responding to Rokossovsky:
1) Debater makes straight forward arguments about fact, but YOU responded with an ad hominem attack.
2) Clearly, it was the NDP who breached the anonymity of the two "complainants."
3) Trudeau could possibly have considered alternative wording, such as "suspended for misconduct involving people on the hill", but the it is hard to see a) how any such statement would have changed dynamics (given NDP leakiness and the dynamism of the Parliamentary Hill press staff, and b) that such phrasing would have been just to Canadians, who need to know if there is assault between parliamentarians (since that actually threatens the democratic process).
4) IF the allegations are serious enough to merit a complaint, the victims have a responsbiilty to stand up, identifying themselves in public, and make formal complaints. No rape shield law should apply to a sitting MP. As MPs, they are supposed to lead (even if they are feeling trauma from past sexual assaults). If they cannot lead publicly on this issue, they should resign.
5) If the incidents can be possibly construed as being sexual assault, then the alleged perpetrators have to be suspended, regardless of the willingness of the alleged victims to go public.
Even Debater isn't game to support his theories with quotes and evidence, perhaps you are?
Let's start with:
2) Clearly, it was the NDP who breached the anonymity of the two "complainants."
Who? When? And what did they say that breached anonymity
