with the Justice MInister, says how the Stanley case should have gone, expresses his predictable p.c. agenda. (Is there a problem with Justin telling the Justice Minister how the trial should have gone? Is there a problem with the Minister telling people how the trial should have gone? Do these two mysteriously know the facts and arguments of this case better than the lawyers and judge? Were they expecting an automatic guilty charge for Stanley? Isn’t justice supposed to be neutral with outside administrators and politicians not being able to influence the direction of cases? Didn’t there used to be a problem with this kind of interference and agendaizing in Canadian trials and courtrooms?)
*N.B. We’ve now reached the point in/with the Stanley case that p.c. agendas have become the deciding factor in dispensing justice in Canada regardless of evidence and circumstances.