Everything I've posted was about the tribunal and its report -- it's you who presumed my comment about his witnesses not defending him was suddenly a general comment, as I have tried to clarify.   I admit she defended his reputation in the press.  I don't agree that she defended him against the tribunal's report or conclusions, because she explicitly described those as fair and understandable, respectively.  What you believe she meant to "diplomatically" imply about the tribunal is just your belief, not her words.

Of course equality is a charter right.  You seem to think that trying to protect that right is somehow a bias.  The tribunal also addresses the right to opinions and even the holding of unconscious bias -- obviously the rights of a judge to express opinions and exercise bias is restricted at trial by his role as a judge.

You've gratuitously accused myself/the tribunal of bias throughout, but you have yet to explain what that bias is other than disagreeing with you.