Showing posts with label juridics Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label juridics Canada. Show all posts

Thursday, December 15, 2011

JuridicsCanada: News articles URLs: A collection from the email newsletter of Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA)

-


-

-


Canadian Juridics

The following is not a scientific analysis, so its parameters are rather fuzzy.  But I think it gives a good impression of what the Canadian press has covered lately in regard to human rights, and it is my collection of items largely found in the email newsletter I've been receiving from Canadian Civil Liberties Association (not particularly my cup of legal tea, but appreciate them as an info-source for getting closer to the Big Picture of trends and the topics below). I've posted it here in my frontpage column of our blog refWrite, because posting it to Facebook seems to strip out all the live links of the URLs for each entry.  

I thawt some few people may want to use this, not least becawz it has categories developed from the information up, to constitute thereby an ad hoc classification system for people may want to explore its possible uses, including university/college students, law students interested in either legal studies or the 24-hour newscycle and the flow of information in the daily media.  

Yours,

Lawt
Juridics columnist for refWrite 


Business









Children & Abortion







Courts






Read more ... click the time-stamp below

Posted by Unknown at 11:39 AM 0 comments

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Juridics: Ontario: Canadian court makes important "religious hiring" decision

Stanley Carlson-Thies of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance has emailed IRFA's May 27,2k10 newsletter. One of the items in this issue of the newsletter features an important juridical note about a recent development in Ontario regarding indiscriminate hiring by non-church faith-based organizations (many of them are social-service agencies who recruit staff on the basis of commitment to Christian morals and faith).

The court deciding the case, and the rhetoric of discussing the case bandies about the term "discrimination" -- but the Christian defence shoud emphasize the hazards of indiscriminate hiring of people who don't evidence having their heart in the secular realization of the Christian all-of-life concern and mission. Christian organizations have every r+t to discriminate against indiscriminate hiring, and the freedom of association that established the org and operates its financial base, shoud trump individuals who don't have their heart in the Christian basis of the organization's work which may be one of faith and morals.

Of course, most Christian social-service orgs need workers heartfully committed to serving all who come to them for service. In this key sense, being Christian in social service may mean anti-discrimination in regard to those cared for by the org. However, a social-service agency, whether Christian or not, needs to discriminate according to its focal task: for instance, caring for the disabled. Such agencies are not ghettos, and it's precisely the discriminating hiring policy that selects for those who can serve in the task at hand indiscriminately. Clear? Stanley states the case, but I have further questions because of the particulars.  All is not what it seems.

Click the time tag below to read more >

Posted by Unknown at 5:41 PM 0 comments

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)