Rona Ambrose is introducing legislation that would make sexual-assault training for judges mandatory. That means hitherto it was not. Therefore, why was Justice Robin Camp removed from the bench for being insensitive to a woman who alleged sexual assault in his court?
That's not logical.
Were there no formal training, and thus Justice Camp hadn't received any, how could he have been removed for not having had it? Had Ambrose not introduced the legislation, this would not be an issue because the assumption would have been that Camp had indeed received appropriate, formal training, yet ignored it, thus his remarks were completely out-of-line, outrageous and grounds for his removal.
But if Ambrose now deems such training mandatory, yet Camp's appointment to the bench didn't require such, then he can't be removed. Only censured.
Get it? It's an after-the-fact response to something that wasn't there in the first place.
Don't get me wrong, his remarks were shocking. But you can't "officially" close the barn door after the horse has bolted if the barn door had been open for years.
Am I the only person who gets the logic? Usually.
No comments:
Post a Comment