The author is being disingenuous or naive.  Except for training in substantive law, all other "training" is one foot on the slippery slope and is only a matter of emphasis and inflection away from state mandated indoctrination in the politically correct flavour of the month.

Absolutely everything that a judge needs to know about any specific case, including cases of a sexual nature, can be put before the court by Crown and defence counsel.  Thus, for example, if there are legitimate, cogent reasons why the post-assault behaviour of a sexual assault victim should be placed in context, discounted or even ignored, defence counsel can place that information before the court for consideration.  The judge ought not to have a pre-ordained mindset when receiving it.

If state mandated "training" is acceptable for this issue, for what other issues might this or a future government consider "training" to be necessary?