Since the story says she was running unopposed, what was cancelled was her 'coronation', not her candidacy.
Along with the predictable complaints about her extremist views, the story also notes complaints that the law society running the cancelled-election had rushed the nominations, and done a less than adequate job of notifying their members of the election, and encouraging participation. It says, they were what got the voting postponed.
The story says it was simply re-scheduled, other candidates were also nominated, and now she is as free as any of them to compete for votes. And it says she had her proper opportunity to argue against postponement, and for her 'win' by acclamation. But her reasons didn't persuade the tribunal.
All that's just summarizing the story — Blatch's gratuitous and irrelevant observation that some who complained are LGBTQ is only worth an afterthought about the role of bias in her piece.
My opinion: There's no democracy — or free speech — if the process happens in the backrooms and is over before The People even hear about it. One of the many reasons we have courts and tribunals that uphold principles, not just the minimum that some law says people can get way with.
To the OP: Your title is not true to the article in any way. Wish I could say that surprised me.
