Submit articles, opinions, columns here!

- PRESS RELEASE -

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Hornby Island - Sep.2, 2005

 ADHOC UMBRELLA GROUP FORMED

Known as the "GrOup To Oversee Ad Hoc Committees SELLing Out Hornby ", we are dedicated to defying the will of the majority in the pursuit of profit. We are committed to assisting any group or individual who understands that personal gain is the goal of all right thinking Islanders.

To further our aims we call for the dismantling of due process. We feel that squeezing profit from others’ life styles is a duty. Exploiting Hornby Island’s natural resources is a god given right (not to mention obligation) and should not be left to the ministrations of those who would leave a drop of valuable water unsold, a tree sticking out of the earth or a strip of beach uncommercialized. These people would have you believe that peaceful and quiet neighborhoods without thirty people partying next door all summer is more valuable to them than our right to make profit. They feel that they have a 'right of residency' in making decisions regarding their lives. We feel that a true Hornby Islander need not reside here at all but need have only made commercial investments on Hornby . With that type of spirit these right thinking people should receive TWO absentee ballots per vote.

Our mandate is not to educate the public or even explain. They are ignorant fools who could never even grasp the earth shaking importance of black ink on a Profit and Loss Statement.

We must present them with a fait accompli, ignore their protests and encourage them to leave the Hornby if they don't like what we are doing.

We demand all like minded profiteers to apply their efforts through us. We will vet their efforts for suitable venality, point out the errors they made and then will allow them to pillage away, with our official stamp of approval.

Join now and receive our Official Money Clip. In sparkling faux oro finish this dollar sign shaped clip has tiny hooks that prevent any Money from being removed, ever! It is also proudly emblazoned with our motto.

"I've Got Mine Jack, I'll Get Yours Next"

- Don Bradley

My friend John (not his real name) was talking with his friend Chloe (ditto) in the little shop she owns and operates. They were discussing the homemade blueberry wine of John ’s father, also there with them, and how much they enjoyed it. Obviously overhearing, a visitor/tourist turned from her perusing of the offered merchandise and interrupted with: “You have blueberry wine for sale? Can I get some of that?” It was an attempted coup, an effort to turn a private moment between friends and family into a monetary transaction-on-demand.

My friend John described feeling taken aback by the presumptive interruption, irritated that a private conversation was treated as public fodder and upon later reflection, being left with a negative impression of the woman viz: her behaviour.

Today in John ’s mailbox was a flyer offering a “Superhost Course” on Hornby . You may have seen it, this course, taught by an off-islander, designed to teach all of us (for a nominal fee of $40) the “fundamentals of service professionalism”. We could learn such skills as: How to use and remember names; Making conversation; How to give clear directions; How to make your first impression a positive one; and my personal favorite, “Going the Extra Mile”.

Are you freakin’ kiddin’ me? Seriously, are you freakin’ kiddin’ me?

The tone, presentation and content of this flyer are insulting to local islanders. It boldly implies that the generous hospitality islanders have been offering visitors/tourists for years is not good enough, that the time is nigh for us to learn how to bow and scrape effectively. “How to make conversation”? Get real. The person coming in to teach this course has evidently never spent any time at Ford’s Cove, or the Bakery, or Pizza Galore, or Vorizo, or Jan’s, or visited one of the many charming artists on the island who open their studios and homes to tourists and give generously of their charm, time and erudition every single summer. Are we to believe that they have been offering chopped liver all this time and now the tourists are demanding their steak?

This flyer also makes clear that there are two different paradigms operating on Hornby Island . In one, visitors come to the island to immerse themselves in a semi-rural culture, probably much different than their own, and to enjoy and be rejuvenated by the natural wonders of the rock and the people who inhabit her. In the other, tourists come here not to enjoy the natural offerings of the island, but to be served, in an environment that closely replicates what they are accustomed to experiencing. It’s a harsh reality, but this flyer makes it clear that tourists cannot be comfortable here with our present level of hospitality; if they could be, we wouldn’t need someone from off-island to come and teach us how to be better service providers (people) [servants].

At my summer job, I arrive on time, work diligently and efficiently, am cheerful and courteous and offer information freely. Here’s an example from last night: As I enjoy a break on the back porch of pizza, a couple parks, gets out, and promptly looks confused. Through hand gestures, they indicate to me their confusion about which way to approach the bakery. Should they go out to the road and walk around or come straight down along the side of the building? “Come on down!” I holler as I wave them in. They grin, wrap their arms around each other and stroll my way. “Stop and smell the lilacs on your way past, “ I tell them. They grin wider and we all feel good. Yep, pretty crappy service.

I refuse to feel bad about what I offer, because what I offer is honest human interaction, based on the principles of implied mutual respect and courtesy. I offer a chance for real human exchange, the opportunity for someone from somewhere else to experience a brief interaction with someone who makes his or her home on Hornby Island . I don’t think I’m out of line in asking if visitors don’t want that, then why are they coming here? I don’t think I’m out of line in refusing to accept a paradigm that requires my servitude in exchange for money.

Let’s talk about money. Some people will do anything for it. I don’t happen to be one of them, nor do many people who live here. I do not believe that respect is something that can be purchased or demanded, but is something that is given freely and earned. I believe that the “Superhost” flyer promotes the paradigm that respect is a commodity, and that when tourists come here with their money, they have the right to demand it from us. My guess is these are the tourists who complain about the lack of courtesy from the locals. Many people take umbrage at being treated as if they have no humanity, as if they are merely service delivery machines.

There is a myth afoot here, one that is gaining strength. This myth states that we would perish without the tourist dollar, that Hornby Island would very likely sink into the sea if tourists didn’t come here for ten weeks a year. We are being asked to believe that we really are completely reliant on tourist dollars for our very survival, and that “fact” should make us willing to do whatever it takes for said dollars.

Let’s liberate ourselves from that myth.

You want to know who I’ll “Go the Extra Mile” for? I’ll go the extra mile for the people who consistently and lovingly help ensure my survival here for the other ten months of the year. I have survived two homeless winters without benefit of tourist aid or steady employment of any kind. I have done so through the help of fellow locals, folks in nearly the same boat. We are cohesive by necessity, bartering for services and goods, networking, offering shelter, food, money and anything else that’s needed to our fellow Hornby ites. My summer jobs have not cured my homelessness, nor will they ever do so. In fact, the more housing prices increase, the more local people there will be in the same boat and until that is understood and acted upon, we will have big problems indeed.

I am not whining about my housing situation. I chose to come here, to leave my country, my family and my career to live in a van and wash dishes. Why? Because Hornby offers a lifestyle that is good for me: I enjoy living simply and being myself. I gave up everything so that I could be free. I left a land where people are no longer citizens but are consumers. I will not sit idly by and watch my adopted home turn into a replication of that.

I’m going to call the Superhost Course what I think it is: an attempt at mind control. I understand that I hire out my body for ten weeks of the year. That’s life. But I reject the attempt to make me and the people I have come to care about over into grinning drones who will contort ourselves into any position to satisfy the needs (whims) of tourists.

In an effort to end this column on an upbeat note, I’d like to offer my own course; let’s call it the “Supervisitor Course”. Open to every visitor who would truly like to experience the community of Hornby , this course offers the following:

All of these courses can be had for the low, low price of $25 per person, all proceeds to benefit the HOPE Kitchen because frankly, the last time I was there they had to ration the food and there are a lot of hungry people on this island.

I’d like to close with these words from Spearhead:

“A piece of peace for you, and a piece of peace for me;
A piece of peace for every peaceful person that you see;
I said a piece of peace for you and a piece of peace for me;
But I don’t act peaceful if you’re not that way to me.”

This article is from an email Tony Law sent out to a mailing list... I thought it was interesting so opted to post it here.

Tony says, The following extracts are from a 2002 report from the America Planning Association entitled: "Short-Term Vacation Rentals: Residential or Commercial Use?" which may or may not be relevant to Hornby but which illustrate that we are not alone in grappling with this issue!

Short-Term Rentals in the USA

possible community efforts toward kyoto compliance

i’ve been thinking about kyoto (or greenhouse gases and the ozone layer) since the seventies which is part of the reason i’ve never owned a car, my personal accord which allows those bighearted generous people who pick me up hitchhiking to drive a little bit more than their share.

For the past few years i’ve been thinking about what we might do as a community to further cut those emissions. Three things immediately come to mind but they require community discussions. Getting rid of the dumbsters(sic) at the waste transfer station which drool and leach into the watershed might eliminate 700 to 1000 cars a month driving up that hill spewing carbon monoxide and asbestos and dripping oil especially since we pay anyway. Wouldn’t one truck collecting all the garbage and driving straight to pigeon lake destroy the ozone layer a little slower? Not to mention saving the costs of renting the dumbsters. This would probably have to be on a referendum.

A daily passenger only ferry to Comox in the early morning and back in the afternoon (say 4) might enable all of the senior citizens who require regular visits to St. Joe’s to leave their cars at home lowering emissions cutting the summer ferry lineups which discourage visitors and avoiding the stress and the risks inherent with shakey seniors driving in swiftly flowing traffic behind logging trucks, big dump trucks with puppies and tandem tractor trailer rigs.

Free delivery for member seniors at the Coop, it would require hiring another at least part time staff with patience and good ears to take the orders over the phone and deliver the groceries. It would cut the line-ups at the till and maybe some of our less patient summer visitors would be encouraged to buy a few more things if they could get out faster. Those few more things might be just enough to cover the extra expense of the delivery person. Food for thought with the COOP AGM coming up the 29th of this month.

Others must have further suggestions of how we as individuals and community might slow the deterioration of the ozone layer and slow the rising incidents of melanoma. I’d love to hear them.

thanks

billly

phee says: Here's my idea: return to horsepower (with real horses). It wouldn't happen tomorrow--but there's no reason to have to use cars on a small island like this at all. And income could be generated by hiring horses, carriages, bicycles etc. to visitors...

Intro: email from Don Bradley to Jeffery Shallit

We are the small (tiny?) community of Hornby Island located off the coast of BC . Less than one thousand residents, we publish a community oriented, non-profit, volunteer run newsletter known as "The First Edition", ten times a year.

Small town politics being what they are, (smaller than city politics, just as vicious, but with zero anonymity) we have been going through a round of libel suit threats and counter threats made by people who really have no idea of the legalities involved. It is sometimes entertaining but usually boring and counterproductive. It does have the result of those who threaten loudest controlling our little community voice.

I am researching and preparing a series of articles on the technicalities of Canadian libel law as might pertain to our civic communications problem. (Glad I typed that mouthful - I probably could not speak it.) My research came across a piece that you wrote for the Kitchener-Waterloo Records' "Community Editorial Board", published Feb 23, 2000 titled "It's Time to Reform Canadian Libel Law".

I would like your permission to reprint and/or quote from this essay. Any further thoughts or comments from yourself would be welcome and your personal anonymity would be preserved, or not, at your request.

thanks for your time

Don Bradley

"It's time to reform Canadian libel law"

by Jeffrey Shallit

Environment Minister Tony Clement is suing Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty for remarks he made in a CBC radio interview. Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard are suing investment adviser Richard Lafferty for his comments in a 1993 financial newsletter. In 1997, former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney sued the Federal Government, asking $50 million in damages, over a letter naming him as a suspect in the Airbus case.

What gives these powerful politicians the ability to shut down criticism and criminal investigations? The answer is Canadian libel law.

Under the current legal regime, you can be sued for anything you say about another person that damages their reputation. If sued, the onus is on you to prove the truth of your statements; the fact that you genuinely believed them to be true is not good enough. Even truth is not an absolute defence --- if the court finds you told the truth but your intent was malicious, you might lose anyway. Canadian libel law is so draconian that people come from all over the world to file libel suits in Ontario .

The impact on freedom of expression, a core value of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is severe. There's even a term for it: "libel chill". Libel chill means that people are afraid to criticize powerful people who might bankrupt them with a costly suit. It means that commentators have to think twice before needling public figures --- as cartoonist Josh Beutel learned when he was sued by controversial New Brunswick school teacher Malcolm Ross. Ever wonder why there's so little investigative journalism in Canada ? The reason is simple: libel chill.

Stringent libel laws may have made sense five hundred years ago, when British royalty wanted to stop the nobility from dueling by giving them a legal remedy against character slurs. But we don't live in the time of Henry VII any longer. Debate on political issues can't be robust and wide-open if the threat of a libel suit hangs over you.

Today, if someone tries to ruin your reputation, there are many avenues of redress. You can hold a news conference, take out an ad on radio or television, or set up an Internet web site to tell your side of the story. These methods are cheaper than a lawyer's fees and certainly safer than a duel.

It's time for Canadian libel law to be brought in line with 21st century realities. A good first step would be to reverse the burden of proof in lawsuits involving public figures: the plaintiff, not the defendant, must prove the statements in question are false. Furthermore, let's exempt statements of personal opinion or belief, and force the plaintiff to prove that the statements were made with malicious intent.

If we don't act, the likely result is millions of taxpayer dollars going to fund the legal bills of rich politicians who know how to dish out criticism, but can't take it.

Shutting Down the Thatch Jams? Say it Isn't So!
    • An Open Letter to the HICEEC Executive from Peter Cloud Panjoyah

I have heard wind that the new Thatch executive is keen to shut down the local jam sessions that have been happening since February. This is a very disappointing piece of news. Not only was this opportunity a way to foster community and development among local musicians, not to mention playing / performance opportunities for many who have few to no other venues, it brought people to the pub on Sunday afternoons who would have no other reason to come. In other words, the jams have been a win-win all around; for the musicians, the listeners and the pub, the latter of which sold more product than it would otherwise.

Surely there was no cost to the pub for having the musicians there. What is the loss to the Thatch? Concurrent with this news I hear it is the board's intent to create a high-brow "fine dining" establishment out of the Thatch and ditch the pub. Fine dining's all well and good, but please, don't marginalize the non-wealthy on Hornby who have been marginalized enough. Consider, if you haven't already, using the far dining room for the fine-dining experience, the middle cafe for the bourgousie, and leave the pub alone... except of course for enhancing its breadth of offerings to appeal to a greater cross-section of Hornby demographics, as the CEEC in all their pre-purchase publicity spoke of long and loud...this proposed jam shutdown can't really be an "enhancement"? Tell me I've misunderstood!.

I'd love to hear that what I am responding to is merely yet another twist on the rumour mill, but I fear it is the way the wind is blowing. Is this the beginnings of the so-called "community benefit" having the Thatch in local hands was going to bring? In my opinion, it would be a quite inauspicious first move...please reconsider the foot you want to lead with. The last thing Hornby needs is another elitist organization a la the Hornby Festival Society. All IMHO.

• see April 30/05 webitorial on this subject

Who Do You Call?

Last July the 9th, Constable Johnson and Constable Pick of the Comox detachment of the R.C.M.P. made a visit to my front door at about 8 p.m. to charge me with causing a disturbance at the Recycling Depot and for the cultivation of marijuana. As it turns out, I was not guilty of causing the disturbance and I was legally licensed to grow 3750 grams of medicinal marijuana to alleviate chronic pain and help me sleep. But even if I had been guilty, I still deserved to be treated in a reasonably humane manner.... which is certainly not the case!

I had been preparing for bed and had just taken morphine and gabapentin and was smoking a joint to counteract the nausea caused by this medication when I realized there was someone at the door. Upon opening the door, Constable Pick struck me across the face, knocking the joint from my mouth and warned me that I was under arrest. I asked "what for?" and he told me. Because I had been getting ready for bed, I was standing outside the front door in my socks. I informed the officers that I was going to get my shoes and I turned to go back inside.

At this point I was grabbed by the two burly young policemen, one on either arm, and was thrown face first into a wooden post. They proceeded to very forcefully handcuff me as I protested with such comments as... "I have arthritis", "You're hurting me", "I'll cooperate" and "Those handcuffs are too tight, could you loosen them?" Johnson appeared to me to be much more sensible and calm while Pick was in an angry rage.

After my hands had been handcuffed behind my back, Constable Pick grabbed me and flung me down to the concrete where I smacked my brow on a footing. As if this was not bad enough, he then jumped on me and began to choke me while Johnson jumped on my legs, grinding them in to the concrete. I was beginning to black out and just managed to gurgle "you're killing me". Johnson then told Pick to "lay off" and he finally stopped choking me.

The officers picked me up and dragged me to the police cruiser still in my socks and made me stand on my freshly injured legs for another 10 minutes instead of allowing me to sit in the vehicle. I was taken to the jail and kept there for another hour before I was read the Charter of Rights and given a chance to contact a lawyer.

In the Police Report, Pick stated that I was very agitated and aggressive right at the start and that I had to be "wrestled to the ground to be handcuffed". He says that I was "uncooperative" and had to be "forcefully" put into the cruiser. He also states that I was "read the Charter of Rights en route to the station". All lies!

I was diagnosed with arthritis in my knees at age 12, have suffered from severe chronic pain for more than a decade and when I am 50 years old, will be eligible for double knee replacements . The reason I have a license to grow marijuana is because my Doctors and I are hoping that with a steady supply, I may be able to say goodbye to the far more dangerous and addictive opiate painkillers such as morphine, codeine, Percodan or Talwin. So really, the last thing I needed was to be beaten up by a couple mean macho cops!

And this of course raises the question of "who do you call when the police are beating you up?" Several days after the attack, I spoke with April Lewis from the Police Liaison Committee and she informed me of the Police Complaints Commission. I immediately filed a complaint against the two officers as well as another officer and Inspector Tom Gray who I believed had sent Johnson and Pick to rough me up. I was told by the Complaints Commission that they were totally independent of the R.C.M.P. and I suppose that is true but unfortunately the commission simply hands the complaints over to R.C.M.P. to investigate on their own. This means the police investigate themselves and as I'm finding out, there is rarely any satisfaction for the complainant.

The only alternative to the Complaints Commission is to hire a lawyer and sue the offending cop in Supreme Court, but I've been advised that unless you have videotaped evidence of the beating in action, you are not likely to win the case. Even videotaped evidence does not mean you'll win, and a classic case of this is the Guns and Roses riot in Vancouver. A man trying to find his daughter in the crowd of exiting concertgoers was struck in the mouth with a billy club and lost a bunch of teeth. Even though the incident was caught on security cameras... the cop walked free and the victim received no compensation for the thousands of dollars of dental work.

In recent years there have been many such reports of R.C.M.P. brutality in the news, but because of the self-investigation, the officers are rarely found at fault. Therefore, I am asking for the support of HIRRA and other community groups in lobbying the Federal Government for an independent commission to investigate complaints against the R.C.M.P.

~ David Work

Webitorial #1, April 1 2005:

Word of Mouth is finally here! Yes, that thing I've been talking about and handing out little slips of paper announcing, lo these couple years now, has finally manifested. The vision has morphed and changed so that now, instead of an online newsletter as I'd originally planned, there's a full-fledged website going.

This is a result of my teaching myself web design over this past winter and having some room on the web to play with. This site is intended for Hornby Islanders, both full and part-time, wanna-be Hornby Islanders and friends of Hornby Island. And I will never advertise through search engines or internet sources. This merits saying more than once. If others find their way to the site through word of mouth or other means, that's fine--the more the merrier. But this is meant to be a local site, by Islanders for Islanders.

An inveterate tweaker, I'm likely to be changing the look and content frequently. Everything is subject to change without notice. My goal is to give everybody a place to speak, but nothing is written in stone here. Some content may be removed if it appears to be causing harm (like libel suits directed at me). I'm not interested in being a martyr, but I'll do my best to provide a venue that can do the most good for the most.

There is space on this site for the inspiring and uplifting, the challenging and unsettling, and all categories in between.

I've been extremely busy--in fact, you might say I've been websessed-- working overtime finishing the site, not to mention the two other sites I'm working on. Giving birth is hard work! This is just the beginning.... Please, check back in and give me your thoughts--what would you like to see here? How can it be improved? Inquiring minds want to know!

The question in my mind now, of course, is "if I build it, will they come?" Only time will tell! This space is an experiment in progress; we shall see whether there is a need or desire on this island for such a web-based forum. Regardless, I've had a lot of fun creating it so far.

So, welcome to my web, y'all! I hope this place becomes a home of sorts to at least some. Let's see how it goes, shall we?

I'm so webcited!  

---Phoenix Wolf-Ray, webmaster

Webitorial #2, April 7 2005:

First, talking about the website: it's been up now for an entire week, the site has only been public since the First Edition came out on the 4th. And we've got some content trickling in, from the Works, brave souls that they are! Thanks, David and Colleen, for pioneering the way.

As I had anticipated, the Challenging section is filling up first. This section has been a subject of some controversy among the people I've discussed the site with. Many people fear the existence of such a category, though I've received nothing but well-wishes for my courage in opening up that particular wormy can! Of course, it's too soon to know what the general response is going to look like; it's only been a few days. In my vision, every page on the site is optional. I hope that everybody can find a place where they feel comfortable--some may only choose to read the fiction and poetry (and submit their own, I hope). Some may only be interested in the events & announcements, or the articles, or the classifieds.

And that's fine! The existence of a section on the site that some prefer not to access should not be a detriment to using the rest of the site. And the fact that some of the voices that speak here will express opinions that some disagree with or actively dislike, should not be a detriment to the expression of other voices with other opinions. If you disagree with me, I'd love to hear your point of view; if you are willing to have your point of view made public on the site, even better!

Healing & Dealing: Family Contracts

by Peter Cloud Panjoyah

My first awareness of a contract of any kind came to me as a child, in the form of the ubiquitous electronic presence in my life growing up…the TV. “Lost In Space” was one of my favorite shows, and in one memorable episode “The Trader”, a Mephistophelian rogue from another planet bound Dr. Smith to a contract. Smith and the space family Robinson were marooned with little food, and Smith decided in his inimitable self-first way that he was going to trade spaceship fuel for food. Little did he know there was fine print attached to the Trader’s contract which Smith signed by imprinting his hand in the soft-clay surface of a box. Unbeknownst to the good doctor, this contract actually bound Smith not merely for delivery of getaway fuel from the lost planet, but also for his very life and essence. Smith had signed a deal with a devil.

During my first year after moving to B.C. a friend who is a kinesiologist and a psychic gave me my first and only psychic reading. During the reading she spent a long time talking about the intense psychic family contract that I have been bound by at a subconscious level. Such family contracts are not uncommon, and can be incredibly powerful and binding.

The theme of The Contract varies, but all families have them to one extent or another. Also referred to as “unwritten rules”, these contracts vary in strength and enforcement depending on the family. My family’s is quite rigid, strictly enforced, with consequences for those who dare attempt to break it!

Some families are comprised of powerful and talented individuals with huge potential, both realized and latent, but unfortunately that power is often tied up in or bled off by strictured, structured energies that do not allow the co-existence of free choice and a flow of love without strings attached. Much love, personal power and latent greatness is tied up in The Contract itself instead of being manifest in the lives of individuals within the family.

Everybody in a family can feel or describe the presence of The Contract if they tune into it. The individuals within families are obviously all very closely connected psychically as well as physically / genetically, whether there is conscious awareness and acknowledgment of it or not.

Roles in families are played out, unconsciously but inexorably perpetuating The Contract. Some examples of tenets within family contracts would be: an unspoken agreement among members of the family to study and work hard, get ahead by finding and keeping an upwardly mobile but traditional job in a company or similar hierarchical organization, save for retirement, become as wealthy as possible, turn the bulk of energy and attention back into the family, sacrifice any personal dreams while having kids who, although allowed to have fun and playtime growing up, must never break the family mold once they become of age, including paying back the family for the sacrifices the family made for them. Self-sacrifice is a hallmark of the classic family contract. Many family contracts call for the current parenting generation to sacrifice for the next generation.

There is usually an “executor” member of the family, a patriarch or matriarch, who models the tenets of The Contract while enforcing their necessity with a heavy hand upon others, either children or siblings. To balance the executor there must be one or more “black sheep” across the generations, the rebel, the iconoclast who attempts to break free of The Contract.

Within the family contract paradigm there are also “law-abiders” who don’t necessarily prosper under or enjoy the rules, but believe they have no choice. The law abiders stay within the bounds of The Contract and make the best of them. Often in this subgroup there is significant unprocessed rage and hurt about their own childhood interaction with and shutdown at the hands of their own version of the family contract. The Contract is subjective to some degree and does morph and shift through the generations, as each new family branch gets brought into the psychic mix through marriage or other “conjugal arrangement”. In order to prevent that old emotion being stirred too close to the surface, the law abiders participate in backing the executor in enforcing the shutdown energy inherent in The Contract, outwardly mirroring the inner shutdown of the individuals involved.

There could also be a fourth subgroup, former “bad kids” who make a few inroads toward breaking The Contract. After some setbacks and consequences directly or indirectly meted out by the executor or law abiders, the “bad kids” fall eventually back into line, neither supporting outright rebellion nor adherence. In some cases this group will deny the existence of The Contract.

The success or failure of the rebel is in direct proportion to the amount of personal power she has relative to the family and the executor. Depending on the executor’s relationship with the rebel and each’s ability to shift and change, at some point the executor must ask himself which is more important, The Contract and its unwritten rules and codes of behaviour or the free will of the rebel and his love for the rebel.

On the other end of the polarity, the rebel must ask herself a similar question: which is more important, my free will or my love for the family? She must be willing to risk this love in order to remain true to herself and her heart’s desire which allows her to break free of the bounds of The Contract.

The Contract needs to be acknowledged, experienced and felt, and finally seen for what it is in order for evolution to occur at all levels of family, such as spiritual families, blood, emotional, and ethnic families and so on. Loving family bonds were never intended to become rules of enforced behavior that hinder a given individual’s free will to choose and act according to how that individual sees fit, with loss of love the price to pay for being true to oneself. If free will actions harm none while giving safe triggers, growth and evolution or some form of death is the choice.

On the macrocosmic level, oppressive governments reflect the unmoving rage inherent in The Contract. Massive societal change could be precipitated by an overt rendering and popular acknowledgement of the hidden 'human family' Contract. It may be happening today in the United States, in Britain, in Iraq, in Saudi Arabia, in Israel and Palestine, and everywhere there is unrest, a civil rights cutback or civil disobedience.

Life, and Creation, is holographic. From within the dimension of time and its sequential nature, we humans act out Father’s and Mother's and Child 's ancient, time before time patterns, until they heal in everybody.

We in our families act out the pattern of Our First Parents, as it has passed down the Family Tree to us. The executor of The Contract is the force of that denied rage, playing the role of the entrenched, angry, wrathful First Testament God that must be appeased, or destruction of everything might just happen. All must live according to His rules and mandates and woe to them that stir the mighty wrath of God by "breaking the law". So goes The Contract, an energy certainly felt by the sensitive.

Most executors have not evolved, for better or for worse, and have gotten stuck in frozen images of "what's right". Nobody is unbeholden to their own family contract, whether internal or externally evident. It's not everyone's path to rip up The Contract, and there will be a place for “law abiders” in families unless and until a more healed version of this picture emerges.

As rebels break away from The Contract, some executors attempt to artificially create a balance by cutting the rebel out of their heart. The consequence of breaking the family contract has always been, at the very least, a loss of love and estrangement of the rebel from the family. That loss is felt on many sides depending on how many members were intrinsically involved in enforcement or disobedience. The rebel and the executor are sure to be involved in this mutual love loss.

Law abiders in a family, if they are in contact with the rebel, will often tell her that the executor loves her deep down. Yet that love is no longer accessible to his conscious self. It is denied love, which could be called hate.

When the love for his seeming polar opposite within the family is no longer accessible to the executor’s or rebel’s conscious heart and mind, it can morph into hatred. Those executors and rebels who have not deeply explored their emotions on the subject have “gapped away” from the original love for the other that once existed.

When the executor of the family contract excises the rebel from his heart for breaking The Contract, or when the rebel in turn excises the executor, they literally shove the love out of themselves. The love may exist, but out in the dark somewhere, unacknowledged unowned and unfelt.

If the rebel is successful, she voids all contracts, psychic and unspoken, both family and societal ones that enforce compliance or remove love or privileges, and draws in a new family, one that accepts her for who she is and acknowledges her as an evolving, changing being. To get to this point and not recreate the original family scenario complete with acrimony and loss of love, she must feel the feelings and release he judgments that caused her to become originally ensnared in a contract which bound her freedom so tightly.

According to The Contract, the rebel needs to pay back to the executor and/or the family the time and energy that was originally sacrificed “for the children”. When the rebel reneges on her side of that dark, unspoken bargain, the consequences kick in. This pattern continues until The Contract is completely expunged from the rebel’s life. This is done through exploring the depths of the old feelings and releasing the old charge all the way to the bottom of the psyche, to the point where the earliest familial imprints and judgments of how reality is supposed to be at home are changed not only consciously but subconsciously. You will know when subconscious transformation has occurred in this area only when enough time passes in the new family and evolution and joy are on a steady, upward track with no major reversals and loss of love and trust.

Along the way to this full healing, the former rebel can re-establish herself in a new and improved family situation that in some fundamental way “replaces” the original family, unless the original family is also moved to stop following The Contract.

Sometimes our rebel will feel the pull of The Contract, saying "come along now, you must do what’s right". It can manifest as a feeling of hopelessness and inner powerlessness to resist, sometimes with overwhelming guilt. These feelings have the power to colour her whole day with shades of torpor and dullness, lack of desire to live..."what's the use", etc.

Core judgments swim up to the surface of the rebel’s consciousness, and as she releases them, she can feel energetic forms like spiky eggshells cracking off, and pockets of old emotional charge rising to the surface beneath them which she can then vibrate by allowing the sounds they want to make.

There is hell to pay for reneging on The Contract, and the rebel must heal the parts of herself still beholden to that hell. As she processes old feelings and faces her original judgments about how family life just ‘ is’, she is in effect ripping and re-ripping up The Contract until it loses the power to control her actions or her life.

In the climactic scene of that “Lost In Space” episode, the barterer from hell shows up to claim his side of the bargain. He holds up The Contract facing Dr. Smith , the hand imprint glowing, and as Smith walks helplessly with his arm and hand outstretched towards the image of his hand imprinted in that contract, John Robinson , our hero, appears on the scene. He blasts The Contract into space dust right out of the trader's hand with his trusty laser.

Would that it were so easy outside the realms of fiction! Our laser has to take the form of releasing judgments aloud, feeling the feelings that come up when we release those judgments. This allows understanding to seep in and old rejected parts of self to return and fill us in the places where the darkness of ignorance and self-denial had been.

Webitorial #3, April 16 2005:

I've been up for a little over two weeks now, and I'm not sick of this yet! That's pretty cool. I've risked sending out an email update, something I was hesitant to do--I expected to receive a spate of responses saying "Stop sending me yer damn spam!" But instead, I got a good number of happy and supportive responses, one polite "Please remove me from your list" and one unhappy letter.

I'm okay with all of those. The unhappy letter in particular feels important, since it raises an issue that needs to be dealt with. It may be that others will share this person's perspective. I don't feel comfortable quoting from the letter, since I am still awaiting permission from the author to post it here. However, I will discuss the issue.

This person misconstrued my intent in writing the following (from the "I Went To Ratepayers" article: "Islands Trust insists on cedar siding, no flashing neon signs (awww!!) and as many trees left standing as possible. Geez, those guys are tyrants!"

Now I'm a little boggled that this person took that piece seriously; I meant it as an obvious joke. Does anybody really believe I would be complaining because the Trust won't allow flashing neon signs or wants as many trees left standing as possible? 

It was meant as irony--intended to convey the opposite of what it appears to be saying. Translated, it's "Thanks, Islands Trust, for protecting us from neon signs and garish paint jobs and especially thanks for protecting the trees!" Irony is a form of humour I use a lot. Maybe too much. I do get misunderstood, sigh   

For the record, folks: there is going to be levity on this site. If something I say makes you indignant, makes you want to say, "How could she possibly mean that!!" then consider the possibility that I don't.

I know this isn't fair; we're all used to local politics being treated with self-conscious reverence. It's the ultimate sacred cow! And I do like poking fun at sacred cows. I come by it honestly. My mother is a humour columnist who teaches humour workshops. Of course, she's much funnier than I am. But I do my poor best  . And I am serious, too--lots of the time.

Perhaps my jokes are just to lame to fly. Or maybe they're just so witty and scintillatingly sophisticated that--naw, that couldn't be it. So hey, let me know. Lame? Funny? Some uncomfortable in-between zone? Let's have a poll. Do you prefer that politics be treated with kid gloves, no room for laughs? Let me know.

I don't promise to change my ways. I've talked to too many people who say, "Meetings? Local politics? Boo-ooring... I'd rather kiss a slug..." It is my mission to change all that! We all want to make meetings more interesting. So I'm starting by acting like they're already more interesting. And, they are! I have tons o' fun going to meetings.

Sure, there's serious stuff mixed in there, and I intend to report the facks, only the facks ma'am. But it doesn't have to so weighty. Mix in little levity, make it lighter, maybe more young'uns will want to be there, and don't we fogeys all want that? Well, we say we do.

A good controversy makes for interesting reading, so please make your opinions known, especially if you disagree. Agreement's nice, too.