Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Civilization, Civility and Civil Disobedience
Civilization, Civility and Civil Disobedience
By Ian Lowden, M.Sc., B.A.
ian.lowden@shaw.ca
Now that the rains have cooled off the need for bulk water, we have an opportunity to behave responsibly, and as a community, try and find solutions to the water problem because it will be back next year and will be increasingly important as our population rises. Water management and harvesting procedures have the potential to become more divisive than a dozen Weldwood’s. If we want to avoid ill feelings and come to an acceptable long-term solution then we should recognize the need for courteous and civil discourse.
The root word civis comes to us from Latin. Originally it meant citizen and or/ pertaining to do with citizens or the state, it also caries the definition of polite and courteous. Civil has come to be equated with the concept of ‘responsible freedom’. In our civilization we have many civil rights, of which we are usually aware; we also have many civic duties of which we tend not to be as aware of.
Dan Foley has a right to test a law, which he believes to be unfair to him through the act of civil disobedience. He is free to do so as long as his protest is peaceful and mindful of the rights of others. He must also be willing to take the consequences of his action.
Jeremy Baker also has civil rights, which allow him to form an association to oppose the actions of Mr. Foley. He also has the responsibility to oppose Mr. Foley in a civil and responsible manner.
The Island Trust not only has the right but the duty to make by-laws aimed at protection of our environment and the regulating the use of our resources. It has the duty to make sure their solutions are as fair and equitable as possible.
Those who purchase ‘bulk water’ have the right to do so, but they also have the duty to ensure that the water (like any other goods) is obtained legally and is not depriving their neighbours of water. Those who buy water from island dealers can argue that they are no different from well owners be cause both are using the community ‘cistern’ usually referred to as the aquifer. As groundwater is replenished largely from rain that falls on public land they can argue that well owners are really just using a different method of extracting from the community ‘cistern’.
The people and media who wish to take sides in this issue have the right to do so, as long as they behave civilly and keep in mind that other people have rights as well. Those of us who believe in the concept of objective and balanced reporting have the right to our delusions.
The people who believe that Mr Foley’s actions are causing their wells to dry up also have rights, including the right to seek remedies in our legal system. They are free to sue for damages and they are free to pursue some sort of injunction or cease and desist order. They have the duty to prove their claims and they have the duty to make sure their claims are not frivolous.
Eventually the water problem will affect everyone on the island either in the short or long term. As the population increases so will the demand. Wells that used to be adequate are beginning to dry up. Contrary to some opinion, our water comes from the rainfall we receive each year. There are people on the island who are convinced that our water comes from either the ‘big island’ or the ‘mainland’ and travels far below the ocean to some how bubble up here. This idea is somewhat suspect because water does not tend to run uphill, not even on Gabriola.
As the problem is a community problem, and a very important one, a case could be made for bringing the issue to referendum. Whether we can count on the majority to vote in a way that is fair to everyone depends largely on whether the community can discuss, argue and educate in a civil and courteous manner.
Given that the water supply is finite while the demand is not, we need to come to a solution that is both long term and fair to all. We cannot do that if we allow anger and divisiveness to rule our decision-making. Effective problem solving depends on dispassionate reasoning and access to all the information available. If we want a reasoned and fair solution then we need to have courteous and civil discussion and argument.
We need to keep in mind that community problems need community solutions. We also need to be aware that without courtesy community can no more exist than civilization without civility.
By Ian Lowden, M.Sc., B.A.
ian.lowden@shaw.ca
Now that the rains have cooled off the need for bulk water, we have an opportunity to behave responsibly, and as a community, try and find solutions to the water problem because it will be back next year and will be increasingly important as our population rises. Water management and harvesting procedures have the potential to become more divisive than a dozen Weldwood’s. If we want to avoid ill feelings and come to an acceptable long-term solution then we should recognize the need for courteous and civil discourse.
The root word civis comes to us from Latin. Originally it meant citizen and or/ pertaining to do with citizens or the state, it also caries the definition of polite and courteous. Civil has come to be equated with the concept of ‘responsible freedom’. In our civilization we have many civil rights, of which we are usually aware; we also have many civic duties of which we tend not to be as aware of.
Dan Foley has a right to test a law, which he believes to be unfair to him through the act of civil disobedience. He is free to do so as long as his protest is peaceful and mindful of the rights of others. He must also be willing to take the consequences of his action.
Jeremy Baker also has civil rights, which allow him to form an association to oppose the actions of Mr. Foley. He also has the responsibility to oppose Mr. Foley in a civil and responsible manner.
The Island Trust not only has the right but the duty to make by-laws aimed at protection of our environment and the regulating the use of our resources. It has the duty to make sure their solutions are as fair and equitable as possible.
Those who purchase ‘bulk water’ have the right to do so, but they also have the duty to ensure that the water (like any other goods) is obtained legally and is not depriving their neighbours of water. Those who buy water from island dealers can argue that they are no different from well owners be cause both are using the community ‘cistern’ usually referred to as the aquifer. As groundwater is replenished largely from rain that falls on public land they can argue that well owners are really just using a different method of extracting from the community ‘cistern’.
The people and media who wish to take sides in this issue have the right to do so, as long as they behave civilly and keep in mind that other people have rights as well. Those of us who believe in the concept of objective and balanced reporting have the right to our delusions.
The people who believe that Mr Foley’s actions are causing their wells to dry up also have rights, including the right to seek remedies in our legal system. They are free to sue for damages and they are free to pursue some sort of injunction or cease and desist order. They have the duty to prove their claims and they have the duty to make sure their claims are not frivolous.
Eventually the water problem will affect everyone on the island either in the short or long term. As the population increases so will the demand. Wells that used to be adequate are beginning to dry up. Contrary to some opinion, our water comes from the rainfall we receive each year. There are people on the island who are convinced that our water comes from either the ‘big island’ or the ‘mainland’ and travels far below the ocean to some how bubble up here. This idea is somewhat suspect because water does not tend to run uphill, not even on Gabriola.
As the problem is a community problem, and a very important one, a case could be made for bringing the issue to referendum. Whether we can count on the majority to vote in a way that is fair to everyone depends largely on whether the community can discuss, argue and educate in a civil and courteous manner.
Given that the water supply is finite while the demand is not, we need to come to a solution that is both long term and fair to all. We cannot do that if we allow anger and divisiveness to rule our decision-making. Effective problem solving depends on dispassionate reasoning and access to all the information available. If we want a reasoned and fair solution then we need to have courteous and civil discussion and argument.
We need to keep in mind that community problems need community solutions. We also need to be aware that without courtesy community can no more exist than civilization without civility.
Stress Management
Stress Management
By Ian Lowden, M.Sc., B.A.
ian.lowden@shaw.ca
When I taught classes on stress management I often used an old technique I had gotten from one of my teachers. I would hand out glasses of water to each student. Everyone agreed that holding up their glass of water was no big deal because it weighed so little. They continued holding up their glasses while I talked about stress and stressors. After several minutes many people were grimacing and obviously having some distress. By the one hour mark most people had put down their glass and were rubbing their arm and wrist, by the 2 hour mark everyone had put down their glass
That was the real lesson. The weight of the glass was not much but having to hold it up eventually wore out the muscles, and so it is with stress. It is not the size of our burden, in fact many of us carry several stressors, it was not being able to put it down to rest that caused the problem. Reducing stress is two fold: knowing when and how to put down your load is the first part. Knowing what stressors we need to pick up again and which can be left behind is the second wisdom.
Most people are not overwhelmed by the stress of their lives. They become weary and worn out by not knowing how and when to take a break and by not knowing which stressor we have to pick up again. It is like the example of the backpack full of stones. Each stone is another piece of stress we feel we must carry. Finding healthy non-destructive ways of resting is as important as realizing that we don’t have to keep adding stones to our backpack; sometimes we can sort through them and decide to toss some away. Just because we have been carrying something doesn’t mean we have to always carry it. Many stressors like old hurts, jealousies, angers and insults we don’t have to keep carrying. We can learn to let go of the non-essential.
By Ian Lowden, M.Sc., B.A.
ian.lowden@shaw.ca
When I taught classes on stress management I often used an old technique I had gotten from one of my teachers. I would hand out glasses of water to each student. Everyone agreed that holding up their glass of water was no big deal because it weighed so little. They continued holding up their glasses while I talked about stress and stressors. After several minutes many people were grimacing and obviously having some distress. By the one hour mark most people had put down their glass and were rubbing their arm and wrist, by the 2 hour mark everyone had put down their glass
That was the real lesson. The weight of the glass was not much but having to hold it up eventually wore out the muscles, and so it is with stress. It is not the size of our burden, in fact many of us carry several stressors, it was not being able to put it down to rest that caused the problem. Reducing stress is two fold: knowing when and how to put down your load is the first part. Knowing what stressors we need to pick up again and which can be left behind is the second wisdom.
Most people are not overwhelmed by the stress of their lives. They become weary and worn out by not knowing how and when to take a break and by not knowing which stressor we have to pick up again. It is like the example of the backpack full of stones. Each stone is another piece of stress we feel we must carry. Finding healthy non-destructive ways of resting is as important as realizing that we don’t have to keep adding stones to our backpack; sometimes we can sort through them and decide to toss some away. Just because we have been carrying something doesn’t mean we have to always carry it. Many stressors like old hurts, jealousies, angers and insults we don’t have to keep carrying. We can learn to let go of the non-essential.
ZEN – An Opinion of What It Is.
ZEN – An Opinion of What It Is.
Lately a number of people have been asking me about ZEN. I think this is because my friends know that I have been involved with Zen in one form or another since the late 60”s when my introduction to Zen came through the work Alan Watts and later the art of Leonard Cohen.
One hears a lot of comments these days like “Oh that is so Zen”. It appears that at least the mythology of Zen has entered the popular consciousness. Whether the understanding of what ZEN is and is not has also entered the public consciousness and is more debatable.
Sometimes the best way of defining something is to define what it is not. ZEN is definitely not a religion: I think it is debatable whether one could even call it a philosophy. For centuries it has been regarded as an offshoot of Buddhism and usually referred to as Zen-Buddhism.
During the last 30 years the North American branches of Zen have begun to leave off the attachment of Buddhism and Zen has become a stand alone word to describe a set of techniques for coping with daily life and for more effectively living in the “Now”. Part of the reason that Zen is no longer necessarily described as an offshoot of Buddhism is that it has slowly picked up more western emphasis on equality, democracy and social justice, through it’s European and later North American influences
Even 20 years ago the majority of Zen practioners where still following the old Buddhist concept of Masters and students and that the only way to pass on the understanding of Zen was through direct transmission from master to student. This passing on was part of an unbroken lineage going back through centuries of Master and student relationships. It was not uncommon to see Zen practioners in eastern robes and it was not uncommon to see Zen monasteries.
This concept of Masters and disciples, robes and monasteries did not tend to sit well with many Western values and modes of learning. Other eastern values like the need to study Zen in monasteries or in groups run by Zenmasters also where less acceptable to many in the west. Slowly more and more practioners broke away from the old forms and began to learn Zen techniques in a more equalitarian and individualist manner. To many of us the title of Zenmaster became an inside joke. Once one reached the level of understanding Zen sufficiently to become a Zenmaster one also understood that Zen was a practice that could never become completely mastered and hence the title of Zenmaster was a contradiction in terms. NewZen became a stand-alone title for a set of techniques and methods that people from any religion (or no religion) could use equally well in day-to-day living.
That is not to say that there are no longer people who insist on the titles of Zen-Buddhism or even Zenmaster, there are still many who do. However a growing number of people believe that Zen principles and techniques could and should be used in everyday life. This group began to see living in a cave in endless meditation or living in monasteries in endless study were escapes from life rather than a necessity. Many now believed that Zen could only be practiced and effectively utilized in real life and in the real world and not in isolation from our society. These new Zen practioners tended to be people who were very involved in trying to better our society and were very committed to many Western values as well as Eastern techniques.
It should not have been a surprise to anyone that when East meets West neither would dominate but rather a new blending would emerge. History often shows us that when an idea runs into another idea a blend or new form comes out of the collision. (Thesis – Antithesis = Synthesis).
If you want to learn more about the New Zen I will be hosting a six-session small group seminar on the basics of Zen every Tuesday beginning the first Tuesday in April This is an introductory level for those who have little or no knowledge of Zen. It is open only to those who truly want to learn to apply Zen techniques in everyday life and in ways that have a meaningful impact on themselves and on society.
Lately a number of people have been asking me about ZEN. I think this is because my friends know that I have been involved with Zen in one form or another since the late 60”s when my introduction to Zen came through the work Alan Watts and later the art of Leonard Cohen.
One hears a lot of comments these days like “Oh that is so Zen”. It appears that at least the mythology of Zen has entered the popular consciousness. Whether the understanding of what ZEN is and is not has also entered the public consciousness and is more debatable.
Sometimes the best way of defining something is to define what it is not. ZEN is definitely not a religion: I think it is debatable whether one could even call it a philosophy. For centuries it has been regarded as an offshoot of Buddhism and usually referred to as Zen-Buddhism.
During the last 30 years the North American branches of Zen have begun to leave off the attachment of Buddhism and Zen has become a stand alone word to describe a set of techniques for coping with daily life and for more effectively living in the “Now”. Part of the reason that Zen is no longer necessarily described as an offshoot of Buddhism is that it has slowly picked up more western emphasis on equality, democracy and social justice, through it’s European and later North American influences
Even 20 years ago the majority of Zen practioners where still following the old Buddhist concept of Masters and students and that the only way to pass on the understanding of Zen was through direct transmission from master to student. This passing on was part of an unbroken lineage going back through centuries of Master and student relationships. It was not uncommon to see Zen practioners in eastern robes and it was not uncommon to see Zen monasteries.
This concept of Masters and disciples, robes and monasteries did not tend to sit well with many Western values and modes of learning. Other eastern values like the need to study Zen in monasteries or in groups run by Zenmasters also where less acceptable to many in the west. Slowly more and more practioners broke away from the old forms and began to learn Zen techniques in a more equalitarian and individualist manner. To many of us the title of Zenmaster became an inside joke. Once one reached the level of understanding Zen sufficiently to become a Zenmaster one also understood that Zen was a practice that could never become completely mastered and hence the title of Zenmaster was a contradiction in terms. NewZen became a stand-alone title for a set of techniques and methods that people from any religion (or no religion) could use equally well in day-to-day living.
That is not to say that there are no longer people who insist on the titles of Zen-Buddhism or even Zenmaster, there are still many who do. However a growing number of people believe that Zen principles and techniques could and should be used in everyday life. This group began to see living in a cave in endless meditation or living in monasteries in endless study were escapes from life rather than a necessity. Many now believed that Zen could only be practiced and effectively utilized in real life and in the real world and not in isolation from our society. These new Zen practioners tended to be people who were very involved in trying to better our society and were very committed to many Western values as well as Eastern techniques.
It should not have been a surprise to anyone that when East meets West neither would dominate but rather a new blending would emerge. History often shows us that when an idea runs into another idea a blend or new form comes out of the collision. (Thesis – Antithesis = Synthesis).
If you want to learn more about the New Zen I will be hosting a six-session small group seminar on the basics of Zen every Tuesday beginning the first Tuesday in April This is an introductory level for those who have little or no knowledge of Zen. It is open only to those who truly want to learn to apply Zen techniques in everyday life and in ways that have a meaningful impact on themselves and on society.
WATER WAR II
WATER WAR II
By Ian Lowden B.A., M.Sc.
Klowden@shaw.ca
I received much comment and a large number of e-mails over the article ‘Water Wars’. It is an issue where everyone seems to have an opinion – not surprising – because it is an issue, which touches everyone. The issue of water on Gabriola is probably the most significant environmental issue we face. It is an issue which not only impacts those who need water deliveries and those who live near the extraction point but will also eventually affect population growth on the island as well as house prices and the whole real estate market. It is also an issue, which brings out a lot of anger – not surprising, given that access to water is an issue which wars have been fought over throughout human history. It is, therefore not surprising that tempers are flaring. It is such an important issue to all of us that it can’t be decided on by who can generate the most support or who can sell their opinion most effectively. It is an issue that must be decided on rationally and must be regulated fairly and effectively.
Luckily for us we live in a society that is based on the rule of law so it is unlikely that the water issue here on Gabriola will become violent, regardless of the hype. We are extremely fortunate that we live in a society based on law and democracy; there are many places that don’t have our freedoms and rights. Likewise, regardless of which of the many sides of this issue we might find ourselves on, it behoves us to appreciate that we have a democratic process for resolving issues and a tradition of respect for our rule of law. Some people may say that this is not an issue that should be settled by passing laws, but I very much doubt that those same people would be willing to live in a nation where laws passed by duly elected representatives was not the norm. In fact, many of us (and our ancestors) came to this nation because they wanted to escape societies were decisions made on the basis of who could stir up the most emotion.
This situation of availability of water and the rules that govern that availability must be decided rationally, democratically, and with regard for the rights of all parties. We have a situation were duly elected representatives created a by-law intended to monitor the water sales industry and attempting to ensure that everyone has access to water not just those who can afford to buy it. The fact is that an estimated 400 households depend, at least in part, on delivered water. Regardless, of the wisdom of buying property that does not have an adequate amount of groundwater, these households exist, and the people who own them bought in the belief that water delivery would be available. Granted that availability of water should have been part of the original zoning, and that sellers of these lots should have made purchasers aware that water delivery was not guaranteed, (I understand that at one time water was trucked in from Nanaimo). Perhaps people who bought these properties should have been better informed, but regardless of how the situation developed, the problem still exists and needs to be solved.
I can also respect the view of water dealers that feel they should be exempt from regulations and restrictions imposed after they had already been in business. Personally, I normally view the decisions of my elected representatives and especially their paid bureaucrats with some suspicion, and am sometimes reluctant to accept the necessity of any of their decisions. I wish that we could solve these issues without laws and courts and judges, unfortunately we as a species have not progressed to the point where this is always possible. I also support a persons right to protest by civil disobedience, a right that I have exercised a great deal in my own life. While supporting the right to disobey, I also believe that those who choose this path must do so recognizing and accepting the consequences of this action. Those who choose to disobey a law have the right to have that law’s validity decided upon in court if that is the path they believe they should take.
I can also respect a person’s view that as they were already operating their business before the law was made that they should be exempt under the ‘grandfather rule’. While I respect their view I don’t necessarily share it. I think issues affecting the environment are too important to exempt anyone. Should those businesses that have clear-cut most of the province be allowed to continue simply because that is the way they have always done it? How about industries that have for half a century dumped their toxic waste into rivers? How about car manufactures and emission control? Should all these businesses be exempt simply because they were in business before the problem of the effect on the environment was recognized? I think not! I think we cannot afford blanket exemptions on environmental issues.
Then there are those who want the law waved on personal grounds. I agree that the present operator of the water selling business is a good and responsible citizen, but what if he sells his business? Simply, because someone is a good person and not charging outrageous prices is not reason to exempt him or her from regulations as important as those that govern our water supply. He has a right to challenge the law and if he wins the rules will have to change but if he chooses to go to court he must also accept that the court may rule against him.
I have questioned the Trust closely on this issue. I have asked them to listen to his concerns and they are willing. I have asked whether he and others had an opportunity to have their views taken into account in forming the by-law. I have been assured that the by-law was made mostly on recommendations from the Groundwater Committee and that the operator of the present water supplier had been part of that committee and had adequate opportunity to express his concerns should he have chosen to do so. I have also suggested to the Trust that it is should not be too late to sit down with this person with or without a mediator and work through his concerns. So their appears to have been two years worth of time for people to have input into the by-law, if people had chosen to do so. I also questioned the wisdom of using a Temporary Use Permit as a way of regulating water sales. I thought a more permanent By-law would have been better. The answer I received to that question satisfied me. Apparently, the reason that a TUP was used is because no one on the local Island Trust is an expert or claims to be an expert on hydrology, and recognizing both their limitations and the fact that conditions affecting our groundwater may change, the Trust felt that a Temporary Use Permit would be more useful to deal with changes in conditions and our knowledge of groundwater problems. Explained that way it makes sense to have a more flexible set of regulations. It is not arrogance that generated the use of a TUP, it was recognition of their own limitations and recognition that changes may occur and that the regulation of water extraction should reflect the fact that conditions as well as knowledge are evolving. In fact, the more I looked at it the more sense the use of a TUP made.
So where does that leave us? Water extraction can affect neighboring wells. The amount of groundwater varies according to how much rain we get. Some form of regulation is required to safeguard everyone’s right to water. A TUP approach was decided upon as being the most flexible way of regulating bulk water sales. Mr Foley has every right to challenge the decision and have the matter decided in court. There is no current shortage of water delivery and there won’t be while this whole issue goes to court – which will take at least one and probably two years. The water sales industry is a growth industry, especially as population increases, therefore there will be other people entering the business. So regardless of the court decision, water sales will be continuing. Regulation of bulk water extraction needs to be regulated and the need for regulation will increase as time goes by. The Island Trust has the mandate to ensure the equitable management of our groundwater resource. ‘Grandfathering’ people in environmental issues has seldom been found to be workable and having water sellers operating under different sets of rules is neither equitable nor desirable.
Given all of the above, I don’t see any reason for anyone needing to worry – water sales will continue. We have a simple situation – someone is exercising their right to challenge a by-law in court. That is all that is happening. Why this became a front-page news item is curious – people challenge laws all the time. Whether the court upholds the by-law or not, it will not affect water sales. Why some people seem to be trying to scare people that they won’t be able to buy water is also a bit of a mystery. I suspect that there are people who are using this issue for their own ends; and personally I find manipulation of peoples fears and scare-mongering tactics, to be not only reprehensible, but also inevitably doomed to failure. We live in a democracy bound by the rule of law -a fact envied by most of the world - instead of trying to subvert our system perhaps we should appreciate how lucky we are to live in such a system.
Personally. I think that a mountain is being made of a molehill on this issue. I still believe the best way to work out disagreements is face to face, and I refuse to believe that this issue cannot be worked out by frank and honest discussion by the people involved. I also believe that this is an issue that should never have happened, but, as it has happened let’s solve it by use of the system because it sure can’t be solved by working on the emotional level. Let’s also try and keep a little perspective on this issue – water sales will continue but there will be some necessary regulation to protect a natural resource. It absolutely amazes me that given that we are all fortunate enough to live here, there are people who have nothing better to do with their time and their lives than to exploit and encourage divisiveness. Life is short enough without wasting it by creating unnecessary problems.
By Ian Lowden B.A., M.Sc.
Klowden@shaw.ca
I received much comment and a large number of e-mails over the article ‘Water Wars’. It is an issue where everyone seems to have an opinion – not surprising – because it is an issue, which touches everyone. The issue of water on Gabriola is probably the most significant environmental issue we face. It is an issue which not only impacts those who need water deliveries and those who live near the extraction point but will also eventually affect population growth on the island as well as house prices and the whole real estate market. It is also an issue, which brings out a lot of anger – not surprising, given that access to water is an issue which wars have been fought over throughout human history. It is, therefore not surprising that tempers are flaring. It is such an important issue to all of us that it can’t be decided on by who can generate the most support or who can sell their opinion most effectively. It is an issue that must be decided on rationally and must be regulated fairly and effectively.
Luckily for us we live in a society that is based on the rule of law so it is unlikely that the water issue here on Gabriola will become violent, regardless of the hype. We are extremely fortunate that we live in a society based on law and democracy; there are many places that don’t have our freedoms and rights. Likewise, regardless of which of the many sides of this issue we might find ourselves on, it behoves us to appreciate that we have a democratic process for resolving issues and a tradition of respect for our rule of law. Some people may say that this is not an issue that should be settled by passing laws, but I very much doubt that those same people would be willing to live in a nation where laws passed by duly elected representatives was not the norm. In fact, many of us (and our ancestors) came to this nation because they wanted to escape societies were decisions made on the basis of who could stir up the most emotion.
This situation of availability of water and the rules that govern that availability must be decided rationally, democratically, and with regard for the rights of all parties. We have a situation were duly elected representatives created a by-law intended to monitor the water sales industry and attempting to ensure that everyone has access to water not just those who can afford to buy it. The fact is that an estimated 400 households depend, at least in part, on delivered water. Regardless, of the wisdom of buying property that does not have an adequate amount of groundwater, these households exist, and the people who own them bought in the belief that water delivery would be available. Granted that availability of water should have been part of the original zoning, and that sellers of these lots should have made purchasers aware that water delivery was not guaranteed, (I understand that at one time water was trucked in from Nanaimo). Perhaps people who bought these properties should have been better informed, but regardless of how the situation developed, the problem still exists and needs to be solved.
I can also respect the view of water dealers that feel they should be exempt from regulations and restrictions imposed after they had already been in business. Personally, I normally view the decisions of my elected representatives and especially their paid bureaucrats with some suspicion, and am sometimes reluctant to accept the necessity of any of their decisions. I wish that we could solve these issues without laws and courts and judges, unfortunately we as a species have not progressed to the point where this is always possible. I also support a persons right to protest by civil disobedience, a right that I have exercised a great deal in my own life. While supporting the right to disobey, I also believe that those who choose this path must do so recognizing and accepting the consequences of this action. Those who choose to disobey a law have the right to have that law’s validity decided upon in court if that is the path they believe they should take.
I can also respect a person’s view that as they were already operating their business before the law was made that they should be exempt under the ‘grandfather rule’. While I respect their view I don’t necessarily share it. I think issues affecting the environment are too important to exempt anyone. Should those businesses that have clear-cut most of the province be allowed to continue simply because that is the way they have always done it? How about industries that have for half a century dumped their toxic waste into rivers? How about car manufactures and emission control? Should all these businesses be exempt simply because they were in business before the problem of the effect on the environment was recognized? I think not! I think we cannot afford blanket exemptions on environmental issues.
Then there are those who want the law waved on personal grounds. I agree that the present operator of the water selling business is a good and responsible citizen, but what if he sells his business? Simply, because someone is a good person and not charging outrageous prices is not reason to exempt him or her from regulations as important as those that govern our water supply. He has a right to challenge the law and if he wins the rules will have to change but if he chooses to go to court he must also accept that the court may rule against him.
I have questioned the Trust closely on this issue. I have asked them to listen to his concerns and they are willing. I have asked whether he and others had an opportunity to have their views taken into account in forming the by-law. I have been assured that the by-law was made mostly on recommendations from the Groundwater Committee and that the operator of the present water supplier had been part of that committee and had adequate opportunity to express his concerns should he have chosen to do so. I have also suggested to the Trust that it is should not be too late to sit down with this person with or without a mediator and work through his concerns. So their appears to have been two years worth of time for people to have input into the by-law, if people had chosen to do so. I also questioned the wisdom of using a Temporary Use Permit as a way of regulating water sales. I thought a more permanent By-law would have been better. The answer I received to that question satisfied me. Apparently, the reason that a TUP was used is because no one on the local Island Trust is an expert or claims to be an expert on hydrology, and recognizing both their limitations and the fact that conditions affecting our groundwater may change, the Trust felt that a Temporary Use Permit would be more useful to deal with changes in conditions and our knowledge of groundwater problems. Explained that way it makes sense to have a more flexible set of regulations. It is not arrogance that generated the use of a TUP, it was recognition of their own limitations and recognition that changes may occur and that the regulation of water extraction should reflect the fact that conditions as well as knowledge are evolving. In fact, the more I looked at it the more sense the use of a TUP made.
So where does that leave us? Water extraction can affect neighboring wells. The amount of groundwater varies according to how much rain we get. Some form of regulation is required to safeguard everyone’s right to water. A TUP approach was decided upon as being the most flexible way of regulating bulk water sales. Mr Foley has every right to challenge the decision and have the matter decided in court. There is no current shortage of water delivery and there won’t be while this whole issue goes to court – which will take at least one and probably two years. The water sales industry is a growth industry, especially as population increases, therefore there will be other people entering the business. So regardless of the court decision, water sales will be continuing. Regulation of bulk water extraction needs to be regulated and the need for regulation will increase as time goes by. The Island Trust has the mandate to ensure the equitable management of our groundwater resource. ‘Grandfathering’ people in environmental issues has seldom been found to be workable and having water sellers operating under different sets of rules is neither equitable nor desirable.
Given all of the above, I don’t see any reason for anyone needing to worry – water sales will continue. We have a simple situation – someone is exercising their right to challenge a by-law in court. That is all that is happening. Why this became a front-page news item is curious – people challenge laws all the time. Whether the court upholds the by-law or not, it will not affect water sales. Why some people seem to be trying to scare people that they won’t be able to buy water is also a bit of a mystery. I suspect that there are people who are using this issue for their own ends; and personally I find manipulation of peoples fears and scare-mongering tactics, to be not only reprehensible, but also inevitably doomed to failure. We live in a democracy bound by the rule of law -a fact envied by most of the world - instead of trying to subvert our system perhaps we should appreciate how lucky we are to live in such a system.
Personally. I think that a mountain is being made of a molehill on this issue. I still believe the best way to work out disagreements is face to face, and I refuse to believe that this issue cannot be worked out by frank and honest discussion by the people involved. I also believe that this is an issue that should never have happened, but, as it has happened let’s solve it by use of the system because it sure can’t be solved by working on the emotional level. Let’s also try and keep a little perspective on this issue – water sales will continue but there will be some necessary regulation to protect a natural resource. It absolutely amazes me that given that we are all fortunate enough to live here, there are people who have nothing better to do with their time and their lives than to exploit and encourage divisiveness. Life is short enough without wasting it by creating unnecessary problems.
Scottish Broom, Rabbits and Developers
Scottish Broom, Rabbits and Developers
By Ian Lowden, M.Sc., B.A.
ian.lowden@shaw.ca
What do these three things have in common? Well they a were all introduced to the Island by people, they are all pernicious, and they all have the potential to greatly affecting our island ecology, they all tend to overwhelm earlier arrivals, they all seem to have nothing that can naturally control their population and to at least some they are all dangers to our island ecology. They all seem immune to any government action ‘no matter how peculiar our government system may be’, and like uncontrolled tourism and dwindling water tables they seem to be yet one more set of problems besetting the island.
There are those who like Scottish Broom, who feed the cute bunnies and encourage the developers. Not everyone sees them as a threat. They seem immune to government control and so controlling their population and activities falls to the individual and like-minded community groups. There are those who literally root out Scottish Broom, and there seems to be those who are attempting to control the rabbit population…lots of luck on that one…look at Australia. But what is being done about the infestation of developers?
Personally I think we may be able to curtail the activities of these three pests, but it is unlikely that we can ever rid the Island of them. They are all opportunist species in that they exploit an area where they have no natural enemies to control the population, thus they spread quickly.
Of these three ecological threats I am betting that the one that will have the most impact on our environment will be the ‘developers’ because the developers can blend into the background and perhaps what is worse – the developers can convince some people that they are a desirable thing. Some people also like the bright Scottish Broom or the cute little bunnies too, go figure.
By Ian Lowden, M.Sc., B.A.
ian.lowden@shaw.ca
What do these three things have in common? Well they a were all introduced to the Island by people, they are all pernicious, and they all have the potential to greatly affecting our island ecology, they all tend to overwhelm earlier arrivals, they all seem to have nothing that can naturally control their population and to at least some they are all dangers to our island ecology. They all seem immune to any government action ‘no matter how peculiar our government system may be’, and like uncontrolled tourism and dwindling water tables they seem to be yet one more set of problems besetting the island.
There are those who like Scottish Broom, who feed the cute bunnies and encourage the developers. Not everyone sees them as a threat. They seem immune to government control and so controlling their population and activities falls to the individual and like-minded community groups. There are those who literally root out Scottish Broom, and there seems to be those who are attempting to control the rabbit population…lots of luck on that one…look at Australia. But what is being done about the infestation of developers?
Personally I think we may be able to curtail the activities of these three pests, but it is unlikely that we can ever rid the Island of them. They are all opportunist species in that they exploit an area where they have no natural enemies to control the population, thus they spread quickly.
Of these three ecological threats I am betting that the one that will have the most impact on our environment will be the ‘developers’ because the developers can blend into the background and perhaps what is worse – the developers can convince some people that they are a desirable thing. Some people also like the bright Scottish Broom or the cute little bunnies too, go figure.
Friends, Tolerance, Respect, Acceptance, Compassion
Friends, Tolerance, Respect, Acceptance, Compassion
I recently had a somewhat heated but civil debate with a friend of mine about whether the local economy depends to a large part on tourism. The reason the debate was a little heated is that none of my friends are wimps, the reason that it was still civil is all my friends believe that good people can have differing viewpoints – this is a concept that often gets lost when debates turn ugly. Nevertheless, despite what some people tell you you don’t have to pick sides and every debate doesn’t have to cost you friends. In fact, I would not be comfortable having a friend that could not argue with me. The trick of developing real friends is knowing that at times you will argue, disagree and for awhile may even be angry at each other – good friendships survive all of this and become stronger because you value their input knowing that it will be real. Sometimes friends (as well as lovers) have to just agree to disagree. This involves people with a high level of tolerance and who accept the fact that we are by our nature likely to perceive the same things differently and that consequently our viewpoints being different we will naturally disagree. Would we really want to live in a world where we saw everything the same? Where we all lived exactly the same and thought the same and there was nothing new or different. Yuck, just the thought of all that conformity makes me shudder.
I recently had a somewhat heated but civil debate with a friend of mine about whether the local economy depends to a large part on tourism. The reason the debate was a little heated is that none of my friends are wimps, the reason that it was still civil is all my friends believe that good people can have differing viewpoints – this is a concept that often gets lost when debates turn ugly. Nevertheless, despite what some people tell you you don’t have to pick sides and every debate doesn’t have to cost you friends. In fact, I would not be comfortable having a friend that could not argue with me. The trick of developing real friends is knowing that at times you will argue, disagree and for awhile may even be angry at each other – good friendships survive all of this and become stronger because you value their input knowing that it will be real. Sometimes friends (as well as lovers) have to just agree to disagree. This involves people with a high level of tolerance and who accept the fact that we are by our nature likely to perceive the same things differently and that consequently our viewpoints being different we will naturally disagree. Would we really want to live in a world where we saw everything the same? Where we all lived exactly the same and thought the same and there was nothing new or different. Yuck, just the thought of all that conformity makes me shudder.
Water Wars
The People Have Spoken
By Ian Lowden, M.Sc., B.A.
ian.lowden@shaw.ca 247-7661
Another election, and once again the people have spoken loud and clear in favour of the Island Trust and showing their content with the job our Trustees have been doing. Congratulations to our incumbent trustees Giselle Rudischer and Sheila Malcolmson and congratulations to Bernie Spirling our new RDN rep, who is, as just about everyone knows, a supporter of the Island Trust. Congratulations also to June Harrison now entering her 19th year as School Board Trustee. With such a sweeping show of support despite all the trust bashing it should be clear to even the cognitive and attitude impaired that the referendum was not a fluke. Islanders, support the Island Trust despite all efforts to paint the Trust as outmoded, out of date and in need of replacement. Likewise, despite the years of bashing Gisele, and lately of Sheila as well, the people of the Gabriola have shown themselves to be immune to the Trust Bashers. (It must be terribly frustrating for those who have spent years trying to destroy the Island Trust to find that all their efforts were in vain and all those years of trying to manipulate the citizens of Gabriola were wasted years. It must have been especially shattering to those who saw themselves as the moulders and makers of public opinion to find that few if any were even listening and the power they thought they had was but an illusion.)
What does this mean for the Island? For one thing it may mean the beginning of the end of the mean-spirited personal attacks and the confrontational type of politics that have marred the last several years of Island politics. The voters have shown once again that they have faith in our political system and that they have faith in our local political leaders.
The real majority has spoken and they seem to be saying enough already, stop wasting our time, stop with the personal attacks, stop with the confrontational approach which some of our more vocal minorities have committed to, stop with the spin doctoring, stop with the deliberate disinformation. The voters have sent the message loud and clear that it is we the people who run the Island – not the business sector, not the newspapers, not the special interest groups, not the professional manipulators, not the developers and not those with an axe to grind.
Hopefully the election results have also sent a message to those who try to win by trickery, or by false claims to be the majority, or who believe that if you tell a lie long enough and are insistent enough eventually you will be believed. Perhaps, even those who believe Islanders are dumb and gullible will realize that they just might want to revamp their thinking as to the intellectual capacity of Islanders, for it is the average Islander who wades thru the disinformation, the deceit, the untruths, the manipulations of special interest groups and yet somehow manage to make their own decisions as to what is best for Gabriola and themselves.
Given the results of this election following close on the message on the Referendumb vote, I would expect to see a lessening of rhetoric, a decrease in the level of hostility in our public meetings, and an increase in balanced, accurate reporting of our political process, and perhaps even the burying of some hatchets and the end of some vendettas. It is time that a spirit of cooperation, mutual respect and understanding merged with the realization that we are all in this together, and what each of us does influences how we as a community perceive ourselves. It is time for a change in the way politics is done on Gabriola and I am confident that this change will come. The change will come because the electorate demands it.
What the results of the vote clearly state is that we are a democracy and as hard as it is for some to understand, in a democracy it is the elected leaders that govern, and that is as it should be. Once again this election has shown that it ultimately is the will of the people that make the decisions, and that also is as it should be.
By Ian Lowden, M.Sc., B.A.
ian.lowden@shaw.ca 247-7661
Another election, and once again the people have spoken loud and clear in favour of the Island Trust and showing their content with the job our Trustees have been doing. Congratulations to our incumbent trustees Giselle Rudischer and Sheila Malcolmson and congratulations to Bernie Spirling our new RDN rep, who is, as just about everyone knows, a supporter of the Island Trust. Congratulations also to June Harrison now entering her 19th year as School Board Trustee. With such a sweeping show of support despite all the trust bashing it should be clear to even the cognitive and attitude impaired that the referendum was not a fluke. Islanders, support the Island Trust despite all efforts to paint the Trust as outmoded, out of date and in need of replacement. Likewise, despite the years of bashing Gisele, and lately of Sheila as well, the people of the Gabriola have shown themselves to be immune to the Trust Bashers. (It must be terribly frustrating for those who have spent years trying to destroy the Island Trust to find that all their efforts were in vain and all those years of trying to manipulate the citizens of Gabriola were wasted years. It must have been especially shattering to those who saw themselves as the moulders and makers of public opinion to find that few if any were even listening and the power they thought they had was but an illusion.)
What does this mean for the Island? For one thing it may mean the beginning of the end of the mean-spirited personal attacks and the confrontational type of politics that have marred the last several years of Island politics. The voters have shown once again that they have faith in our political system and that they have faith in our local political leaders.
The real majority has spoken and they seem to be saying enough already, stop wasting our time, stop with the personal attacks, stop with the confrontational approach which some of our more vocal minorities have committed to, stop with the spin doctoring, stop with the deliberate disinformation. The voters have sent the message loud and clear that it is we the people who run the Island – not the business sector, not the newspapers, not the special interest groups, not the professional manipulators, not the developers and not those with an axe to grind.
Hopefully the election results have also sent a message to those who try to win by trickery, or by false claims to be the majority, or who believe that if you tell a lie long enough and are insistent enough eventually you will be believed. Perhaps, even those who believe Islanders are dumb and gullible will realize that they just might want to revamp their thinking as to the intellectual capacity of Islanders, for it is the average Islander who wades thru the disinformation, the deceit, the untruths, the manipulations of special interest groups and yet somehow manage to make their own decisions as to what is best for Gabriola and themselves.
Given the results of this election following close on the message on the Referendumb vote, I would expect to see a lessening of rhetoric, a decrease in the level of hostility in our public meetings, and an increase in balanced, accurate reporting of our political process, and perhaps even the burying of some hatchets and the end of some vendettas. It is time that a spirit of cooperation, mutual respect and understanding merged with the realization that we are all in this together, and what each of us does influences how we as a community perceive ourselves. It is time for a change in the way politics is done on Gabriola and I am confident that this change will come. The change will come because the electorate demands it.
What the results of the vote clearly state is that we are a democracy and as hard as it is for some to understand, in a democracy it is the elected leaders that govern, and that is as it should be. Once again this election has shown that it ultimately is the will of the people that make the decisions, and that also is as it should be.
The People Have Spoken
The People Have Spoken
By Ian Lowden, M.Sc., B.A.
ian.lowden@shaw.ca 247-7661
Another election, and once again the people have spoken loud and clear in favour of the Island Trust and showing their content with the job our Trustees have been doing. Congratulations to our incumbent trustees Giselle Rudischer and Sheila Malcolmson and congratulations to Bernie Spirling our new RDN rep, who is, as just about everyone knows, a supporter of the Island Trust. Congratulations also to June Harrison now entering her 19th year as School Board Trustee. With such a sweeping show of support despite all the trust bashing it should be clear to even the cognitive and attitude impaired that the referendum was not a fluke. Islanders, support the Island Trust despite all efforts to paint the Trust as outmoded, out of date and in need of replacement. Likewise, despite the years of bashing Gisele, and lately of Sheila as well, the people of the Gabriola have shown themselves to be immune to the Trust Bashers. (It must be terribly frustrating for those who have spent years trying to destroy the Island Trust to find that all their efforts were in vain and all those years of trying to manipulate the citizens of Gabriola were wasted years. It must have been especially shattering to those who saw themselves as the moulders and makers of public opinion to find that few if any were even listening and the power they thought they had was but an illusion.)
What does this mean for the Island? For one thing it may mean the beginning of the end of the mean-spirited personal attacks and the confrontational type of politics that have marred the last several years of Island politics. The voters have shown once again that they have faith in our political system and that they have faith in our local political leaders.
The real majority has spoken and they seem to be saying enough already, stop wasting our time, stop with the personal attacks, stop with the confrontational approach which some of our more vocal minorities have committed to, stop with the spin doctoring, stop with the deliberate disinformation. The voters have sent the message loud and clear that it is we the people who run the Island – not the business sector, not the newspapers, not the special interest groups, not the professional manipulators, not the developers and not those with an axe to grind.
Hopefully the election results have also sent a message to those who try to win by trickery, or by false claims to be the majority, or who believe that if you tell a lie long enough and are insistent enough eventually you will be believed. Perhaps, even those who believe Islanders are dumb and gullible will realize that they just might want to revamp their thinking as to the intellectual capacity of Islanders, for it is the average Islander who wades thru the disinformation, the deceit, the untruths, the manipulations of special interest groups and yet somehow manage to make their own decisions as to what is best for Gabriola and themselves.
Given the results of this election following close on the message on the Referendumb vote, I would expect to see a lessening of rhetoric, a decrease in the level of hostility in our public meetings, and an increase in balanced, accurate reporting of our political process, and perhaps even the burying of some hatchets and the end of some vendettas. It is time that a spirit of cooperation, mutual respect and understanding merged with the realization that we are all in this together, and what each of us does influences how we as a community perceive ourselves. It is time for a change in the way politics is done on Gabriola and I am confident that this change will come. The change will come because the electorate demands it.
What the results of the vote clearly state is that we are a democracy and as hard as it is for some to understand, in a democracy it is the elected leaders that govern, and that is as it should be. Once again this election has shown that it ultimately is the will of the people that make the decisions, and that also is as it should be.
By Ian Lowden, M.Sc., B.A.
ian.lowden@shaw.ca 247-7661
Another election, and once again the people have spoken loud and clear in favour of the Island Trust and showing their content with the job our Trustees have been doing. Congratulations to our incumbent trustees Giselle Rudischer and Sheila Malcolmson and congratulations to Bernie Spirling our new RDN rep, who is, as just about everyone knows, a supporter of the Island Trust. Congratulations also to June Harrison now entering her 19th year as School Board Trustee. With such a sweeping show of support despite all the trust bashing it should be clear to even the cognitive and attitude impaired that the referendum was not a fluke. Islanders, support the Island Trust despite all efforts to paint the Trust as outmoded, out of date and in need of replacement. Likewise, despite the years of bashing Gisele, and lately of Sheila as well, the people of the Gabriola have shown themselves to be immune to the Trust Bashers. (It must be terribly frustrating for those who have spent years trying to destroy the Island Trust to find that all their efforts were in vain and all those years of trying to manipulate the citizens of Gabriola were wasted years. It must have been especially shattering to those who saw themselves as the moulders and makers of public opinion to find that few if any were even listening and the power they thought they had was but an illusion.)
What does this mean for the Island? For one thing it may mean the beginning of the end of the mean-spirited personal attacks and the confrontational type of politics that have marred the last several years of Island politics. The voters have shown once again that they have faith in our political system and that they have faith in our local political leaders.
The real majority has spoken and they seem to be saying enough already, stop wasting our time, stop with the personal attacks, stop with the confrontational approach which some of our more vocal minorities have committed to, stop with the spin doctoring, stop with the deliberate disinformation. The voters have sent the message loud and clear that it is we the people who run the Island – not the business sector, not the newspapers, not the special interest groups, not the professional manipulators, not the developers and not those with an axe to grind.
Hopefully the election results have also sent a message to those who try to win by trickery, or by false claims to be the majority, or who believe that if you tell a lie long enough and are insistent enough eventually you will be believed. Perhaps, even those who believe Islanders are dumb and gullible will realize that they just might want to revamp their thinking as to the intellectual capacity of Islanders, for it is the average Islander who wades thru the disinformation, the deceit, the untruths, the manipulations of special interest groups and yet somehow manage to make their own decisions as to what is best for Gabriola and themselves.
Given the results of this election following close on the message on the Referendumb vote, I would expect to see a lessening of rhetoric, a decrease in the level of hostility in our public meetings, and an increase in balanced, accurate reporting of our political process, and perhaps even the burying of some hatchets and the end of some vendettas. It is time that a spirit of cooperation, mutual respect and understanding merged with the realization that we are all in this together, and what each of us does influences how we as a community perceive ourselves. It is time for a change in the way politics is done on Gabriola and I am confident that this change will come. The change will come because the electorate demands it.
What the results of the vote clearly state is that we are a democracy and as hard as it is for some to understand, in a democracy it is the elected leaders that govern, and that is as it should be. Once again this election has shown that it ultimately is the will of the people that make the decisions, and that also is as it should be.
Take Me To Your Leaders 23/12/05
Take Me To Your Leaders 23/12/05
By Ian Lowden, M.Sc., B.A.
ian.lowden@shaw.ca
If Aliens landed on Gabriola and came up with the old line of “take me to your leaders”, whatever would we do? I for one would have a great deal of difficulty deciding to whom I should take the aliens. I’m not sure who are community leaders are. I know we have elected officials but on Gabriola are elected officials really the community leaders? I also know there are several people who for various reasons like to think of themselves, and often promote themselves as, our community leaders but most people don’t seem to believe the self-professed are, in any meaningful way, really our leaders. For me the Zen maxim of “if you lead I will not follow and if you follow I will not lead” effectively rules out the concept of leaders and followers, but very much emphasizes that we can for a time travel together. To me Gabriola is a very Zen kind of place in many ways but particularly in our diversity and our seemingly lack of need for LEADERS per se.
Can a community really function without leaders? History has shown us that our country and our province seems to function in the absence of credible leaders-we have politicians instead. We have people who through wealth, position, or occupation claim they are our leaders but few people take them seriously, as they rarely have any real impact on our lives. How then does a community without clearly defined leaders function? We seem to function closer to the contradiction in terms of a ‘community of anarchists’. I say this not in jest or in sarcasm but in the belief that Gabriola is like a functional anarchy. Yes we have several levels of elected representatives and hence several levels of restrictions; which the majority of us seem to ignore.
Can we really be a community without regular and identified leaders? Let’s look at the process. When something needs doing on Gabriola we seldom seem to wait for our “elected representatives” or are our ‘self appointed leaders’. When something needs doing someone just starts doing it. If it seems like a good idea then others tend to join in with varying levels of commitment and with various amounts of time and effort. Witness the things on Gabriola that have become and that work and endure.
We have the Community Centre, the Agi Hall, the Museum, the Women’s Institute, which was also our community library for many years. We have The Rollo Centre, the Lions Living Centre, the Retirement Village, the Golf Course, the Gathering Place, PHC and the food bank and now The Commons. We also have the Dancing Man Festival, Gabriola Days, the Salmon Barbecue, the House and Garden Tour, The Art Tours, the Farmer’s Market, the Annual Craft Show, the Island Singers, live theatre and a plethora of other musical and cultural venues. We have two community newspapers, a couple of on-line forums as well as more casual forums, we have gabriolalife.ca to keep us informed of the many musical, educational and cultural events, and we even seem to have the makings of a radio station. We have a boat school, a stonemason’s course and an entire institute at the Haven. We have a top-notch Ambulance system as well as an exceptional Volunteer Fire Brigade; we even have a taxi. We have many, many other groups, activities and services such as an emergency planning body, a Groundwater Society and end of life support group. In fact, just about anytime a need exists some ordinary citizen gets together with some other citizens and create something to fill the need, usually without political leaders and often despite government roadblocks. To me this is ‘functional anarchism’.
Some might take offence to the label “functional anarchism”. Perhaps it is just the way a community should work. Perhaps it is just the way an Island needs to work. Or perhaps it is because of the type of people who are drawn to island living. There is quite a distinction, both in quality and quantity of volunteerism between this island and most of the communities I have lived in. Actually in some ways it reminds me of my experience many years ago on an Israeli Kibbutz. They fought like cats and dogs, arguments and dissent seemed to be an art form, but when something needed doing it didn’t usually take any particular leaders to get it done. There, like here, somebody just went ahead and done what needed doing
The test of leadership is not how many votes somebody gets but how many things that need doing get done. Nor should we, having voted, expect the elected to do everything for us Leadership is in perceiving the need and finding the right people to meet it and being willing to get down to it. We seem to have no shortage of that kind of leader on Gabriola. We sometimes don’t recognize how many people volunteer and how much gets done because the people doing it generally shy away from publicity unless it directly helps “getting done what needs doing”.
So if the Aliens land and want our leaders I guess we might just as well introduce them to everybody.
By Ian Lowden, M.Sc., B.A.
ian.lowden@shaw.ca
If Aliens landed on Gabriola and came up with the old line of “take me to your leaders”, whatever would we do? I for one would have a great deal of difficulty deciding to whom I should take the aliens. I’m not sure who are community leaders are. I know we have elected officials but on Gabriola are elected officials really the community leaders? I also know there are several people who for various reasons like to think of themselves, and often promote themselves as, our community leaders but most people don’t seem to believe the self-professed are, in any meaningful way, really our leaders. For me the Zen maxim of “if you lead I will not follow and if you follow I will not lead” effectively rules out the concept of leaders and followers, but very much emphasizes that we can for a time travel together. To me Gabriola is a very Zen kind of place in many ways but particularly in our diversity and our seemingly lack of need for LEADERS per se.
Can a community really function without leaders? History has shown us that our country and our province seems to function in the absence of credible leaders-we have politicians instead. We have people who through wealth, position, or occupation claim they are our leaders but few people take them seriously, as they rarely have any real impact on our lives. How then does a community without clearly defined leaders function? We seem to function closer to the contradiction in terms of a ‘community of anarchists’. I say this not in jest or in sarcasm but in the belief that Gabriola is like a functional anarchy. Yes we have several levels of elected representatives and hence several levels of restrictions; which the majority of us seem to ignore.
Can we really be a community without regular and identified leaders? Let’s look at the process. When something needs doing on Gabriola we seldom seem to wait for our “elected representatives” or are our ‘self appointed leaders’. When something needs doing someone just starts doing it. If it seems like a good idea then others tend to join in with varying levels of commitment and with various amounts of time and effort. Witness the things on Gabriola that have become and that work and endure.
We have the Community Centre, the Agi Hall, the Museum, the Women’s Institute, which was also our community library for many years. We have The Rollo Centre, the Lions Living Centre, the Retirement Village, the Golf Course, the Gathering Place, PHC and the food bank and now The Commons. We also have the Dancing Man Festival, Gabriola Days, the Salmon Barbecue, the House and Garden Tour, The Art Tours, the Farmer’s Market, the Annual Craft Show, the Island Singers, live theatre and a plethora of other musical and cultural venues. We have two community newspapers, a couple of on-line forums as well as more casual forums, we have gabriolalife.ca to keep us informed of the many musical, educational and cultural events, and we even seem to have the makings of a radio station. We have a boat school, a stonemason’s course and an entire institute at the Haven. We have a top-notch Ambulance system as well as an exceptional Volunteer Fire Brigade; we even have a taxi. We have many, many other groups, activities and services such as an emergency planning body, a Groundwater Society and end of life support group. In fact, just about anytime a need exists some ordinary citizen gets together with some other citizens and create something to fill the need, usually without political leaders and often despite government roadblocks. To me this is ‘functional anarchism’.
Some might take offence to the label “functional anarchism”. Perhaps it is just the way a community should work. Perhaps it is just the way an Island needs to work. Or perhaps it is because of the type of people who are drawn to island living. There is quite a distinction, both in quality and quantity of volunteerism between this island and most of the communities I have lived in. Actually in some ways it reminds me of my experience many years ago on an Israeli Kibbutz. They fought like cats and dogs, arguments and dissent seemed to be an art form, but when something needed doing it didn’t usually take any particular leaders to get it done. There, like here, somebody just went ahead and done what needed doing
The test of leadership is not how many votes somebody gets but how many things that need doing get done. Nor should we, having voted, expect the elected to do everything for us Leadership is in perceiving the need and finding the right people to meet it and being willing to get down to it. We seem to have no shortage of that kind of leader on Gabriola. We sometimes don’t recognize how many people volunteer and how much gets done because the people doing it generally shy away from publicity unless it directly helps “getting done what needs doing”.
So if the Aliens land and want our leaders I guess we might just as well introduce them to everybody.
I Was Born Optimistic. 01/01/06
I Was Born Optimistic. 01/01/06
By Ian Lowden, M.Sc., B.A.
ian.lowden@shaw.ca
A close friend of mine thinks that I was born an optimist. She is not being complimentary; she regards my optimism as a birth defect. Needless to say (but I will say it anyway) she is not an optimist. She doesn’t see herself as a pessimist (I do), she sees herself as a realist. She contends that, regardless of whether the glass is half-empty or half-full, the drink will be both inadequate to meet the thirst and one too many before driving. She is probably right if the drink is alcohol, but what if it is honey? In that case, she says the glass doesn’t contain enough balanced nutrients and also has too many calories.
She doesn’t vote because “all of them are crooks”, but likes to complain about the decisions politicians make. She won’t run for public office because she is too ethical to fit in and also because if she won she would be a target for criticism. She thinks people are too egotistical to sacrifice for the common good and hates what taxes do to her paycheck. She believes that people are essentially unworthy of note and yet desires to be a reporter. She sees no contradiction in her views.
Many people share her views; I don’t disagree with all her observations just with some of her viewpoints. I think most disagreements between people have less to do with “the facts” than with the interpretation we put on “the facts”, she, of course, disputes this ‘errant viewpoint”. I agree that people are imperfect. I agree that we have many problems in our society; I agree that our institutions do not work the way they were designed. I agree that most public figures are more concerned with their self-gratification and self-interest than with doing what is right or what is best for the society. I agree that every society and form of government is eventually inadequate to meet the changing world and eventually either collapses or degenerates beyond the point of sustainability. She is most likely right that baby boomers will eventually collapse our social systems, not through intent but through sheer weight of numbers. In short I agree that any and all societies have eventual fatal weaknesses. I agree that often people (including her and me) fail to live up to our ideals. I don’t dispute ‘the facts” but I do dispute what “the facts” mean.
I believe that our society is a transient thing and will eventually become something other than what is intended. I agree that the days of ‘western’ power and dominance are numbered but I don’t think that what we created was in vain. I think some of our ideas (or memes) that we have developed will influence what replaces us. I think that much of what we accomplished, though imperfect, was well worth the effort. I believe that it is better to get involved than to complain. I believe that though many politicians give into temptation the system is still worth believing in. Granted that most of what we do will be inadequate it is still worth trying. Given that anyone who stands out or even takes a stand will become a target by those afraid to risk themselves. I also believe that those who try to ‘fade into the woodwork’, ‘stay out of the lime light’, or “avoid being noticed’ eventually become victims of the “Nattering Nabobs of Negativity” anyway. I think it is ‘better to fail than not to try’. I think that our society has accomplished what it has through the people who dare rather than those who fear. I think it is easy to sit in the ‘cheap seats’ and criticize the efforts of others; but just because it is easier doesn’t make it right. Non-involvement doesn’t bring safety it merely brings obscurity. I agree that people are not perfect and I agree that our society has failings: but look at our accomplishments and see if what we have wrought was not worth the effort. Our society is better today than 40 years ago - dispute that if you can. I believe our greatest accomplishments lie in the future not the past.
Given that people tend to be extremely self-centred, myopic towards the long view and likely to ‘value the bird in hand more than the flock in the bush’ it doesn’t surprise me that society has such major failings. What surprises me is not how badly society works, but that it even works at all.
By Ian Lowden, M.Sc., B.A.
ian.lowden@shaw.ca
A close friend of mine thinks that I was born an optimist. She is not being complimentary; she regards my optimism as a birth defect. Needless to say (but I will say it anyway) she is not an optimist. She doesn’t see herself as a pessimist (I do), she sees herself as a realist. She contends that, regardless of whether the glass is half-empty or half-full, the drink will be both inadequate to meet the thirst and one too many before driving. She is probably right if the drink is alcohol, but what if it is honey? In that case, she says the glass doesn’t contain enough balanced nutrients and also has too many calories.
She doesn’t vote because “all of them are crooks”, but likes to complain about the decisions politicians make. She won’t run for public office because she is too ethical to fit in and also because if she won she would be a target for criticism. She thinks people are too egotistical to sacrifice for the common good and hates what taxes do to her paycheck. She believes that people are essentially unworthy of note and yet desires to be a reporter. She sees no contradiction in her views.
Many people share her views; I don’t disagree with all her observations just with some of her viewpoints. I think most disagreements between people have less to do with “the facts” than with the interpretation we put on “the facts”, she, of course, disputes this ‘errant viewpoint”. I agree that people are imperfect. I agree that we have many problems in our society; I agree that our institutions do not work the way they were designed. I agree that most public figures are more concerned with their self-gratification and self-interest than with doing what is right or what is best for the society. I agree that every society and form of government is eventually inadequate to meet the changing world and eventually either collapses or degenerates beyond the point of sustainability. She is most likely right that baby boomers will eventually collapse our social systems, not through intent but through sheer weight of numbers. In short I agree that any and all societies have eventual fatal weaknesses. I agree that often people (including her and me) fail to live up to our ideals. I don’t dispute ‘the facts” but I do dispute what “the facts” mean.
I believe that our society is a transient thing and will eventually become something other than what is intended. I agree that the days of ‘western’ power and dominance are numbered but I don’t think that what we created was in vain. I think some of our ideas (or memes) that we have developed will influence what replaces us. I think that much of what we accomplished, though imperfect, was well worth the effort. I believe that it is better to get involved than to complain. I believe that though many politicians give into temptation the system is still worth believing in. Granted that most of what we do will be inadequate it is still worth trying. Given that anyone who stands out or even takes a stand will become a target by those afraid to risk themselves. I also believe that those who try to ‘fade into the woodwork’, ‘stay out of the lime light’, or “avoid being noticed’ eventually become victims of the “Nattering Nabobs of Negativity” anyway. I think it is ‘better to fail than not to try’. I think that our society has accomplished what it has through the people who dare rather than those who fear. I think it is easy to sit in the ‘cheap seats’ and criticize the efforts of others; but just because it is easier doesn’t make it right. Non-involvement doesn’t bring safety it merely brings obscurity. I agree that people are not perfect and I agree that our society has failings: but look at our accomplishments and see if what we have wrought was not worth the effort. Our society is better today than 40 years ago - dispute that if you can. I believe our greatest accomplishments lie in the future not the past.
Given that people tend to be extremely self-centred, myopic towards the long view and likely to ‘value the bird in hand more than the flock in the bush’ it doesn’t surprise me that society has such major failings. What surprises me is not how badly society works, but that it even works at all.
Grudges are Ugly Critters 12/28/02
Grudges are Ugly Critters 12/28/02
By Ian Lowden, M.Sc., B.A.
ian.lowden@shaw.ca
What an interesting word ‘grudge’ is. Grudges aren’t like kittens or infants, or puppies, they aren’t solid tangible things; yet we talk about them as if they were. Try picturing a ‘grudge’. What does it look like? I’ll bet the picture is of an ugly critter.
Now try picturing “nursing a grudge” or “holding a grudge” or “feeding a grudge” or “carrying a grudge’ It’s pretty hard to picture someone doing these actions without either laughing or being revolted.
A “Grudge” is not just a feeling of anger caused by feeling hurt. It is a desire to ‘even the score’ or to ‘get back’, it is a desire to hurt the person who we perceive as having hurt us. The hurt can be real or imaginary it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that we perceive ourselves as having been hurt or treated unfairly, and in response to that perceived injury we feel angry and we want to hurt whoever hurt us. Striking back or running away from hurt is as instinctual in humans as it is with most other animal life forms. What sets us apart from other life forms is our ability to translate hurt into anger and anger into a goal of getting back at who or what has hurt us.
Some people believe that animals can and do feel anger, perhaps, but what sets us apart from animals in this regard is our ability to hold onto the anger and to translate hurt into a desire for revenge. I can’t think of any animal that can be motivated by revenge – in this we are unique.
We are the only species that can react to hurt with conscious planning to ‘hurt back’. So ‘holding a grudge’ is possible only to humans because it is more than a strike back reaction, it involves an emotion no other species has – hatred. Hatred is our own unique ability to hold onto hurt and to nurse the hurt and to plan (or at least want) revenge. Without hatred there can be no desire for revenge. Without hatred there can be no ‘grudge’.
Many people will try and deny that their desire for revenge is based in hatred; they will try and justify their revenge as a ‘desire for justice’, but really, what is “just” about waiting for the opportunity (and planning) to hurt someone? No, getting even is not about justice; it is about hurt that has turned into anger and festered long enough to become hatred. There can be no revenge without hatred, and as much as we don’t want to admit it, down deep inside we know that it is hatred we feel.
Throughout history we have tried to justify our hatred and our revenge, as ‘justice’ or ‘pay back’. We use these terms to hide from ourselves, to pretend that we are not motivated by hatred, but it is a poor lie we tell ourselves.
As children we want to strike back when we are hurt, by adolescence we have learned the dangers of automatic strike back, we have learned that immediate payback often involves the ‘other’ hurting us more. By adulthood most of us have learned to delay the gratification of strike-back, we have learned caution, we have learned patience and most of all, we have learned to hide our anger from others, we have learned to disguise our anger and our hatred. Sometimes, we have even learned to hide our anger and hatred and vengeance from ourselves; we have got so good at pretending that we can even fool ourselves. There are many of us who refuse to admit, and sometimes even to believe, that ‘we’ are even capable of having such an ugly emotion as hatred. Such denial necessitates delusion, practiced long enough we learn to hide ourselves from ourselves. Some people get stuck at the growth stage of ‘hiding our hatred’ or worse yet, get stuck in a world of delusion and self-deception.
Usually by the time we become mature adults we have learned to accept our emotions but not to act on them. Choosing not to act on some of our emotions is an essential part of maturity. Maturity is the never-ending process of learning which emotions have positive effects and which have negative effects. Generally, the more mature we become, the more ability we develop to control our emotions and our actions. However, we can only control the emotions we are aware of, the emotions we have learned to hide from ourselves end up controlling us.
Part of maturity is recognizing that we accomplish nothing by holding onto our hurt and our resulting anger except making ourselves, and those around us, more miserable than is necessary. Maturity involves letting go of our hurt, it involves forgoing the pleasures of vengeance and it involves learning to forgive. Maturity does not necessarily involve forgiving every hurt but it does involve not letting our anger rule our lives.
Maturity involves understanding that we have a limited amount of energy and that energy spent seeking vengeance (or pay-back) is energy that we cannot spend making a positive impact on our friends, family, community, and on our more worthwhile goals. Maturity is a process of becoming more aware of our feelings and what affect our feelings are having on us and on those around us. Maturity is a process of discovery that leads to making saner and more benevolent choices. We never attain perfect maturity. We are always making mistakes and behaving in a manner less than we aimed for, but hopefully as we mature we make better choices. One thing is for sure though – we cannot make better choices while our mind is full of ‘grudges’ running wild and confusing our ability to choose wisely.
We may never be totally free of hatred and the desire for vengeance but we can control whether our hate is controlled by us or is in control of us. Bearing grudges is a draining way to live because, like all critters, grudges grow larger and heavier with time, and grudges tend to breed quickly, and if unchecked eventually consume most of our energy.
There is an old Zen/Sufi/Christian saying: “before setting out for revenge - dig two graves”. A saying worth thinking about.
By Ian Lowden, M.Sc., B.A.
ian.lowden@shaw.ca
What an interesting word ‘grudge’ is. Grudges aren’t like kittens or infants, or puppies, they aren’t solid tangible things; yet we talk about them as if they were. Try picturing a ‘grudge’. What does it look like? I’ll bet the picture is of an ugly critter.
Now try picturing “nursing a grudge” or “holding a grudge” or “feeding a grudge” or “carrying a grudge’ It’s pretty hard to picture someone doing these actions without either laughing or being revolted.
A “Grudge” is not just a feeling of anger caused by feeling hurt. It is a desire to ‘even the score’ or to ‘get back’, it is a desire to hurt the person who we perceive as having hurt us. The hurt can be real or imaginary it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that we perceive ourselves as having been hurt or treated unfairly, and in response to that perceived injury we feel angry and we want to hurt whoever hurt us. Striking back or running away from hurt is as instinctual in humans as it is with most other animal life forms. What sets us apart from other life forms is our ability to translate hurt into anger and anger into a goal of getting back at who or what has hurt us.
Some people believe that animals can and do feel anger, perhaps, but what sets us apart from animals in this regard is our ability to hold onto the anger and to translate hurt into a desire for revenge. I can’t think of any animal that can be motivated by revenge – in this we are unique.
We are the only species that can react to hurt with conscious planning to ‘hurt back’. So ‘holding a grudge’ is possible only to humans because it is more than a strike back reaction, it involves an emotion no other species has – hatred. Hatred is our own unique ability to hold onto hurt and to nurse the hurt and to plan (or at least want) revenge. Without hatred there can be no desire for revenge. Without hatred there can be no ‘grudge’.
Many people will try and deny that their desire for revenge is based in hatred; they will try and justify their revenge as a ‘desire for justice’, but really, what is “just” about waiting for the opportunity (and planning) to hurt someone? No, getting even is not about justice; it is about hurt that has turned into anger and festered long enough to become hatred. There can be no revenge without hatred, and as much as we don’t want to admit it, down deep inside we know that it is hatred we feel.
Throughout history we have tried to justify our hatred and our revenge, as ‘justice’ or ‘pay back’. We use these terms to hide from ourselves, to pretend that we are not motivated by hatred, but it is a poor lie we tell ourselves.
As children we want to strike back when we are hurt, by adolescence we have learned the dangers of automatic strike back, we have learned that immediate payback often involves the ‘other’ hurting us more. By adulthood most of us have learned to delay the gratification of strike-back, we have learned caution, we have learned patience and most of all, we have learned to hide our anger from others, we have learned to disguise our anger and our hatred. Sometimes, we have even learned to hide our anger and hatred and vengeance from ourselves; we have got so good at pretending that we can even fool ourselves. There are many of us who refuse to admit, and sometimes even to believe, that ‘we’ are even capable of having such an ugly emotion as hatred. Such denial necessitates delusion, practiced long enough we learn to hide ourselves from ourselves. Some people get stuck at the growth stage of ‘hiding our hatred’ or worse yet, get stuck in a world of delusion and self-deception.
Usually by the time we become mature adults we have learned to accept our emotions but not to act on them. Choosing not to act on some of our emotions is an essential part of maturity. Maturity is the never-ending process of learning which emotions have positive effects and which have negative effects. Generally, the more mature we become, the more ability we develop to control our emotions and our actions. However, we can only control the emotions we are aware of, the emotions we have learned to hide from ourselves end up controlling us.
Part of maturity is recognizing that we accomplish nothing by holding onto our hurt and our resulting anger except making ourselves, and those around us, more miserable than is necessary. Maturity involves letting go of our hurt, it involves forgoing the pleasures of vengeance and it involves learning to forgive. Maturity does not necessarily involve forgiving every hurt but it does involve not letting our anger rule our lives.
Maturity involves understanding that we have a limited amount of energy and that energy spent seeking vengeance (or pay-back) is energy that we cannot spend making a positive impact on our friends, family, community, and on our more worthwhile goals. Maturity is a process of becoming more aware of our feelings and what affect our feelings are having on us and on those around us. Maturity is a process of discovery that leads to making saner and more benevolent choices. We never attain perfect maturity. We are always making mistakes and behaving in a manner less than we aimed for, but hopefully as we mature we make better choices. One thing is for sure though – we cannot make better choices while our mind is full of ‘grudges’ running wild and confusing our ability to choose wisely.
We may never be totally free of hatred and the desire for vengeance but we can control whether our hate is controlled by us or is in control of us. Bearing grudges is a draining way to live because, like all critters, grudges grow larger and heavier with time, and grudges tend to breed quickly, and if unchecked eventually consume most of our energy.
There is an old Zen/Sufi/Christian saying: “before setting out for revenge - dig two graves”. A saying worth thinking about.
