Dear editor,

Is it 鈥� as has been postulated on these pages more than once 鈥� undemocratic to resort to recall rather than wait for the next election?

When caught in dishonesty, does it mitigate being young, inexperienced, a family man apparently still unsifted in probity? Manifesting neither profound insight nor enough backbone to 鈥榝ess up? To make good?

Imagine a fellow who by deceit 鈥� deliberately acting contrary to agreed terms 鈥� obtains a race horse owned by a consortium. Caught and brought before a judge, the miscreant is found guilty on the basis of evidence, numerous witnesses, plus having the horse in his possession.

鈥淪entence,鈥� announces the judge, 鈥渨ill be pronounced four years鈥� hence. Until then, keep the horse, enjoy the income it brings, and worry not about expenses. These will all be paid by the consortium.鈥�

Axiomatic in law lies the premise that no one is to benefit from the proceeds of an offence.

How then can recall possibly be found unjust or undemocratic? Rather, should disqualification not have automatically ensued immediately upon perpetration of the deceit?

We do live in interesting, not to say weird and illogical, times.

Tainted times as well.

So tainted, that if recall is unsuccessful 鈥� the odds being quite prohibitive 鈥� the lingering stench will remain, thus reminding everyone come next provincial election.

Finn Schultz-Lorentzen,

Courtenay