and refused to propose the kind of freemarketrnreforms that the overburdenedrnB.C. health-care system could benefitrnfrom, the platform that the Liberals ranrnon was essentially Thatcherite.rnThe party promised to slash incometaxrnrates, require a balanced budget, andrntake a baseball bat to the kneecaps ofrngreedy, bloated, public- and private-sectorrnunions. Government subsidies tornbusiness would be discontinued, andrnmany of the more onerous regidations ofrnthe NDP era would be scrapped. Evenrnsocial conservatives can take solace in thernfact that the B.C. Liberals want to knockrnoff social engineering and will hold freernvotes on all matters of conscience. Witlirna 77 to 2 majority, they should be able tornmake good on all of these promises.rnBy a weird coincidence that makesrnyou wonder if there isn’t something to thernnotion of Providence, the next morningrnthe Supreme Court of Canada finally decidedrnthat it believed in religious freedomrnand, therefore, that my degree willrnbe worth the paper it is printed on. In arnsurprising eight to one ruling, with radicalrnJustice Claire L’Heureux-Dube angrilyrndissenting, the court upheld thernB.C. Supreme Court and the Court ofrnAppeals’ rulings against the B.C. Collegernof Teachers’ bid to deny accreditation tornTrinity Western University’s educationrnprogram.rnThe sticking point was over the part ofrnthe university’s community-standardsrnagreement that prohibits, among otherrnthings, fornication or homosexual sex,rnwhich the BCCT claimed violated thernCharter of Rights and Freedoms. The titlernof a glowing story in the Globe andrnMail (widely cited by Trinity administrators)rnasked, “Students at Trinity WesternrnUniversity have pledged not to smoke,rndrink, swear, take dmgs, fornicate or haverngay sex. Are they unfit to teach your children?”rnThe College of Teachers believedrnthat, without a fifth year at a secularrnuniversity. Trinity grads would bernindistinguishable from genuine bigots.rnA win for the BCCT would have had arnripple effect: First, the education programrnwould have fallen; then the nursingrnprogram; then, Katy bar the door, andrngood luck getting a job. Students ofrn”the most expensive school in Canada”rn(about $11,000 U.S. per year) were notrnenthusiastic about the prospect of beingrnturned into undergraduates of the BobrnJones University of the North.rnNor would the comparison betweenrnTWU and BJU be particularly apt, werernit not for the fact that a governmentrnagency was seeking to have a religious institutionrnde-recognized. Trinity is on thernfar-left fringe of conservative evangelicalrnschools. The majority of the religiousshidiesrnfaculty favor female ordination.rnNon-religious-studies professors do notrnhave to fear reprisal when they spout offrnon subjects ranging from the femininityrnof God to the imperialism of missionsrnwork. A March 2001 survey for Mars’rnHill, the student newspaper, asked unmarriedrnstudents questions concerningrnmasturbation, pornography, petting, oralrnsex, “vaginal/anal” sex, and birtli control.rnForty-eight percent of men had engagedrnin oral sex, 85 percent of women believedrnin birth control, and only 18 percent ofrnmen felt guilty for their current nonmaritalrnsexual activity.rnThe paper also published an article byrn”Thomas,” an anonymous student claimingrnto be gay. Student responses were eitherrnsupportive of TTiomas’s choice or ofrnthe abstract “hate tlie sin, love the sinner”rnvariety. The dean of undergraduate studies’rnresponse included:rnMars’ Hill and “Thomas” are to berncommended for stimulating arnthoughtful discussion on a significantrnissue for both the Christianrncommunity and for society-at-large.rnWe believe that all people arernGod’s images. We must thereforernhonor them as such. Failure to dornso violates our community standardsrnas surely as any other sin. Wernagree with “Thomas” that a gayrnChristian is not an oxymoron.rnTo anyone with actual firsthandrnknowledge of Trinity Western, it was littlernwonder tiiat the BCCT couldn’t findrna single intolerant Trinity-educatedrnteacher to serve as Exhibit A, but that didrnnot make the case any less serious. IfrnTWU could be called “bigoted” for simplyrnmaking students sign a statement ofrnbelief that ran contrary to p.c. norms,rnthen any religious freedom in Canadarnwould have been dead. Writing aboutrnthe case in the B.C. Report, publisherrnLink Byfield distilled the potentiallyrnchilling implications: “The SupremernCourt will now decide if we may believernthings government officials don’t like.”rnEven the Canadian arm of tlie ACLUrnfound that prospect to be a bit much andrnfiled a brief on behalf of Trinity. ThernCanadian Conference of Catholic Bishopsrnand the Seventli-Day Adventists alsornintervened on Trinity’s behalf. (Talkrnabout the pride lying down with thernflock!) Money flooded into Trinity’s coffersrnto defray court costs, and oppositionrnleader Stockwell Day let it be known fliatrnhe was doing some intervening of hisrnown for Trinity, on his knees.rnPrayer or sanity won out. The nomiallyrngay-rights-happy Supreme Court foundrnthat the BCCT’s “expertise does not qualifyrnit to interpret the scope of himian rightsrnnor to reconcile competing rights.” Thernjustices decided that “freedom of religion,rnconscience, and association” outweighrnthe “right to be free of discriminationrnbased on sexual orientation” and saidrnthat, where discrimination does exist, itrnshould be dealt with by disciplining individualrnteachers, not flogging the institutionrnfrom whence they came. They orderedrnthe BCCT to pick up some of TWU’srncourt costs (over $600,000 Canadian).rnIn a press release, TWU ExecutivernVice President Guy Saffold declared victoryrnnot just for TWU but for “fundamentalrnCanadian values”:rnThe Supreme Court of Canada hasrnaffimied that, in our midti-culturalrnand multi-faith society, people cannotrnbe arbitrarily penalized orrnbarred from participation in publicrnlife simply because they hold religiousrnviews.rnBully for pluralism, but—as commentatorsrnin the National Post and the Globernand Mail pointed out—the decision wasrna narrow one that drew a line “generallyrnbetween belief and conduct” and reaffirmedrnthe near parity between religiousrnfreedom and “the right not to be discriminatedrnagainst.” Some gay-rights advocatesrnlatched onto a few throwaway linesrnand called the mling a minor setback or,rnmore laughably, a qualified success. Butrnit, like the Liberal landslide, was a necessaryrnwin.rnWitiiout a tyrannical, inept NDP governmentrnto cover their flanks, it’s unlikelyrnthat members of the BCCT wouldrnhave dragged British Columbia and thernrest of Canada through three court casesrnto try to rig the system against even nominallyrnpious Christians. Angry BritishrnColumbian voters and a sane SupremernCourt may have ensured that it will neverrnhappen again.rnJeremy Lott is the senior editor ofrnSpintech Magazine and a studentrnat Trinity Western University.rn44/CHRONICLESrnrnrn