And silly me, I was just pointing out how sad it was that it took death threats to a family with no connection to such protests to rouse you to that helpful contribution.
I have no idea what you might have intended when you said the family's statement, "falls a little short of accepting full responsibility on the part of the son", and perhaps you could clarify what their "full responsibility on the part of the son" requires. You're entitled to even a mere suspicion that they might have something to do with what happened, but to cite that unproven suspicion in this context is to ally your thinking with the despicable threateners who were working with exactly that same pre-judice.
According to the family, the son thought he was going to an anti-terrorist rally:
https://www.blogto.com/eat_drink/2019/10/soufis-restaurant-toronto-antifa-hamilton/. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that story for a second, given that, again according to his family, this was far from his first social justice protest. Also, even if I gave the story the smallest shred of credence, upon his arrival at the protest he would have been completely disabused of his "misunderstanding". This aspect of the family's statement is meant to paint their son as the dupe of a radical organizer who mislead him as to what the protest was all about and the people they were there to oppose. It doesn't hold water. In my view, its far more believable that the son understood the nature of the protest, and understood the wide ranging nature of those who would be attending the event. The family says he "made a mistake", but what exactly was his mistake? Was it blocking the path of an elderly woman, or was it also protesting and interfering with what was a political speaking event organized by an accredited political party?
Parents who try to smooth things over for their kids by watering down the truth are: 1) not helping their child understand the full gravity of their actions, and 2) sending a message to the community that full responsibility won't be taken when "mistakes" are made. I'm not impressed with either. Full responsibility means, in this case, acknowledging that the son knew full well what the nature of the protest was, and assuring that the family has impressed upon him the importance of respecting the rights of others to hear political presentations and that, in no instance, is it ok to physically prevent people from attending such events. I agree with the part of their statement that says a single mistake shouldn't doom a child/young adult, but without
unvarnished correction, I can't see how the public could really expect the son to change his behaviour.
As to the death threats, of course (as I've already said) they are always wrong. They can't be justified, whether on my analysis of why the family apology is lacking, or even on more serious shortcomings. However, many people claim to be, or to feel, threatened who aren't, especially when there is something to be gained by being a victim. I haven't seen the threats reproduced in any reporting. I'm a "seeing is believing" type of news consumer. Do you know where these threats can be viewed? I'll happily acknowledge them as death threats if that's what they are.
