And is the following an example of consistency in the application of justice?
If an organization repeatedly reiterates what they know will be interpreted as a threat, then is it not logical to assume that they have knowingly given the threat? Isn't a threat to cause harm or death a criminal offence in most of Canada?
Maybe the perceived difference is due to the fact that the second example deals with the exemplary ethical, self regulating, law respecting honest medical profession?
The Current Inquiry into Pediatric Forensic Pathology in Ontario is clearly an investigation, of a possible aberration, of the profession's ethics?
Maybe the "Shipman Inquiry", in another jurisdiction, is another example?