I was dismayed after reading the article by Clare Ogilvie entitled "Of witches, Jack-O-Lanterns and lost souls." I quite enjoyed the story until near the end of the article.
Ms. Ogilvie states: "So although some pagan groups and cults have adopted Halloween as their favourite holiday, the day itself did not grow out of evil practices."
This statement shows the author’s lack of sensitivity and knowledge of religion in general and comes at a time when awareness and diversity should be respected. People in 2001 are becoming more aware of, and wanting to reconnect with the earth’s rhythms. Some 8,000,000 women and men were killed in the Burning Times as an outcome of fear-based statements such as these. Paganism is one of the oldest and simplest, earth-based religions. Mainstream religions contorted the facts and used fear to condemn wise women and men for using herbs, practising midwifery, or participating in any rites or rituals that might be considered "different."
Ms. Ogilvie may want to read up on the history of religion before making a judgement on who is or is not involved in evil practices, and not lump cults and pagans into one cauldron.
Heidi Nielsen
Squamish
TA appeal article misleading
I read the article of Oct. 19 (TA appeal too late for winter) and wish to complain about the misleading and inaccurate content and general misinformation that it presented. Clearly the tone of the article was meant to intimidate chalet owners who legally and/or philosophically don't agree with RMOW's current TA bylaw.
The article presented a very one-sided and biased point of view. This type of article does not encourage reasoned, intelligent and responsible debate on an issue that potentially affects the rights of all chalet owners in Whistler, not just the person interviewed. Not everyone reading your paper understands or knows the tortuous history of the current TA dispute.
Here are the legal facts in a nutshell.
• Until such time as the appeal of the recent court decision is heard, the issue of the "legitimacy" of those who rent out their chalets for TA (tourist accommodation) is still to be determined. To imply otherwise is misleading. Quoting the personal point of view and "wishes" of O'Reilly and Jakobs does not constitute legal accuracy.
• There is a legitimate legal process in our society that must be followed and respected. The chalet owners who are the subject of the litigation are entitled to their "day in court" in terms of the appeal process. About 1/3 of chambers or trial court decisions get overturned on appeal. It is not for RMOW to diminish the chalet owners' rights by "wishful thinking" of the outcome, and sending out intimidating letters to other chalet owners on that hopeful anticipation. This is simply morally, ethically and legally wrong. The fact that your paper attempted to extend the range of intimidation by quoting the RMOW letter verbatim and almost in its entirety, puts your paper’s objectivity at issue as well. Shame on you. If RMOW wants to disseminate the misinformation, let them pay for an ad.
• Once a decision is made by the appeal court, it only affects that particular defendant and is based on the facts of their case and defences raised. It has NO automatic blanket effect on other chalet owners, as much as the RMOW would like that scenario to unfold. Every chalet owner who is subject to legal action by the RMOW is entitled to their day in court based on the facts of their respective situation and the legal defences which are raised. The current case is unique in itself. Any future cases could have different facts and a whole range or different defences that were not raised in the current case.
I take issue with the legal inaccuracy in your quote from Jakobs. She claims that she "has been told that she may be able to take legal action against illegitimate operators to recover damages." That self-serving statement is nonsense. I notice there is no independent attribution quote from a lawyer. Any lawyer who did make such a statement would have to be ignorant of the facts, incompetent or mischievous.
In the future, it would be appreciated if your paper provided more objective reporting on the TA issue, and did not provide a forum for the small minority of vocal proponents against TA use to plug their point of view.
Brian Carruthers
Whistler
Re: Delay of WCB Regulations
Last weekend Canadians set their clocks back by one hour. Unfortunately here in B.C., our clocks have already been set back by the government's recent decision to delay the implementation of the WCB smoke-free regulations for a further eight months.
While the rest of Canada is moving forward to create safe, smoke-free environments for workers and the general public, B.C. may be moving backwards towards a "general ventilation solution" that has been discredited by scientific and health authorities worldwide. Scientists agree that due to the limitations of ventilation systems, toxins and carcinogens in cigarette smoke cannot be removed from the air before reaching the breathing zone of workers and customers; it would take a tornado-like air flow to protect workers from the hazardous effects of second-hand smoke.
At a time when citizens are looking for leadership, it is disheartening to think this government may reject the overwhelming scientific and economic evidence around smoke-free legislation and allow B.C. workers to continued to be poisoned by second-hand smoke. Ventilation is not a solution.
Bobbe Wood,
Chief Executive Officer
Heart and Stroke Foundation of B.C. & Yukon
