LEGALIAISON\DC PRAYER FOR UNITY
As individuals Legaliaison/DC and the Peace Park Family invite:
COMMITTED INDIVIDUALS WHO SEEK UNITY IN OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT
REGULATIONS WHICH WOULD CRIMINALIZE FUTURE GATHERINGS, ATTEND THE
FREEDOM OF BELIEF, EXPRESSION AND ASSEMBLY COUNCIL IN D.C. THIS
COUNCIL WILL BEGIN IN THE 2nd WEEK IN JULY AND CONTINUE UNTIL
THERE IS NO FURTHER INTEREST IN DISCUSSING OR ACTING TO OPPOSE
Any actions or opinions of Legaliaison used to be subject to
approval of Rainbow Family Tribal Council July 1-7, on the land.
We pray this tradition will endure. In the past there was
sometimes difficulty in achieving consensus on where "the land"
would be. This year, assuming the "the Council" is in both
Kentucky and Alabama, it may be hard to even reach consensus on
where "the land" was. Certainly there is division. May we each
listen with care to the perceptions of our relations, bending our
ears so as not to be offended by sincere questions and opinions.
End Of The Rainbow, Or A New Beginning?
Annually, from July 1-7, for the past 21 years the Rainbow Family
of Living Light has gathered on the land to celebrate unity and
to pray for peace on earth. So far this year the Family has been
unable to even agree on a state in which the unity and prayer for
peace will happen. Thus, this July there may be two (three,
counting Rainbow Pagan Tribes') separate gatherings for unity and
peace, divided by opinion and/or ego, and about three hundred
miles. Up to now this diversity has been "constitutionally
protected." Since the United States began some two hundred years
ago, it has been taken for granted that citizens have an
INALIENABLE RIGHT to freely assemble on public lands.
Unfortunately, this year the Rainbow Family also faces, perhaps,
the greatest threat to its continued existence that it has ever
encountered. The Forest Service has been doing public relations.
The Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard (May 8, 1993) has reported,
"the Forest Service has proposed new regulations requiring equal
treatment for large groups of people seeking permits to gather in
national forests." Having grown quite accustomed to being
regulated, the American public may well mistake this government
misinformation for the truth. In fact, if enacted this
regulation would have the effect of transforming the
"constitutionally protected" traditional Rainbow Gathering into a
crime, punishable by fine or prison.
Owing to the brilliant intellectual diversity of the Rainbow
Family, in addition to a physical schism there also appears to be
a spiritual/intellectual/legal/political/whatever split.
Legaliaison\DC feels caught between a police state scheme
designed to crush individuality and a torrent of individual
trips. On the one hand many many folks have been calling
Legaliaison with queries, information, misinformation, rumors and
advice about the site of the Gathering. Because Legaliaison is
(1) very preoccupied with efforts to derail the government's
regulation, (2) has no preference where the site may be, and (3)
is deeply disturbed that, in the face of this monumental threat
to the Family's very existence, there seems to be enough disunity
to insure the Family's demise; our position on the site is: don't
ask us, VOTE WITH YOUR FEET!
"PLAN B" vs. ????
All Ways Free (AWF) published a specific "Plan B" (page 16),
which leaves us wondering, what the heck was "Plan A?" For
months Legaliaison\DC has been vigorously promoting the exact
five points which are "Plan B." While the AWF article shows that
different organs of the Family body are on the same sheet of
music, it also indicates deep intrinsic misunderstanding. United
we may stand, misunderstanding we'll fall for sure.
All Ways Free notes that there are "risks involved in ... a
constitutional challenge." A few FACTS to consider, the
regulation was conceived by the Reagan/Bush crew, has been
blessed by the Clinton crew, is aimed at a bunch of "hippies,"
and, odds are, any legal challenge will be decided by a Reagan or
Bush appointed court. Seems risky indeed to expect the system's
courts will rule in favor of the hippies and against POLICIES
endorsed under three presidential administrations.
All Ways Free freely mixes OPINION with FACT (page 16): "The
problem we have been facing for years, and which faces us now, is
that the comments the Forest Service are asking us to make within
the current 90-day public commentary period will be addressed to
the same bureaucrats in their ranks that have been working for
years to make the Regulations a reality."
True, bureaucrats have been working on regulations for years.
But "the problem ... which faces us now" might well be that,
simply because they are "just doing their job," bureaucrats have
been writing progressively restrictive regulations which the
government (administrative, judicial and legislative branches)
then enacts, enforces, and condones -- which the American public
apathetically acquiesces to -- ever more oppressive POLICIES.
There is a very real possibility that this regulation is merely
the "logical" extension of such POLICIES.
If AWF's opinion is correct, and we fervently pray it is, then
maybe all we need do is identify the pesky bureaucrats so Mr.
Clinton can send them packing and save the constitution. If
Legaliaison's opinion is closer to reality, then "Plan B" alone
will prove to be a misprioritized, wholly inadequate placebo, and
the real "problem" -- a spiritually bankrupt system of government
which has placed itself entirely beyond the law -- will triumph.
Because we think "Plan B" is not nearly enough, we will host a
"Freedom of Belief, Expression and Assembly Council," beginning
the 2nd week in July in D.C. A voice from All Ways Free objected
because a "Legaliaison Council" had not been consensed to on "the
Land." Asked what, besides process, justified the objection,
the only concern stated was that that person "can't" make it to
D.C. in July. Got that problem? Fine, stay home, write letters
to your federal representatives/bureaucrats, or do what you can.
But please, for the First Amendment's sake, don't discourage
those who might actually be willing to actually do something.
RE "MIXED MESSAGES,"
PEACE PARK IS A PRECEDENT, PROPOSITION ONE A PROACTIVE PROPOSAL
Spiritually/politically/whatever speaking, based on our reading
of All Ways Free, and a note from its editorial staff, we are
disturbed to find that some of what may be the Family's keenest
philosophical minds feel that we have "mix(ed) Rainbow
Legaliaison material & Peace Park, Proposition One stuff."
The simple FACT (as distinct from an opinion) is that the
proposed Forest Service regulations and the regulations in Peace
Park share precisely the same legal precedent: Clark v.
Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 290, see, Fed. Reg.
May 6, 1993, page 26940. If this regulation is enacted those who
now fail to apprehend this fact will understand that the "Rainbow
Family cause" was really not so different from the "Peace Park
cause." We stress this opinion now so that, God forbid, our dire
prediction -- that the courts can't be trusted to undo bad law --
does come to pass, we may then share a better understanding with
those wonderfully optimistic brothers and sisters who presently
trust the courts to uphold their right of peaceable assembly.
Legaliaison has no brilliant minds. Its opinions and suggestions
are based purely on exhaustive personal experience with the
regulatory process, judicial procedure and pro-active "law"
enforcement tactics. In court the argument will not be about
abridging freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly or
petition, but whether the proposed abridgement, in light of legal
precedent, constitutes a "reasonable time, place and manner
restriction." To pretend that "Rainbow" has no connection to
"Peace Park" is to ignore key precedents.
In addressing issues of this magnitude, we are dealing with
SYSTEMIC problems. Proposition One is a grassroots international
voter initiative campaign which will officially be going to D.C.
voters on the September 14, 1993 ballot as Initiative #37. Law
may be either reasonable or ruthless, creative or destructive.
When enough people agree on something, anything can become law.
As law, PROPOSITION ONE would initiate significant SYSTEMIC
change. Once enough people agree that Proposition One is the
law, humanity would have a legal foundation for converting
destructive industries into meeting human needs, and converting
the POLICY of Peace through Pro-active Enforcement into one of
PEACE THROUGH JUSTICE.
In our humble opinion "Proposition One stuff" is no more
political, no less related, but, in the long run, potentially
more practical to the "Rainbow cause" than "Plan B." Assuming
All Ways Free has the "authority" to present "Plan B" -- which
might certainly seem "political" -- as a suggested "official"
Rainbow action, we cannot understand why All Ways Free objects to
the suggestion of Proposition One as a possible action strategy,
or why AWF should decide which available options the Family
should hear about, and which it shouldn't.
In service to understanding, D.C. Scribe .June 18, 1993
FS Regs Page | Public Views | Government Views | Rainbow in Court
1601 Pennsylvania Avenue