To the editor
When politicians the world over lose touch with their constituents, whether it be to influence from others in positions of power or due to some imagined threat because they are no longer truly representing the interests of their constituents or by chasing their own personal legacy, they always cite security as a way to distance themselves from the people they represent.
The threats are always unspecified and mysterious and always result in increased security at the very places where it is needed the least, such as public meetings.
That security does, however, serve the purpose of intimidating those that would speak out at those same public meets for fear of being branded a radical of some sort and insulating the politician from objections that may be raised.
We really need to look at who might benefit the most from isolating politicians from the people they represent and it is almost always those closest to them who wield power in their name and make representations in their own best interests about how a government should be run.
The message that should probably be taken by the fact that someone or some group has made threats is that there is some decision that has been made or is soon to be made that goes against what the majority want and by insulating the politician from the people they represent someone is trying to push through an issue that is not popular.
When making any decision based on someone else’s recommendations rather than your own hard research, you should always ask yourself who benefits.
John Brewer,
Thunder?Bay
