The statement by Jeffries questions the timing of a legislative debate, implying a lack of transparency or pride in the process. It critiques the decision to hold the debate at an unusual hour, suggesting it may have been done to avoid public scrutiny.
- The statement does not directly harm but implies criticism of the process, questioning transparency.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- It raises a concern about transparency, which can promote understanding and accountability. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement critiques the timing of the debate but does not engage in personal attacks. [+1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.