Elected officials should never comment on judgments or any cases. It’s fundamental to a democratic state with independent courts. That’s what made the last government unfit to govern. They inserted themselves into the administration of justice. They didn’t deserve to be within a country mile of power. Glad to see Canada is back.
If we keep isolating “violence” in definable, convenient little units with the starter “against (insert label here) violence, then nothing will get better. As long as violence is seen as an acceptable means of dealing with a problem, from war to a disco lover, then the “labels” will always be collateral damage.
Since, as gyor points out, most violence is man on man, perhaps that is the first violence we truly have to be against and that will probably do more to end “violence against (insert label here).
Though, if I was truly cynical, I’d say it’s intrinsic to our nature and the least we can do is mitigate the damages.
As Homer Simpson said … ” I am not easily impressed, oh look a red car.” 🙂
Very, very astute.
Best for the PM not to get sucked into this messy situation.
Surprised and impressed. An excellent response.
Elected officials should never comment on judgments or any cases. It’s fundamental to a democratic state with independent courts. That’s what made the last government unfit to govern. They inserted themselves into the administration of justice. They didn’t deserve to be within a country mile of power. Glad to see Canada is back.
So we have set a new bar. Wisdom is now demonstrated by the ability to not say something really stupid!
Ian, given the growth in idiotic statements over the years (in person or over social media), not saying something stupid is raising the bar.
Men are far more likely to be victims of violence, but not a word on that, Trudeau once again exposes his mysandry.
Yes, because male on male violence is exactly what the Ghomeshi case was about. Your so on the ball!
If we keep isolating “violence” in definable, convenient little units with the starter “against (insert label here) violence, then nothing will get better. As long as violence is seen as an acceptable means of dealing with a problem, from war to a disco lover, then the “labels” will always be collateral damage.
Since, as gyor points out, most violence is man on man, perhaps that is the first violence we truly have to be against and that will probably do more to end “violence against (insert label here).
Though, if I was truly cynical, I’d say it’s intrinsic to our nature and the least we can do is mitigate the damages.