I think people are missing one important point which is that if this judge was at the table during the freedumb protest, he would’ve approved the use of it. This is all in hindsight now, but at the time, he would’ve agreed. Also - the use of it in Ottawa and Windsor he agrees with, just not for the entirety of Canada.
Isn’t this also missing the point? Is what a judge thought before the case was heard relevant? Surely a court case involves presenting facts from both sides and arguing the case and not prejudging the case as if they were there before the start and before the case was heard. I think technically the judge would have to recuse himself.
I think people are missing one important point which is that if this judge was at the table during the freedumb protest, he would’ve approved the use of it. This is all in hindsight now, but at the time, he would’ve agreed. Also - the use of it in Ottawa and Windsor he agrees with, just not for the entirety of Canada.
Isn’t this also missing the point? Is what a judge thought before the case was heard relevant? Surely a court case involves presenting facts from both sides and arguing the case and not prejudging the case as if they were there before the start and before the case was heard. I think technically the judge would have to recuse himself.