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
MINDLESS OPPRESSION.
LEGALIAISON\DC PRAYER FOR UNITY
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 compose "Plan B." While the AWF article shows
that different organs of the Family body are on the same sheet of
music, it also shows more intrinsic misunderstanding. United we
may stand, misunderstanding we'll fall.
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 Zo3'h121me decided by a Reagan or Bush
appointed court. Seems risky indeed to expect the system's
{{courts will rule in nWF?or of the hippies and agains\H`v\olicies
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 this regulation for years.
But "the problem ... which faces us now" might well be that
bureaucrats have been writing progressively restrictive
regulations which the government (administrative, judicial and
legislative branches) has then enacted, enforced, and condoned --
while the public has acquiesced to -- ever more oppressive
POLICIES which are dictated by a group far more powerful than
thousands of bureaucrats. There is a very real possibility that
this regulation is merely the "logical" extension such POLICIES.
If AWF's opinion is correct, and we 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 person "can't" make it to D.C. in
July. Got that problem? Fine, stay home, write letters to your
federal representatives and/or 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
fail to apprehend this fact will understand that the "Rainbow
Family cause" was really not so different from "Peace Park
cause." We stress this FACT now so that if, God forbid, our dire
prediction -- that the courts can't be trusted to undo bad law --
comes 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.
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. When enough people
agree on something, anything can become law. Law may be either
reasonable or ruthless, creative or destructive. As law,
Proposition One would initiate significant structural 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 Peace through Justice.
In our 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.