May I draw your attention to the editorial in this paper of March 11, 2010 titled “What about ‘justice must also be seen to be done’?” This intelligent, insightful, thought-provoking and reasonable public opinion is dead on! my perception, and may I suggest that of most Canadian citizens, is that Rahim Jaffer (ex conservative member of parliament) clearly received preferential treatment.

Is it because his spouse, a current conservative MP (and herself the recent recipient of preferential treatment at a Prince Edward Island airport) has “influence” over justice matters? Is it because Justice Doug Maund is a former conservative? Is it because the Crown is incompetent or fearful? Are there other reasons that we, the law-abiding, taxpaying “ordinary citizens” don’t know about?

The facts, as publicly reported so far, are that Mr. Jaffer failed a breathalyzer test and was in possession of cocaine and was clocked doing 43 km/h above the posted speed limit near palgrave. I suggest justice has NOT been served in this case. I believe Mr. Jaffer has had previous “run-ins with the law” and is known to police. It is not good enough for Justice Maund to tell Mr. Jaffer “I’m sure you can recognize a break when you see one.” This verdict smells very bad.

What do you have to say on the public record Mr. Tilson in this regard?

Ian Fairley, Orangeville