Found this fun little story via Kate at small dead animals. (You can either use bugmenot.com for a name and password to the Star, or just read the full text over at SDA.)

Ah, Carolyn Parrish, she gives me The Rage yet again.

How can she even spout this stuff without realizing how utterly illogical it is? 'Cause it looks to me like she's arguing that the people of Surrey North would not possibly have their wishes met because they would vote for someone who would go against their wishes. Why on earth would they vote for them then, Carolyn? Doesn't... don't you... ah, I give up. This stuff is going to make my head explode.

If she thinks the best way to honour Chuck Cadman's memory is to let his constituents wait without a voice in government for who knows how long, that's her business. I don't agree - Chuck Cadman was dedicated to democracy. His actions prove it. When he faced a great personal tragedy in his life, he could have withdrawn, he could have sued, he could have gone for vigilante justice. He chose to commit his life to helping at-risk youth through his group CRY (Crime, Responsibility and Youth) and to push for victims' rights and justice reform. He did this by working through our democracy. When the democratic process within his party left him without a nomination, he pushed on and ran and won as an independent. To me, this shows that despite what Carolyn Parrish thinks, the people of Surrey North don't just blindly vote "right of center" - they vote for someone who will serve them and represent them well, as Mr. Cadman did. Leaving these people without any representative is not what Chuck Cadman would have wanted.