(REALITY CHECK) ALL WAYS FREE, Summer, 1993, page 16

Statement of Non-Endorsement

Rainbow Family is an a-political consensus-bound body of individuals. Our foremost consensus are peaceful respect, and maintaining a position of non-endorsement.

We support the right of the people to Gather, to council, to state opinions, and to redress; we do not endorse any opinions other than the right to formulate and express one -- the right of the people to caucus.

We do ask that everyone participate in a silent circle for peace and healing of the planet.

Participation is the key.

Introductory Note: The following article was drafted by the editor with the help and input of many. Our “round table" discussion took place over a period of many weeks in face-to-face meetings and over the telephone. It is lovingly offered as one presentation of a multi-faceted issue, and is in no way intended to be an official Rainbow position or statement. As with all Rainbow group process, each individual person is at liberty to think, write, speak, etc., in our own way, and thus add in our part to the overall whole in our effort to retain our freedoms

The Family has not yet made a consensus statement on the regulations. Any "official” strategy and/or statement can only come out of consensus of the Rainbow Family Tribal Council, as the Family's will and intent is resolved at the annual Rainbow Family Gathering, July 1- 7.

Each of us should understand that as we join together in any Peace Culture or Affirmative Living action that it is our responsibility to make clear that we speak for ourselves as individuals only and do not and cannot represent anyone else.

It is especially important that folk be aware that representing their political/spiritual social (or whatever) cause as being conjoined with any Rainbow 'cause" is wrongly presumptive, as well as being short-sighted and possibly injurious to the advancement of said cause(s).

It should be noted that the current Legaliaison team is also bound by this reality. Any statement or strategy issuing to date from the current Legaliaison volunteers falls under the previous disclaimer.. We thank these folks whole-heartedly for their efforts in keeping the Family abreast of the developments of the proposed regulations. We also feel that their call to a Legaliaison meeting in Washington D.C. the second week of July is premature and out of process. Only the RFTC gathering on the land between July 1--7 can put out such a call. Such a meeting with the White House may indeed yet occur, but until the Council consensus that it should, 1 cannot be seen as a "sanctioned" Rainbow event.

May you always be all ways free.

FIRST AMENDMENT GUARANTEES

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States)

And yet, here we are again: looking at new restrictions on our rights to gather and to pray. Indeed, the form in which we pray presupposes the unabridged freedom to gather.

INTERFERENCE WITH POLITICAL
AND SPIRITUAL PROCESSES

In a direct attack upon and affront to the Constitution (labeled as "a pro-active attempt at management," no doubt), the Forest Service is insisting on continuing to interfere in our political and spiritual processes by intro ducing another attempt to restrict the people's rights of peaceable assembly on public lands through amendments to Forest Service Regulations 36 CFR 251~:$ 261,,.,,,4~1

Published May 6, 1993 in the Federal Register Vol. 58, No. 86), the newly amended regulations will possibly become law within the coming year. We urge you to obtain a copy of the regs; call your local library or Forest Service office to find out how. Or write Legaliaison, P.O. Box 27217, Washington, D.C., 20038 (donations for copy- ing and postage are much-needed). The public commen- tary period ends on August 4, 1993, after which time a final ruling may be handed down.

The Forest Service has put a tremendous amount of time, effort, and money into attempts to write and to re-write these regulations, which would require Special Use authorizations (otherwise known as permits) of those groups of 25 or more people wishing to exercise their right to peaceably assemble.

So far, these efforts have failed because a way has not been found to make such regulations pass Constitutional mus- ter, However, there are risks involved in waiting until the new regulations get as far as the courts for a Constitutional challenge. Then may be steps can be taken that can derail them before they take effect.

Proposed Action

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. So let's go to plan "B". (Bear in mind that this is an interim proposal, one possible suggested approach; no "official" action can be taken until Council convenes July 1--7. And, as in all things else, when in doubt, follow your heart.)

Do what you can as an individual citizen to get the attention of the Clinton Administration. Without intensive feedback from us, there will be an assumption that the passage of regulations restricting the right of free assembly is acceptable to the American people. There are so many deep concerns pressing on the administration,. this one will pass them right by as being “not a serious issue" unless we let them know otherwise. Indeed, unless we raise a hue and cry, it may not even be noticed, and may pass by the attention of those that might otherwise be in a position to help preserve and protect our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

Plan "B"

1. Attend the Annual Gathering to Caucus

If at all possible, be at the North American Annual Gathering to caucus, to come together in council between July I and 7, to discuss what needs to be done. The importance of attending the Gathering and adding you voice cannot be emphasized strongly enough. At that time, the will and intent of the people as the Rainbow Family Tribal Council can be stated and actualized.

2. In the meantime, or if you cannot be at the Gathering, do whatever you can to bring this matter to the attention of the Clinton Administration. It seems to be a contradiction in terms for the Clinton administration to be considering regulations that will support an incredibly costly and self-justifying management effort that has no proven need, at the same time that is has stated that it is committed to eliminating waste in management.

The proposed regulations were initiated by an administration that demonstrated a pattern of repression of civil rights. They are of questionable constitutional merit and will certainly be challenged -- which will incur further expense to the taxpayer. How does the Clinton Administration plan to justify the cost of drafting these regulations as well as costs to implement them and defend them against legal challenges? Several previous attempts have been successfully challenged in court. What has been the cost to the taxpayers so far to draft these regulations, to attempt to enforce them, and to answer challenges to them in Court? What will be the costs h the future? These questions can also be asked in regard to the costs of the "proactive" management approach that will be supported by the implementation of such regulations.

Is the Clinton Administration interested in promulgating and propagating rules and regulations that would curtail the people's rights and liberties, and hinder and/ or outright deny citizens' use of National Forest Land which is held in trust? How much money are they willing to spend, and pain and suffering willing to cause, in enforcing regulations as law that are contrary to, and in some respects nullify, the supreme law of the land--that is, the Constitution. It is our belief that at this point, getting the attention of the Clinton Administration is the key to restoring our Constitutional guarantees.

3. Do what you can to bring this matter to the attention or your Federal Representatives Congress does, in fact, have administrative review and oversight of all regulatory activities. Write and call your federal representatives at their home office.

Tell them that you oppose all restrictions to the people's right to gather, and specifically the recently published regulations; ask them if they are aware of these regulations Request an answer in writing. If you don't know who your Senators and Congresspersons are, call your local library to find wt who they are and how to contact them in your home state.

Write and call your state and local representatives, as well, with the same: approach.

4. Circulate petitions

Get as many signatures as you can on petitions demanding that the Constitutional right to peaceably assemble be preserved and protected; and that the Forest Service he directed to cease and desist oil further attempts to interfere with the people's political and spiritual processes, in particular as such interference abridges the right to gather on Public Lands as described in 36 CFR 251 L 261. Address petitions to "To Whom it May Concern."

At the Gathering, it will be decided who these petitions will go to. One current suggestion is that they be sent to the House and Senate committees that serve as oversight bodies of the regulatory process of the Department of Agriculture (the Forest Service's head office). A sample petition can be found on page 14 of this section.

Send petitions to Legaliaison, P.O. Box 27217,
Washington, D C 20038.

5. Lastly, don't forget to include the Forest Service in your campaign. Send courtesy copies of all your correspondence with other governmental representatives to the Forest Service. Also send an indepth, written critique of the regs to the Forest Service. Address your comments to:

Recreation, Cultural Resources, and Wilderness
Management Staff (2340)
Forest Service
USDA
P.O. Box 96090·
Washington, D.C. 20090-090

Remember that if they can, they will use our specific comments to again draft newer, updated regulations that they think will answer our objections. They have not yet "gotten it" that the requirement for a permit itself is the issue in dispute. No matter how they sweeten the details, the entire picture remains unpalatable. The claim of protection of the "presumptive right" to Gather is simply not credible, in particular as that right can be abridged by wasteful over-management and unnecessary regulation.