BY JENNIFER MARGISON
After a three-month attempt to resolve an issue directly with the individuals involved on Galiano Island, I am reluctantly writing on behalf of Friends of the Gulf Islands Society, to highlight what we see as unnecessary, unfair and harmful censorship by the Galiano Saturday Market Board.
In early June, the Friends of the Gulf Islands Society applied to have a table at a mid-July Saturday market on Galiano. The market is held weekly in the expansive Lions field and space is not an issue.
Friends of the Gulf Islands is a B.C. registered society focused on the protection of the natural environment and rural character of the islands in the Islands Trust Area. We monitor Trust meetings and decisions for compliance with the Islands Trust mandate or object to “preserve and protect the unique amenities and environment” of the Trust Area.
Our interest in having a table at island markets is to provide information to residents and visitors about what it means to live in a Trust Area, and to alert people to the fact that the Trust Policy Statement — the governing document that official community plans and bylaws must comply with — is being reviewed and a new draft has been released.
Many of the islands have very limited media and local markets offer vital opportunities to connect with people. Friends of the Gulf Islands has been welcomed at both the Mayne and Pender Island markets this summer.
However, on Galiano, though Friends had a table several years ago at the market, our request went unanswered for a month. Then we were told that the board had voted against allowing us to attend. No reason was given in spite of several requests and offers to speak to the board about our group. We provided the market board with a link to our website and a copy of our brochure.
Over two months later, we were finally provided with a copy of the Galiano Market Policies and Vendor Agreement, but still no reason was given for the denial of our request. It was only after several requests to speak to someone that a conversation occurred with the market director, where we were able to ask if specific wording in the agreement was being used to deny our organization space.
This wording states that “Community groups and organizations may set up information tables at the market free of charge, provided they restrict their activities to their stall, avoid provoking controversy and do not otherwise interfere with the primary purpose of the market . . . Proselytizing of vendors or customers is prohibited as is engaging in topics of discussion that have historically been divisive within the community.”
“Provoking controversy” and “engaging in topics of discussion that have been historically divisive within the community” are extremely subjective concepts. We would not consider our members sitting at a table distributing a brochure and answering questions about the Islands Trust to be “proselytizing” and do not see how our presence would in any way interfere with the market. Anyone who has lived on one of our small islands knows that there are many issues that “provoke controversy” in our communities or have been “historically divisive.” On Galiano, this has ranged from rezoning of land, to public shore accesses, to tax referenda, to building our library, to site locations for affordable housing. Community members do not all think alike and differences of opinion are to be expected.
The Galiano Market welcomes groups such as the island’s housing societies, the conservancy association and the human composting group — promoting a petition for legislation to allow a facility to compost human bodies — and political figures such as Green Party leader Elizabeth May. Having various groups at island markets provides opportunities to ask questions, discuss issues and engage with neighbours, all part of being informed community members.
We question a market’s vendor agreement being used to selectively deny an environmental group such as Friends of the Gulf Islands a presence and a voice in our community. This is dangerous and unnecessary overreach. What will this small group next decide is too “controversial” for our community to hear?