Home Blog Page 153

Phoenix Riting! – July 6th, 2023

Phoenix Riting!

I’m going away again for a week and a half or so; I will have to cancel my show at Lerena Vineyard on the 18th. My favourite niece is getting married to the Afghani soldier she rescued from the Taliban, and I can’t miss it! Their story is epic and I expect it to be a book someday. Tomorrow (Tuesday) will be my first show there; I’ve been practicing and falling deeper and deeper into love with my music, the songs I’ve written and the cover songs I love. I love music that is deep and real, that says something, and I’ve been waiting for my voice and guitar playing to grow into itself. Thanks to the angels, Marc, Angel, Denis, and Blues Fest, I am ready! It’s been a long time coming. (This isn’t a promotional paragraph; the show will be over before you see it. But it’s a big deal for me!)  After that, you can hear me on August 1st and 22nd at the Vineyard, and of course at the Festival on the 12th. (Okay, a bit promotional.)

 

Now I must speak on a very difficult and divisive topic. I’ve been asked by a few readers to please address it; I’ve held off for a long time because I didn’t know how to approach it. The Hornby Denman Health Care insert in the Grapevine recently for Pride Month gave me inspiration, especially the definition of ‘transphobia.’ It was simple, clear and made sense. It’s this: “Transphobia: Systemic violence against trans people, associated with attitudes such as fear, discomfort, distrust or disdain.”

 

Systemic violence is very bad, for obvious reasons. Trans people do, as all humans do, have the absolute right to live their lives as they choose, not be questioned about their personal choices, to express themselves and their identities freely and proudly. I say ‘do,’ rather than ‘should,’ because a right is a right. No one should be shamed, insulted or excluded for how they feel or how they express themselves in the world, providing they do no harm. The trans folk I know personally are kind, lovable humans, part of the rich variety of human culture, and they deserve to be celebrated for shining their light into this crazy world against such terrific odds.

 

Do I feel ‘fear, discomfort, distrust or disdain’ around trans folk? Never, truly. I gender people correctly (except one still-embarrassing on-air error from years ago!), I respect identity, I treasure diversity, of expression and opinion and everything else. What a glorious garden of different forms we humans are! Most trans folk, it seems to me, simply want to live their lives as their chosen gender and contribute so much. I see my community as a whole, and some of its members happen to be trans. I don’t see them as ‘different,’ just uniquely themselves, much like me. Could I fall in love with a trans man? Yes, certainly, if he were the right person and we ‘clicked’. Why not?

 

That’s me. I don’t impose my preference and choice on others, and I stand to defend the rights of others to express theirs. Everyone deserves respect, agency and self-definition. We need to listen to each other in these troubled times, and treat with respect even those we disagree with.

 

The real issue is this: if we are not allowed to discuss the very real problems and unintended side effects that rise, may rise, or are feared to rise around the recent changes to the law the land, then what we have is no longer a democracy. Whatever happened to nuanced discussion and due process? I’m talking about the recent laws designed to protect trans people, which I believe to be kindly meant but rushed and poorly thought through.

 

Despite the firestorm of opinions raging online, most people in real life are scared, hunkered down, talking only within their circles. I myself kept silent since the issue first came to light, back in 2017, when the new laws were imposed. Around that time, I dared to suggest on Facebook that maybe, just maybe, people born with vaginas had a shared lived experience and unique vulnerability, and maybe, just maybe, it could be ok that they have spaces for themselves, sometimes, in certain vulnerable situations. It seemed reasonable. Still does, if I’m honest, and I do strive to be.

 

People I loved, respected, and liked in real life were shockingly swift to pile on. I was told that as a ‘cis woman’ (I didn’t think I was, but even if??), my opinions didn’t matter, were harmful, would result in the deaths of trans people. They didn’t say exactly how that would happen. I was advised to be silent. Several others chimed in to support and agree with me, and all later deleted their comments. I didn’t wish to harm anyone, and not knowing what harm might come, I was effectively silenced. Since then, I have worked hard to educate myself. I’ve learned, but it’s a mess.

 

I’m scared to say anything still–I don’t like to be yelled at. I am compelled, though. I feel a responsibility to a certain group of humans. Why is there no word for that massive group, the majority of humans who only recently, less than a hundred years ago, gained the status of persons in this country? We had a moment in the 80s, when it was acceptable in feminist circles to be proud to own a vagina, to celebrate what made us uniquely powerful and valuable, including our physical nature.

 

Now? Pride is for others, not for vagina havers, breeders, baby factories. We are told that enjoying, let alone celebrating our biology is despicable and transphobic, and though we number in the vast majority, we are expected to defer to their definitions of us. We are again designated the role of supporters and cheerleaders for the ones who deserve to be celebrated. This is a frighteningly familiar feeling–it’s what I grew up with. It’s called misogyny. What is going on?

 

I can’t simply suck up what I’m told. It’s not fair to expect it. Make it make sense! I fought too hard to get free of the gendered expectations that oppressed me all my life. I fully agree with “Trans women are women,” as a kindly meant legal fiction for the purpose of inclusion. Identity should not be questioned or policed. You be you, of course. But please. Let me be me, and think my own thoughts, and speak my own mind. Yes–I feel angry–but it’s an old rage, I grew up with it. I try to keep it in check. But it keeps getting triggered. It’s not about trans folk, or anybody else. It’s about feeling shut down, squished into a shape that doesn’t fit me. I don’t like it. Nobody does.

 

The issue goes beyond inclusion and into erasure of people like me, who identify as their biology, who feel nothing inside themselves that is ‘woman’ except bulgy baby making bellies and boobs. We may be comfortable with those bodies (as likely not!), but reject the roles assigned to them. Nothing about gender feels innate to me. What is gender identity? I don’t deny that you have one, because I believe you. But to be told, and have it made into law, that everyone has one without exception, where does that come from? Who asked the rest of us how we feel? Who has done the research to ascertain that this nebulous thing called gender identity is innate? Are we making a giant mistake?

 

There has to be a better way to include. Inclusion means everyone, without exception, or it is not inclusion. These changes have been too swift, too sweeping, unprocessed. People must be allowed to discuss, to disagree, to argue, to work toward some sort of accommodation that works for all–trans and non-trans. It’s not easy! And it shouldn’t be too easy. Real, deep change takes time to evolve, to be effective and lasting. Let’s face it: some of these laws simply beg to be abused by predatory males. Predators are opportunists, and where loopholes exist, they will take advantage.

 

Take prison self ID. Sexual predators exist, they are concentrated in maximum security men’s prisons, and why should that be denied? Why would a convicted serial sex predator NOT take advantage of the opportunity to self-ID as a woman in order to escape a dreary, dangerous men’s maximum-security prison to a women’s prison, where conditions are relatively cushy and, I dare say, where they might have access to their favourite prey? I’m not talking about trans women. I’m talking about male predators who self ID only after having been convicted of repeated horrific sexual crimes, and all of a sudden, ‘oh, you’re a woman, that makes you harmless.’ And the fox is in the henhouse. If you say, ‘that could never happen,’ I suggest you look up a recent study by Correctional Services Canada, entitled “Gender Diverse Offenders with a History of Sexual Offending.” The implications are troubling.

 

I hope no one is hurt, offended or in any way feels violated by what I have to say, though I expect the act of saying anything at all will be triggering. I am sorry for that. I needed to. Please do not shout slogans at me. If you think I have been transphobic in this article, please explain to me how. Thank you for listening, if you have.

 

What do you think? Email me at phoenixonhornby@gmail.com

Green Wizardries – Maxine Rogers

Green Wizardries, Community Coming Together by Maxine Rogers

I went to the Fireman’s Pancake Breakfast this morning with my husband and some friends.  It was a very wholesome family event and for a good cause.  All the proceeds go to the new training facility and we are jolly lucky to have such an excellent team training volunteers on Denman to such high and useful standards.  

We were warned by a source from inside the Fire Department to come even a little early as they expected to be swamped.  We arrived at just 9 a.m. and there was already a bit of a lineup.  

A  number of handsome fellows were serving coffee to people in the lineup. I got the ever-elegant Evan Penner coming over to serve my coffee, pour in the cream and stir it for me. I ask you, where else do you get service like that?  

We saw the friends we intended to meet for breakfast some way behind us in the line up and waved.  I went over to chat with them and the atmosphere was festive.  Everyone was being friendly.  One woman stopped by to say she liked my articles and was even thinking of trying to make some of the natural products I have been talking about.  

We sipped our coffees and soon reached the cash desk where a harried, but competent, volunteer took our order.  We had mini breakfasts for $10.  Breakfast is a special occasion for me as I gave up eating breakfast some years ago.  When a person gets older, they don’t need so much food.  

The volunteers gave us little packets of tickets for the raffle.  They gave out five tickets to mini -breakfast people and ten tickets to the full-breakfast people.  The word on the street is they printed 8,000 tickets but were out by 10 a.m. and had to print more.  This event gets more popular each year and I think they are soon going to have to set up a proper field kitchen as the facilities at the Fire Hall are stretched to the max.

Now, I am allergic to wheat and was standing in the line for the gluten-free pancakes.  They were slow in coming so we waited and watched the many happy volunteers mixing up batter, frying things and scuttling about with huge bowls of whipped cream and blueberries.  It soon became apparent that they dedicated grill for GF stuff had blown a fuse and they couldn’t get it going.  The firefighters said to go sit down and they would make the pancakes and come out with a platter of cakes and we should just raise a hand to be served.  

 

We sat at a table with some old friends and two of the people who we had intended to meet.  I had seen the other fellow in the line up but after that, lost track of him.  He had arrived at 10 past 9 and the conga line was already back in the trees when he arrived.  

A man stopped by our table and told a story of how much he loved this breakfast tradition.  One year, he had been to a raucous high-school reunion in Victoria and got up the next morning at 4 a.m. to make it back here for the Fireman’s Breakfast.  That is dedication.

We sat and chatted and the subject of Covid 19 came up but no one was aggressive.  Everyone was willing to listen to other people’s reasoning.  I think people must, by now, have noticed that their unvaxed neighbours remain stubbornly healthy.  In any case, the vaxed and the unvaxed  sat down at the same table and ate a simple meal together.  That sort of things heals community divisions.  

My husband wandered off to see if he could locate a pancake for me.  One of the volunteers had set up a propane-powered griddle and was trying to cook pancakes on that.  Some of the ladies waiting for cakes put their hands over the griddle and explained it was not working because it was not hot.  The, now slightly harried, volunteer sent a man off to get a portable electric generator from one of the fire trucks.  Some things are just not meant to be but I appreciated the really-determined efforts to cook for us glutards.   

We left the event about 10 am and walked back past the huge line up to our car.  I heard the Firefighters cooked heroically, running out of bacon towards the end and sometimes, they ran short of coffee even though they had 3 urns on the go.   They served a huge amount of people and it was another record-breaking year for the event.  

Letter to the Editor – Keith Porteous

The Letter to the Editor from David Scruton has much in common with the assertions of Stephen Malthouse; that of confirmation bias. The Cochrane study of studies into mask efficacy that Scruton and Malthouse are debating, doesn’t conclude that masks are effective, nor that they are not. The Cochrane study finds flaws in the controls and methodology of the major research published. While it found little evidence to support the efficacy of cloth masks, it reasoned that other factors may have contributed to that result, such as poor fitting masks, people touching their masks with their hands, and the probability of low compliance within the participants of both the main study groups, and the control groups. Either way, we do not have certainty and scientific conclusiveness. Still, almost no one has changed the views they held 3 years ago, despite newer revelations.

I was somewhat surprised that Scruton ventured back into the debate, as a co-signatory to the letter from 20 local doctors insisting that getting inoculated would create herd immunity. It did no such thing, and that was never a possibility. There is a precipitous drop in the immune response to the mRNA jab after a couple of months, and it didn’t stop the spread of the virus. Scruton makes the absurd claim that the only reasonable explanation for the drop in influenza during that period was the mask mandates. Human contact was so limited and constrained, travel suspended, schools and workplaces closed, that lots of things dramatically decreased, from car accidents to pollutants causing poor air quality, and so much more. The best approach was always to protect and isolate the vulnerable, and let people make their own personal and private health choices, as was the approved public health pandemic protocol prior to COVID19.

Most people start from a conclusion and work backwards to confirm their bias, and argue vehemently in defence of their position, regardless of changes in understanding of the scientific evidence. Mark Twain said that it is easier to fool people, than convince people that they’ve been fooled. And it seems that the well educated professional class are the people most invested in never revising their views about anything. David Scruton will continue to insist that the mRNA inoculations, boosters, masks, mandates, and lockdowns were effective, and that the rest of us should trust the same “experts” who got it wrong, all in the same direction. I understand why Scruton believed what he believed back then, but there is no reasonable explanation for why he doubles down against the latest science he otherwise claims to observe. Until we can have an honest and reasoned discussion, there is no chance of improvements to public health policies. 

Face Mite Life

The Power of Nicotine

CS# 05943451

Date: March 21, 2007 10:49 AM

The Power of Nicotine

Canteen day here at Brannen Lake. The egg with the flat bottom manages to crank over to its rounded side once again… barely. The cigarette shortage that is commonplace come Tuesday and Wednesday is only further imperilled by the new arrivals, of which we’ve had four. All of whom are ardent smokers. More so than me, judging from the frequency of their requests for help. So seldom are their efforts rewarded with a full cigarette, that their nicotine teased lungs compel them to hover around conspicuously, determined to peck away at the dregs of those who have and who’s tolerance for such antics dwindles in relation to their supply. I ought to know, for I am thankfully stocked enough for myself and then some. Not only do I take my smoking seriously when I do it, I’m thankfully supported financially by those on the outside who love me. Thank you Scott, James, Savage, and The Compassion Club! Anyways, my entire week’s supply got ground down to a single aprés dinner cigarette just prior to the call of canteen. It’s proving to be the norm. I have to say that at least I’m being reimbursed. Perhaps not entirely 100% by everyone but enough to keep me appeased. What little that I’m out of pocket for such discrepancy I gain in social cachet. While I’m not looking to make popular with everyone, I feel established enough for the time I’ve logged thus far and I’m keenly aware that no one here wants to bite the hand that feeds them. There might be some nibbling but it comes at the cost of position. They ask. I don’t. It gives me a measure of status strangely enough and that is a form of protection from bullshit. It’s not as though there aren’t other costs for me, mind you. The methods employed in asking, begging, take many forms. The indebted feeling and subsequent gratitude for my facilitation means I have to listen to more than I’d care, often. Stories and hare-brained schemes abound. Beyond the obligatory ‘thank-you’s’ are tales of anticipated monies that at times sound further away than discharge dates. To diagram the paper trail of tax returns, PST and GST cheques, girlfriends and family a world away, that seemingly prioritize transferring monies as highly as their need to receive them, can look akin to a schematic of the old ‘flea flicker’ play:

Invariably, I’m also made privy to the reasons for their being here to boot. None of this is really of import or interest to me so it can be as draining to listen to as it is draining to my nicotine supply. This place does force one to be tolerant when you have to cohabitate. While a simple thank-you might be enough for these reasons, it can also be seen as too singular in focus. Just as I’ve mentioned in previous entries, offering 2 for 1 is more indicative of desperation in the now, than an ability to follow through when considering what we all earn here. So too are the interesting tales told that hold little interest to me. To not be made as a mooch, most anything can and will be said. At least I’m not cast in such a role for the financial backing I’ve got. Truly fortunate I am! The cycle is established and it will only repeat itself. The faces and their lungs might change but the methods employed in pursuit of the almighty nicotine will show the same consistency as the cycle. At least I’m on top of the ebb and flow. It makes life in this place manageable. I couldn’t handle being on the other side of the coin in such casting of roles. I’d just quit smoking altogether. It would simply behoove me to go around jonesing on everyone. It’s too much to give up for a measly nic-fit. Giving ground up so easily (and needlessly, it could be argued) in a place such as this can compromise one’s experience unbearably. Hell, even Sean Miller, who once threatened me with a beating hit me up for a smoke! He’s proven to be no sweat to me since and his juvenile tendencies annoying but harmless. The range has taken to calling him Furry, in reference to his Big Dawg assertions, almost mockingly. It’s rather priceless to my perspective. The psychotic, tough guy persona has met with enough needling and derision from most everyone, that Furry could well describe the truer texture of his being. It is not to say that he isn’t some piece of work, but there’s too many of the rest of us for him to mesmerize or hold sway over. Everything gets exposed in such tight quarters, and quickly. Furry the flaky psychotic! It has been suggested that he exhibits signs of drug psychosis. “Crack will do that to a persons mind.” I don’t doubt it for an instant. The other day he casually mentioned that he was the third ranked BMX rider in the world. In the world! There’s no end to this guy’s stories. What initially was very difficult to take has increasingly become hilariously entertaining in a way. Anyways, there he was yesterday calling me Mikey, as he’s looking for a smoke. Like we’re buddies or something. Amazing. It was my golden opportunity to foist back in his face how boorish he was toward me all that time ago. I probably could have held out for an apology given the desperation quotient I’ve alluded to, but I didn’t. I gave even him that which he requested. He’s still big. He’s still volatile and, as of this writing, I’m still reasonably cute and intact. Big Sean-y, my friend?! Nah! But at least he’s not the threat he fancied himself as being.

Problem Cooker

Problem Cooker 

It is cauterization day at the clinic.

The thing on my ear looks like a brown mole.

It is cancer.

I’m told it won’t kill me but if we don’t deal with it now 

they will have to cut off a chunk of my ear later.

She jabs me in the ear with an instrument I have barely looked at.

It hurts and there is a crackling sound like sparks flashing and then I can smell the sickly sweet smell of my burnt flesh.

We are done.

I am grateful.

If only I could cook all my problems.

Circle Process (Part 3)

CIRCLE PROCESS (Part 3)Sally Campbell

Talking Piece

Circles use a talking piece to assist their process. This may be a stone, a feather, a talking stick of some sort, or any other object chosen by participants to help them pace their discussion. The talking piece has symbolic value and should be chosen carefully, with the reasons for its choice  known to everyone in the circle. The keeper will have a talking piece; sometimes participants want to choose their own. Flexibility. In estate mediations, I often asked participants to bring an object they’d like as a talking piece. They’d bring something powerful, something they had really thought about. That could create a breakthrough simply by speaking from the heart about it and its significance; it often brought tears. The talking piece sings up the sacred, slows the process down, and promotes equality. Only the person holding the talking piece may speak. This simple approach gives space for a more introverted person to speak and invites a more extroverted person to listen more deeply. In some mysterious way, it helps people tap into their truth and express it elegantly, in ways the others can hear. It quietly deals with the problem of interrupting.

There is no pressure with a talking piece; it moves around the circle and if the person receiving it doesn’t wish to speak, it is passed to the next person. Because no one can interrupt to debate, rebut or question a statement made, participants learn to listen patiently. By the time the talking piece reaches the would-be debater, for instance, something has been learned through listening, and the speaker’s words are less charged, more reflective.  For many, the experience of deep listening moves them toward greater understanding of the other(s) and themselves, which may then lead to agreements settling the conflict. Often the general culture’s sign of “success” is the reaching of an agreement. Impatience about “getting this over with” is often a sign of anxiety and frustration. Insight can emerge from recognizing our lack of control over others. We can’t force people to agree with us. People sitting quietly together in a circle, speaking honestly about how they feel about difficult matters, can build understanding and clear the path for problem-solving down the road. This then opens the opportunity for healing to occur.

Sometimes family members or a couple in conflict have trouble talking to one another about difficult matters. Chances are they have differing styles of communication. If one person tends to override the other, or to interrupt, a talking piece can shift that behaviour. Despite the claims of the entrenched (“Oh, it’s just the way I am. You’ll have to live with it”), it is never too late to change our behaviours!  Especially the ones that keep us stuck.

Consensus

In circles, decisions are made by consensus. The goal is to have everyone satisfied with the outcome. It does not mean compromising interests or squelching dissent in the rush for agreement. It involves working carefully and respectfully with all the interests and concerns in the circle, and seeking ways that accommodate key interests. 

In circle process, the focus is not upon the outcome, but rather upon good process and relationships between and among parties. Emphasis is upon the building of healthy relationship, and sometimes the way there is very difficult and painful. Participants learn to trust in the collective wisdom of the circle for answers, and when attention has been paid to the values and principles of the circle, creative and powerful outcomes can emerge.

Consensus does not necessarily mean unanimity. It is the responsibility of dissenting voices in circles to explain their concerns, and for others to listen deeply to them. “Circles don’t dismiss or minimize differences, but they don’t allow differences to become insurmountable barriers either. To build a consensus, we identify areas of disagreement and give them serious consideration, and then we use this fuller awareness of differences to make our final agreements more inclusive, hence stronger”. (Peacemaking Circles: Pranis, Stuart & Wedge)

Sometimes the circle will settle with an agreement because everyone can “live with it”, and it incorporates everyone’s interests as fully as possible, even though it may not have been the first choice of everyone in the group. This is called a “working consensus”, and it exemplifies the idea of a “world that works for everyone”. (Source unknown.)

This is not easy work. It is about having difficult conversations to get to the heart of things. A goal of consensus in circles is to develop a way forward that doesn’t just settle the presenting conflict, but also attends to the deeper issues and promotes healing and closure.

Circles belong to all of us. We all have ancestors who have sat together around a fire, in a circle, sharing stories, belonging to each other. Circle processes are not a panacea for all ills. They are one way to bring people together in respect and understanding. Sometimes, that is precisely what is needed.

Letter to the Editor – Dr. David Scruton

June 25th 2023

The Editor, The Grapevine

Denman Island

theislandsgrapevine@gmail.com

Dear Editor, This letter is in response to Stephen Malthouse’s letter of June 22nd. He asserts that masks do not block viruses. He ignores the real-world evidence to the contrary. I accept that virus particles are so small that they could pass through most filters. Respiratory viruses, which is what masks are designed to block, do not travel on their own, they travel in respiratory droplets which are orders of magnitude larger than virus particles themselves. During the winters of 2020 and 2021 the incidence of influenza infections was much lower than in previous years. The only reasonable explanation is that it was the effect of a large part of the population wearing masks. Influenza is a respiratory virus. There is also the increased Covid 19 infection rates in those who did not wear masks during the height of the pandemic compared with those who did wear masks. The Cochrane Review that Malthouse refers to was, to quote the editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Library, “misinterpreted and that the review didn’t find that masks do not work”. Studies from prestigious universities around the world, published in peer reviewed journals, show that masks do reduce the incidence of respiratory infections. The other many unsupported assertions in the letter against mask wearing are part of the anti-mask propaganda to use mis-information and dis-information to spread their beliefs despite the well-recognised harms that will be incurred by the at-risk groups; the unimmunised, the elderly and those with pre-existing heart and lung disease. David Scruton

Canoe Cod Effect

Circle Process (Part 2)

CIRCLE PROCESS (Part 2)Sally Campbell

 Ceremony

Ceremony in circle process can be described as “singing up the sacred” (Peacemaking Circles: From Crime to Community, Pranis, Stuart & Wedge), the sacred that resides in each of us. 

Ceremony is an integral part of circle process. The goals of ceremony in a circle differ in significant ways from the goals of ceremony in a court setting. Whether the ceremony is a prayer/ask for guidance, a few moments of silence, or a sweetgrass “smudge” in an Indigenous setting, the intent is to have participants feel a sense of connectedness to their higher selves, to each other and to the process. Here in the West, we live in a general culture that values independence and autonomy in adults. Individualism is a strong cultural value. While this has its benefits in terms of support for people realizing their potential, having the freedom to decide and pursue their own personal goals, it has its downsides. Independence can lead to much loneliness, to isolation, to people feeling that they lack a safety net, that they are all alone. Autonomy and independence have also contributed to our disconnect from the natural world, our failure to fully appreciate that we and all our actions are interrelated, and hence, to the climate crisis. In the world of engagement with conflict and peacemaking, the emphasis is much more on our interdependence, our inescapable connectedness with one another. Ceremony is a powerful way to remind us of that.

In many institutional settings, political arenas, and courtrooms, ceremony is designed to remind participants of hierarchies and authority, with the mayor, CEO or judge firmly ensconced at the top. We see how people give over their power to the judge when they enter a court of law. Hierarchical authority is underscored by established rituals such as having the judge seated above everyone else in the room, wearing clothing that marks rank, being addressed in a particular way, and having everyone stand upon the judge’s entering or leaving the courtroom. 

In Circles, ceremonies are used to convey the fact that each person present is equal to every other participant, including the keeper(s). Power resides within the circle. Ceremony helps people tap into that power and shift to an expanded consciousness. It helps create a climate where genuine peacemaking can occur.

People can create their own ceremony before meeting in the circle. This may involve such things as going for a walk together before sitting down in the circle. It may mean bringing food to share after the circle has done its work. It may be agreeing on an inspirational reading or music before the talking begins. It could be having the keeper set the tone for the circle by reiterating the shared values of the group, the goals of building understanding and bringing closure. Ceremony doesn’t have to be elaborate, although sometimes it is; it needs to be authentic, and of a nature to build relationship rather than create more dissention. This means it’s important that ceremony not be imposed on participants; it has to be organic.

 Guidelines

Circles are values-based processes, and guidelines help people put their core values into practice.  Despite their differences, people worldwide tend to share common values such as respect, honesty, courage, trust and forgiveness. In circle processes, people do not have to leave their values at the door and arm themselves for an adversarial contest. They can and indeed are expected to act upon their values in every phase of the process. 

Agreeing upon guidelines for the conduct of the circle is often a first agreement between those holding differing or opposing views. Talking about how participants will talk together builds a sense of shared responsibility for the process. Having guidelines grounds people, makes them feel safer at a time when they may well be anxious about what’s ahead. Even two people having a difficult conversation can make a few guidelines about how it’s going to go. One may ask that there be no interrupting, or leaving the room if it gets hard, or making eyerolls when disagreeing. Another may suggest that everyone speak only from their own perspective rather than assuming they know what another is thinking or feeling. Simple guidelines can make a powerful difference and are an indicator of respect – self-respect, respect for the other(s), and respect for the process.  Inability to agree on guidelines often says that parties aren’t yet ready to work on the conflict in this way. What kind of supports do they need?  Focus on process before content. Creating a good process is engaging with conflict – a significant step forward!

(Next week: Part 3)