neilfoster

Is Christianity inconsistent with a professional legal education?

This may sound like an odd question, but it is one that has been raised in Canada recently with the application of a Christian University there, Trinity Western, to offer a law degree. The University has a policy which has attracted the ire of some, which requires students to adhere to Biblical standards of sexual behaviour while pursuing their course. This would mean that sexual intercourse outside marriage was precluded, both for heterosexual and homosexual couples. Interestingly the ban on heterosexual sex does not seem to have caused the problem, but the ban on homosexual sex has been interpreted as meaning that homosexual persons would not be able to study law at TWU. Under the Canadian system for accrediting legal practitioners, each Province’s Law Society must approve a particular law degree for its graduates to be able to practice law in that Province, and while at the early stages TWU had received approval from many of the Provincial Law Societies, more recently a number have either refused or reversed an earlier decision to approve.

See here for a detailed comment on the issues as they emerged when the matter was first discussed at the beginning of 2013.

The most recent news update I have seen, here, reports that the New Brunswick Law Society has, by a narrow vote, re-affirmed its support for accreditation. This seems to mean that overall 3 Provinces have now officially voted against accreditation, 2 (including New Brunswick) have voted in favour, and 2 others have not taken a final position. It will be interesting to see whether those who are supposed to be the defenders of the rule of law in Canada, the lawyers, are willing to support freedom of religion, or instead are determined to characterise an adherence to established Biblical morality as “homophobic”. As noted in my 2013 piece, the overall implications for the involvement of committed Christians in public life generally are fairly disturbing. Still, since the Supreme Court of Canada in 2001 has already decided that TWU could train teachers for Canada, I have some hope that if the matter proceeds through the courts the SCC will once again find in favour of religious freedom.

To quote from my previous paper:

Of course it need not be said that if students or staff at TWU engage in unlawful discrimination while studying or teaching, or once they have graduated, then the law will apply to them. But the argument that TWU ought not to be accredited to graduate lawyers boils down in the end to an argument that no-one holding to a Biblical view of sexual morality is fit to hold public office in a Western society today. It is an argument that is not legally sound in Canadian law, and ought to be rejected by anyone who supports a balanced view of human rights, which includes not only anti-discrimination rights, but rights of freedom of religion.

neilfoster

Freedom of speech and terrorism

On a day when French police are still hunting for the killers who murdered journalists at the Paris office of a satirical magazine, probably because of the magazine’s publication of material mocking Islam and Muhammad, is there anything that can be said about law and religion issues for Australia?
The support expressed for freedom of speech in the wake of this terrible event is real and important. But there are of course important questions about the limits of free speech.
“Freedom of speech”, like any other human right, is never and has never been absolute. We restrict speech where it causes physical harm to people (such as an incorrect health warning on medication, or the classic example of someone who shouts “fire” in a crowded theatre and causes death and injury in the resulting stampede.) We also make some speech unlawful where it incites direct violence against others, or falsely destroys someone’s reputation ( through the law of defamation.)
Here the speech of the magazine in mocking sacred Islamic topics will have led, and foreseeably so, to distress and offence among some Muslim people. Indeed, when the original Danish cartoons were published, there may well have been some who were physically injured in subsequent riots, which again were reasonable predictable. Does that mean we should pass laws making it illegal to cause such offence on the ground of religion? It may be that once the current outrage has subsided to some extent, there will be calls for such laws to be enacted or enforced more vigorously.
In my view, this would be a bad idea. I think that there is some limited scope for so-called “religious anti-vilification” laws, provided however that those laws are carefully crafted to only catch speech which incites hatred or violence against persons of a particular faith. But the law should not prohibit the mere causing of “offence”, nor should it restrict robust debate about the truth or falsehood, or good or bad effects, of religions. I make the case for this in a paper which can be downloaded here.
Those who commit violence in the name of offence should be caught and dealt with according to law. It may never be possible to prevent such actions altogether. But we should not restrict freedom of speech in discussing religion because of a fear of such response.

neilfoster

Other useful Law and Religion blogs

Since this blog is so recent the word “other” probably shouldn’t be there! I hope eventually for it to be useful. But the blogs and websites mentioned below certainly are, and will no doubt often be cited here. So I thought it would be helpful to share these with others. Most will allow you to subscribe.

– Law and Religion UK, here

– Center for Law and Religion Forum, mostly US material, here

– International Center for Law and Religion Studies at BYU Law School in Utah offers an excellent daily list of headlines with links from all over the world, here

– “First Things” is an excellent website from a Roman Catholic tradition (but with regular contributions from evangelicals) here

It goes without saying, but since I’m a lawyer I’ll say it anyway, that I wouldn’t endorse or agree with all the articles etc linked at these sites, nor the theology of those who run the sites necessarily. But I have found them to be up-to-date, accurate and mostly sensible comments on important issues in this area.

neilfoster

Truck-driving and religious freedom

These two ideas don’t automatically sound related, but they came up in a recent news item from the Boston Globe here. Can a Catholic firefighter object when asked to drive a fire truck in a “gay pride” parade? The court ruled they could not.
I think this case is close to the edge, but on balance went the wrong way. An employee with religious convictions about the sinfulness of homosexual behaviour ought, in my view, be allowed to decline to participate in activities the sole purpose of which is to affirm and celebrate such behaviour. Of course it would be different if, for example, there was a fire involved, even if it were a fire that broke out on one of the floats! There saving life and property would be the issue and employees should, and I imagine would, be happy to do the job. But to be asked to play this supporting role in a purely symbolic affirmation of homosexuality is going too far. It seems that it would have been perfectly possible for the employees to not have been rostered on this duty.
These issues are similar to those which came up in the Ladele case a few years ago in the UK and in Europe. See a recent paper here which comments on some of the issues.

neilfoster

Discrimination and Freedom of Religion: CYC v Cobaw

One of the most important Law and Religion cases in Australia over the last few years has been the litigation involving the decision of Christian Youth Camps (CYC) to decline a booking from Cobaw Community Health for a camp the purpose of which was to teach that homosexuality is a normal and natural form of human sexuality. (For the original tribunal decision see here, for the appeal decision affirming most of the Tribunal’s findings, see here.) The decision, particularly the 2014 Victorian Court of Appeal decision, is an important one because it deals with one of the most vexed issues facing believers adhering to traditional sexual morality, facing a Western world which is rapidly abandoning previous views.

For many years, even following the so-called “sexual revolution” of the 1960’s, Christians and other religious believers could assume that core beliefs on sexual morality were still generally seen as worthwhile by most of society, even if increasingly not complied with: views applauding faithfulness to marriage vows, warning against the unwisdom of pre-marital sex, supporting heterosexual intercourse as normal and homosexual behaviour as wrong or at least “not normal”. But in recent years views of this sort are not simply seen as outdated and eccentric, they are now seen as positively “evil” (although the irony of using “moral” words like “evil” in a discourse which claims to reject morality is not usually noted.) Hence Christians and others will find their ability to adhere to traditional sexual morality, and not to be required to support other views, is increasingly being undermined.

I believe that a strong support for religious freedom would provide an appropriate balance here. I wrote a paper outlining the CA CYC v Cobaw decision shortly after it was handed down, and suggesting where the majority had gone wrong. At the time I hoped that the High Court of Australia would grant special leave to appeal the decision so some of these matters could be clarified. (See here for a short piece arguing for this published in one of Australia’s mainstream law journals.) Unfortunately, just before Christmas, the High Court declined to grant special leave. I have written a comment on the decision, making some suggestions for the implications for the future. These important issues will not go away, but it seems we may have to wait a bit longer before some of them are authoritatively resolved.

neilfoster

Legal Pressure Points for Christians

I presented a paper at the “Australia Day Convention” in 2014 which discussed some issues which are going to create ongoing pressure points for Christians in the 21st century. The paper can be read here. Matthias Media were kind enough to turn this material into an ebook, which can be purchased here. Some of these issues are ones that developed further during 2014 and I will post on these when I get a chance over the next few weeks. (By the way, for those reading, this is not the sort of blog where you will read something new every day! You can “follow” this blog using the button at the top of the page, but otherwise I will post when I can and you may find it helpful to come back once every few weeks!)

neilfoster

Welcome to Law and Religion Australia

This blog will be a place where I post new thoughts, links and articles that relate to “law and religion” issues, mostly in Australia but with some from overseas as well. I will also be linking to some material I have already written, for those who missed it. The blog will help to collect these ideas in one place. May it be used for the benefit of those interested in these issues, the cause of furthering religious freedom in Australia, and for the glory of God. Soli deo gloria!