Dear editor,
It is interesting to read Vancouver Island North MP John Duncan’s response to the federal court’s recent ruling that “there had been an orchestrated effort to suppress votes during the 2011 election.”
Mr. Duncan was quoted as describing the legal challenge that precipitated the ruling as “frivolous and vexatious.”
It seems to me that his comment shows disrespect for Canadian voters who expect a clean and honest election and disregard for our legal system.
Given that Mr. Duncan goes on to say that the legal challenge was “designed to get the party to spend money in non-productive ways,” it seems that he is more concerned with the inconvenience of the proceedings and the resulting drain on Conservative Party finances than on the maintenance of ethical and honest election campaigning.
That would perhaps explain his description of the legal challenge as vexatious, but surely the legal system is designed to protect the integrity of our electoral process, despite any vexatious inconvenience to political parties or their representatives.
As for the characterization of the challenge as “frivolous,” I would suggest that attempts to maintain an honest electoral process are more aptly described as serious and necessary. It seems likely that the federal judge agrees, as evidenced by the fact that he awarded applicants costs. Clearly he did not consider the matter frivolous.
I would prefer to have a representative who would also deplore the actions of the perpetrators of the election fraud regardless of their political affiliation. In the absence of any such comment, one wonders if the party loyalties of the honourable member of Parliament supersede his commitment to honour in the truest sense of the word.
Perhaps voters can send Mr. Duncan a message that describes their own commitment to honest elections by not returning him or his party’s representatives to Ottawa at the next federal election.
Fred Witzel,
Comox