Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group U/Separation Thesis

= Lon Fuller =

Lon Fuller was a supporter of Natural law. Lon Fuller was a critic of HLA Hart and believed that morality did play a role in the law. First there was the external morality, which was a belief that they will produce good order. Second there is the internal morality of the law. The internal morality of the law focuses on several points, which could potentially make a law fail. These are when decisions are ad hoc; where rules are not public, knowable; the abuse of retroactive legislation; where rules are not understandable; where rules are contradictory; where rules cannot be obeyed (obeying them beyond person’s ability); very frequent changing of rules (so person cannot orient their behaviour by them); and disjunction between rules, and rules as actually administered. If the laws fail either of the aspects of morality, external or internal then they cannot be considered Law. The role judges play is a role of interpretation. Judges should look to the purpose of the law and the good it is to accomplish. If the case is difficult the judges will generally be looking at the competing purposes in play. In the case of Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers (Trinity Western University) Lon Fuller would be most interested in s. 4 of the Teaching Profession Act, Responsibilities of Membership in the Community of Trinity Western University, and the judgment made by the majority of the court.

S. 4 of the Teaching Profession Act
S. 4 of the Teaching Profession Act is the authority BCCT used in preventing Trinity Western University from having their teaching program based on discrimination. The prevention of discrimination produces order as it makes individuals equals within society. Although the prevention of discrimination may not have been the main purpose of the legislation the prevention of discrimination is arguably the main purpose of the legislation in this situation (Trinity Western University, para 14). Therefore the external morality of s. 4 of the Teaching Profession Act is the prevention of discrimination The internal morality of the legislation is brought into question due to an inability to understand the law. According to Lon Fuller clarity in the law is important; a rule will not be considered a law if it is not understandable. The Teaching Profession Act is potentially not understandable due to the courts need to interpret it. In Trinity Western University the court interpreted whether the BCCT had the authority to prevent Trinity Western University (TWU) from running its teaching program on the grounds of discrimination. However, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) was able to deduce that the Teaching Profession Act did allow BCCT to consider discrimination in the TWU application (Trinity Western University Para 14). As the courts were able to interpret the law in regards to its purpose the understandability of the law is not at issue. Therefore s. 4 of the Teaching Profession Act is a valid moral law.

Responsibilities of Membership in the Community of Trinity Western University
The Responsibilities of Membership in the Community of Trinity Western University (Covenant) is arguably to produce good order. The reason for this is that the covenant promotes behavior that follows similar morals to the Christian belief of preventing drunkenness, ect. At issue in this case however, is the rule of requiring students and employees to not practicing homosexual behavior. The external moral that would be present in this case is an individual’s freedom of religion in the attempt to promote good order. This is best explained by Canadians belief that it is important to let individuals discriminate to allow for a “wide variety of beliefs, diversity of tastes and pursuits customs and codes of conduct” (Trinity Western University para 28). This justifies the external morality used. Also the Covenant satisfies all of Lon Fuller’s internal morality conditions. Therefore, the Covenant is a valid law in respect to the jurisdiction that it is in (Lon Fuller does not discuss jurisdiction).

Majority Decision by the Judges
Lon Fuller would consider Trinity Western University a hard case for a judge to decide upon. Both laws are valid according to Lon Fuller’s reasoning. The judges would then be required to decide which law’s purpose is more important. The majority of the SCC in Trinity Western University decided in favor of freedom of religion (Trinity Western University para 46). Mostly on the grounds that considering discrimination outside of the application process without evidence of the said discrimination is not a justification (Trinity Western University para 44). In my opinion Lon Fuller would have came to the same conclusion. First the Charter must be read as a whole and neither freedom of religion or equality rights are absolute. Instead they are equal. This appears to be similar in Lon Fuller’s belief of the external morality. Instead reconciliation should be the goal of the judges. The purpose of s. 4 was to prevent discrimination in the TWU application for a teachers program. It is not to make decisions that would not be explainable/ provable through the law. This is one of the internal moralities that can make a law invalid. Therefore to reconcile both the freedom of religion and equality something must be proposed to prevent further discrimination post degree but allow one to pursue their freedom of religion. The courts satisfied this by expressing the difference between having a belief and acting upon it (Trinity Western University para 37). It is for this reason that both freedom of religion and equality rights have been reconciled and the main purpose of both laws are satisfied.