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 authors 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 earths 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.
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 papers objectivity at issue as well. Shame on you. If RMOW wants to disseminate the misinformation, let them pay for an ad.