Perhaps majority not so pure

At first glance, this may appear as a collection of disjointed ramblings that serve no purpose, but I promise you that is not the case.

Editor:

Dear Mr. Trudeau:

At first glance, this may appear as a collection of disjointed ramblings that serve no purpose, but I promise you that is not the case.

A short time ago, I read an article in a magazine on the difference between democracy and a republic. I can just hear you asking yourself how this is relevant to you … well, it is. Believe me, it is. A democracy is simple majority rule … but there are factors involved that are not obvious at first glance. Example: a group of thugs consider, “vote on,” the advisability of mugging and killing a passerby.

Most are in favour, so they proceed … majority rules in its purest form. However, the innocent victim who was certainly the most involved, was not given a vote, and even if he had been, simple numbers would have gone against him. Perhaps a “majority rule” is not so pure after all.

In a republic, citizens still have freedom of expression and action, but those freedoms are more closely defined and occasionally limited for the protection of the people. Result? A vote by criminals would not be valid because murder and theft are prohibited under the law. Enter you. Recently, you made the news with your orders that Liberal MPs would be required to vote the party line on prochoice, regardless of personal convictions.

Now, before you sprain something with a wild leap of erroneous conclusions, I state that abortion is not the issue, pro or con. It is something far more encompassing in its effects. The question is, rather, to whom does an elected official owe basic loyalty… constituents or the party?

Here, Mr. Trudeau, is where you have made a serious mistake.

The primary purpose of an elected representative must be to guard the interests of those who elected them in the first place … this is democracy and republicanism, and nothing else will work.

Have you asked yourself how a person can believe one way and vote another, in good conscience? They cannot, of course, and to expect it is tantamount to requiring them to lie … absolutely unconscionable. Let us say if my MP did such a thing, he would soon cease to be my MP.

I believe the only ethical course for you to follow is to publicly recant and apologize. If you have even a fraction of integrity, I once saw in you, you will.

Donna Mae Smith

Williams Lake