights”.

Further, the Court asserted that “Neither freedom of religion nor the guarantee against discrimination based on sexual orientation is absolute. The proper place to draw the line is generally between belief and conduct. The freedom to hold beliefs is broader than the freedom to act on them.” It added that “The freedom of individuals to adhere to certain religious beliefs while at TWU should be respected.” It stressed that BCCT’s responsibility to uphold behaviour standards should focus on the actual behaviour of teachers, not on the policies of the institutions where they studied. “If a teacher in the public school system engages in discriminatory conduct, that teacher can be subject to disciplinary proceedings before the BCCT.”

Emphasizing the importance of rights and “the place of private institutions in our society”, the Court criticized the BCCT for not respecting “the right to freedom of religion of the members of TWU”.

In response to BCCT’s assertion that it was not criticizing TWU as an institution, the Court said, “It cannot be reasonably concluded that private institutions are protected but that their graduates are de facto considered unworthy of fully participating in public activities.” The Court scolded the BCCT for stressing “the religious precepts of TWU instead of the actual impact of these beliefs on the public school environment”, and said that in doing so the BCCT acted “on the basis of irrelevant considerations” and “therefore acted unfairly”.

The Court noted that Trinity graduates “have become competent public school teachers, and there is no evidence before this Court of discriminatory conduct. In addition, there is no basis for the inference that the fifth year . . . [at] SFU corrected any attitudes which were the subject of the BCCT’s concerns. On the evidence, the participation of SFU had nothing to do” with the alleged “intolerance”.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal ruling which “pointed out that the TWU documents make no reference to homosexuals or to homosexual orientation, but only to practices that the particular student is asked to give up himself, or herself, while at TWU”. By adding that “These practices include drunkenness, profanity, harassment, dishonesty, abortion, the occult and sexual sins of a heterosexual and homosexual nature”, the Court underscored Trinity’s commitment to “traditional Christian values still widely affirmed in Canada”. The Court pointed out that “There is nothing in the TWU Community Standards document that indicates that graduates of TWU will not treat homosexuals fairly and respectfully.”

The Court also pointed out “that the TWU Community Standards require students and faculty to show respect to all people, to become aware of all different philosophical and social perspectives, and to teach tolerance as a first principle”. Since the BCCT based its case solely on words found in the TWU document, the Court ruled that it must also take into account the other statements found in that same document.

The Court reminded the BCCT to pay attention to all aspects of its mandate, pointing out that it has a responsibility to protect religious rights as well as homosexual rights: “[T]he BCCT is also required to consider issues of religious freedom. Section 15 of the Charter protects equally against ‘discrimination based on . . . religion’.” It further reminded the BCCT that “British Columbia human rights legislation accommodates religious freedoms by allowing religious institutions to discriminate in their admissions policies on the basis of religion.” This provides broad, though not limitless, protection for all religious institutions.

The Court emphasized the necessity of upholding minority rights: “The Charter safeguards religious minorities from the threat of ‘the tyranny of the majority’.” As if the BCCT needed further instruction in the matter, the Court added, “No one is to be forced to act in a way contrary to his beliefs or his conscience.”

The Court also reprimanded the BCCT for its inconsistency: “The BCCT, rightfully, does not require public universities with teacher training programs to screen out applicants who hold sexist, racist or homophobic beliefs. For better or for worse, tolerance of divergent beliefs is a hallmark of a democratic society.” The Court thus implied that TWU should not be singled out for special restrictions not applied to other universities.

For Christians across Canada, the most important Court statement may well be the following: “If TWU’s Community Standards could be sufficient in themselves to justify denying accreditation, it is difficult to see how the same logic would not result in the denial of accreditation to members of a particular church.” If the BCCT had won, a vast array of rights now enjoyed by Christians and other believers could have been equally threatened. All religious educational institutions could have been labelled as suspect. It would probably have been argued that the last year of any professional or vocational program taught at a religious high school, college or university must be taken at a non-religious institution. This argument would likely have been applied to any job which involves interaction with the public.

Thank God for this decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. The entire Christian community has much reason to celebrate. For TWU, there is an added, not-so-small benefit – the Court ordered the BCCT to pay TWU’s court costs. Even though about $1.4 million of costs are not covered, about $200,000 will be paid to TWU by those who took this case as far as they did in challenging the right of evangelical Christians to contribute as first-class citizens of Canada.

John H. Redekop is on the faculty of Trinity Western University and is a member of Bakerview MB Church in Abbotsford, B.C.

Previous | Next 

Last modified July 17, 2001.

© 2001 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.