Exactly; good point!:
[If we were to hold a vote of public confidence, I’m not sure who would come out ahead: judges or politicians. But politicians are permitted to make public statements whereas judges are not. When Justin Trudeau commits an act of cultural appropriation, playing Mr. Dressup, he can engage his PR team to explain or divert attention and shell out a few million taxpayer dollars to display his diversity apologetics.]
DAVISON: Justin Trudeau is teaching our judges junk science.
In an age of moral panic, the rule of law must not be lost.
by Diana Davison December 3, 2018 in Canadian News, Culture, Opinion, Politics.
The last time a Canadian judge defended himself in public was 1999. Alberta’s Justice John McClung responded to harsh criticism from the Supreme Court of Canada’s Honourable Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé by saying he was unsurprised so many men in Quebec were committing suicide.
Justice McClung later claimed to have been unaware that L’Heureux-Dubé’s husband had committed suicide in 1978.
It was quite the scandal.
The decision under dispute at the time, R v Ewanchuk, expanded what are now considered to be “rape myths” in current Canadian jurisprudence, and L’Heureux-Dubé was rather harsh in her attack against McClung’s verdict in that ruling.