The Kissing Fence, by
Brian A. Thomas-Peter, May 2020. Caitlin Press.
ISBN: 9781773860237 (softcover). 288 pages.
This book is one of the first to specifically examine how the Canadian government abused the children of
Sons of Freedom (Freedomites) in the 1950s, leaving them scarred with extensive mental health problems for generations. It fills a gap in Canadian history that only a specialist can explain.
The author is a Canadian clinical and forensic psychologist, educated in England. He retired from the post of Provincial Executive Director of Forensic Psychiatry for BC, and consults and writes from his home on Vancouver Island. His publications focus on mental health and elder care.
He chose the New Denver survivors as subjects for this book to deliver a broad message about how to improve mental health services in Canada for the afflicted Sons of Freedom and thousands of others like them who have been ‘scarred for life’ by bad public policy. In this book Dr. Thomas-Peter covers identity crisis, schizophrenia, changed names, and suicide.
This fictional novel is about two children, a boy and girl, whose parents rejected government schools. The parents were ‘Sons of Freedom’ who wanted schools that teach their heritage values of peace, social equality, community, and harmony with nature. Their wishes were rejected by the provincial government of British Columbia that strongly enforced an assimilation program for children of dissident immigrants and First Nations. Through these fictional kids, the psychologist explains how bureaucratic government officials have inflicted widespread, long-lasting damage.
This is essentially a work of fiction.
Dr. Thomas-Peter has a right to say whatever he likes in fiction, except when he wrongly converts his text into a fact that we are henceforth speaking of Doukhobors not Sons of Freedom. He mixes apples with oranges without knowing it and becomes responsible for doing harm to Doukhobors. There is a no-win situation here if we look at this strictly as a creative piece of writing without commenting on the wider relationships.
Beginning in 1954 the police were ordered to raid Freedomite houses in the Slocan Valley at night, seizing screaming, crying kids, and delivering them to a court ordered boarding school in New Denver, a former internment camp for the supposedly enemy-alien Japanese. Their forced education program ended in 1959.
The author's storytelling is well done with careful attention to details and sensitivity to the characters. The pace of the story created suspense by alternating chapter topics from one end of the interior of BC to the Pacific coast. With great sensitivity the author described police raids on villages to enforce the School Act, life in exile in the dormitories that once held Canadian Japanese arrested during WWII, a car bombed in Castlegar killing one of the New Denver survivors, the son’s involvement in an illegal gold smuggling ring in Vancouver, the appearance of an owl as an omen of life, and fates of family members scattered across British Columbia.
Though Dr. Thomas-Peter tried his best to research the subject matter, immigration history, and personally interviewed several Freedomite New Denver survivors, he failed to understand they were no longer authentic non-violent Doukhobors.
Since 1902, some zealots used nudity, fire and explosions among immigrating Doukhobors to protest the government negating the original immigration agreement, and controlling their lives with new requirements. Freedomites were not members of the incorporated
Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood (CCUB), the
'Orthodox' or 'Community' Doukhobors. Freedomites formed separate, adjacent fragmented tribes that harassed the CCUB, the wider public including the Doukhobors and government.
Though the author appears to acknowledge the difference between Doukhobors and Freedomites, he confuses the average reader by using the label 'Doukhobor' 4.5 times more than their actual label ‘Sons of Freedom’. He mixes the ‘apples’ with ‘oranges’ so much that the general reader would not know which group is which. Moreover, he is dealing with essentially less than 5% of the population of the study group as compared to 95% of the Doukhobors.
But there was one major flaw that many authors before have made over the past century. It is about the parable of the
Blind Men and an Elephant which originated in the ancient Indian subcontinent, from where it has been widely diffused. It is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it.
Wikipedia describes the moral of the parable: That humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.
The big elephant here is the Doukhobor Movement. Most of the parents of these children were not Doukhobors because they transgressed the basic tenets of nonkilling by burning public structures and their homes, as well as bombing private property. Nudity was added to the mix. When arrests were made, many made an excuse that they were the rightful owners of the Doukhobors, but in fact they were hijacking the Doukhobor movement as their own.
This hijacking maneuver is one that I as a scholar have been striving to uncover for over 65 years. The mass media is addicted to it, while many readers have been conditioned to believe this falsehood. This is propaganda in action.
I am delighted to review Thomas-Peter's fiction novel, but the famous peace activist song keeps popping up in my head, '
When will they ever learn?'
Yes, this is supposed to be a novel — yet why did the author in the front piece of the book as well as in his Note (p.279) dedicate the book to 'the Doukhobor people of Canada'? Obviously the author has not looked at the full context, but remained captive of the Blind Men and the Elephant.
The learned professional slipped from his novel pedestal to that of history, contributing to harmful fake news. I am sorry that Dr. Thomas-Peter did not read any of my major works on the Doukhobors before he wrote his book, where he would have gained an understanding of the historic context. The fictional individuals that he was writing about were no longer authentic non-violent Doukhobors.
I strongly empathized with the plight of the zealot children at New Denver, but wish to look for the truth in the wider ecological context where relationships do matter.
When will they ever learn to look at the wider truth of the Doukhobor Movement? As a start, have a look at the following sources:
- Popular Myths and Fallacies about the Doukhobors. Spirit Wrestlers: Doukhobor Pioneers' Strategies for Living (2002).
- The 'Sons of Freedom' — a Flashback to 1956. Origins, problems, misconceptions, and relationship to Doukhobors. Spirit Wrestlers website, August 19, 2009. Updated, 2020.
- Differences Between Doukhobors and zealot 'Sons of Freedom'. Spirit Wrestlers Blog. May 18, 2015.
- Evolution of the Doukhobor Movement. Lecture at the University of Ottawa, November 13, 2013. Spirit Wrestlers Website, November 13, 2013.
- Review of News Article about Residential School Apology, Spirit Wrestlers Blog, May 24, 2012
Anyone who knows of the Doukhobors in Canada, the bitterness and various divisions in that community, must realize that there will be those who disagree with whatever you say. So it is with my book The Kissing Fence, a fictional novel. As the author I accept literary critiques, good and bad, with equanimity. I am grateful to Koozma Tarasoff for expressing encouraging views of the book as a literary endeavour. However, his blog is not simply a critique of the literary merits of The Kissing Fence.
At the heart of his complaints is his view that The Kissing Fence does not distinguish as clearly as he would like between those who became known as Sons of Freedom, or Freedomites, and what he considers to be the real Doukhobors, be they of Orthodox or Independent groups. His argument is that Freedomites excluded themselves from Doukhoborism by diverging from the basic tenets of that faith. In this I have, according to Mr Tarasoff, misled the ‘average’ reader, and done harm to the Doukhobor community by perpetuating the unitary public perception of all descendants of Doukhobors being as one; lumping Freedomites, Independent, Orthodox, together and tarring them all with the same brush. This, Koozma Tarasoff likens to the elephant in the room, around which I, like the general public, are blindly searching for an understanding.
Perhaps it is no surprise that someone, Like Koozma Tarasoff, who is steeped in Doukhobor tradition and history, should examine every issue through this particular lens. However, I am surprised at my work being criticized because I have not described to his satisfaction, what he has seen through his lens and would prefer the public to see. Anyone reading The Kissing Fence without his precondition of acceptability in their minds, will see that I have portrayed the agony of division, disagreement, politics and faith in the most personal and human terms, and they will likely understand that Doukhobors are not of a single mind, belief or entity. The disquiet among the community of Doukhobors during the 1960’s, about the actions of the Sons of Freedom is plain in the text. It is and was intended to be revisionist of the history, wholly illuminating to the public’s understanding of these matters, and quite perverse to suggest otherwise.
The world is full of religious groups, including Christians, Muslims, Hindu and Jews, who make distinctions between themselves and others within their faith, and who are subject to various amounts of criticism, exclusion, shunning and worse. Each of these groups, those who separate, are excluded and those who remain, have reasons to think they represent the true way of their faith.
My task, as the author of The Kissing Fence, was to be faithful to those who trusted me with their stories. I did this by respecting how they represent themselves. It would have been quite wrong to do otherwise. It would have been a betrayal, of which there has been quite sufficient without me adding to it.
The issue that really stands out to me in Mr Tarasoff’s blog is that he appears to believe that the Doukhobor / Freedomite story was the only point of the book. This is the problem with viewing through a narrow lens, exaggerating certain issues and missing the wider picture outside of the lens. Of course, The Kissing Fence is about the Doukhobors in BC, about division, betrayal, trans-generational trauma, about resilience, but it is not simply about the Doukhobors! It is a story of how we become what we are, from generations ago; how our sense of self and place in the world can be corrupted with the destruction of lineage and continuity. We see this plainly enough among displaced peoples and aboriginal cultures around the world, but it is true of all of us. If we look carefully we can find that thread, drawn through years, decades, and generations before us, which influences the choices we make everyday.
We can see in western cultures that choices made are often supported by values of individuality, opportunity and greed. These values soar in importance over those found among the traditional Doukhobor people, which include the value of community, the burden of responsibility to faith and obligation to others. These collectivist values were the reason Tolstoy was so enamoured with Doukhobor society. Meanwhile, our society nurtures individualism; the entitlement of acting in our own interests, and accepts the manipulation of truth as a fact of life. It has become child’s play to resist the influence of expectation that might be imposed on us by what is right and wrong. This is the value of the two threads within The Kissing Fence.
Without the burden of moral expectations or the consideration of others, financial and material success is possible, and perhaps even more likely, but what do we become? Along with this ‘success’ comes the risk of profound human failure, loss and confusion of an existential kind. The question of this book is, what does it take to see this kind of failure coming and avert the disaster of existential crisis? What stops us from letting go of what we think is important, in favour of what is important?
The Doukhobor history in Canada, their betrayal and hardship help illustrate these issues, but it is not exclusive in any way to this community. This is the real elephant in the room, to which Mr Tarasoff does not refer."
Excerpt from email sent 14 October 2020 by Dr. Thomas-Peter:
The publisher traced the copyright holder of the front cover photo and paid a royalty to him for use of the picture.
I do not mention your comment that the children were resident in the same facility that the Japanese were interred during the war. This is not quite accurate. The internment camp (now the
Nikkei Memorial centre) is two blocks north on Josephine and 2nd Ave, in New Denver. The Children’s Dormitory was on the south edge of town in what is now the
Slocan Community Health Centre. This is often confused because when the first group of children (and a few nursing mothers) arrived after the Perry Siding raid in 1953, the last of the Japanese internees recovering from tuberculosis were still there. It had been a sanatorium, hence the children called it the ’Sanni’.
I also want you to know how diligent I have been in ensuring Orthodox Doukhobors and those with Freedomite backgrounds have contributed to the original manuscript. There were a number who read large parts of manuscript during the preparation, to ensure I was not misrepresenting them. Some have become friends and I would do nothing to harm or offend them, or you.
Interview:
Podcast :
The Kissing Fence by History Slam Podcast (Download only) — 'In this episode of the History Slam, Sean Graham talks with Brian Thomas-Peter about his new book
The Kissing Fence. They talk about his interviews with survivors, the legacy of internment within the local B.C. and Doukhobor communities, and the importance of telling difficult stories. They also talk about conveying forgotten stories through historical fiction.'
Long Comment by Peter J. Fominoff, New Westminster, BC December 1, 2022
Hello Koozma,
Recently while scanning the Spirit Wrestlers blog, of Koozma Tarasoff, his review [above] of
The Kissing Fence by B. A. Thomas-Peter caught my eye. I had read the book earlier, when I ran across a review of it by
Calvin Sandborn in the Vancouver Sun.* * Though Sandborn "... served on the board of directors of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association for more than a decade", he mistakenly reported that this book is only about Doukhobors 4 times, never once mentioning Sons of Freedom or Freedomites. He should have known about "Righting the Wrong" (1999) in which the B.C. government documents that there are 2 types of Doukhobors distinct from the "Sons of Freedom".
I was happy to read it initially as it is a story that had not before been told and was one, I believe, worth telling. The work treats the subject fairly and accurately, especially when one considers that this is a historically based novel, with fictitious characters rather than an actual history. Having read the review of Koozma Tarasoff, I pulled my copy of the book and refreshed my memory of it. What struck me about the review of Koozma Tarasoff, is that so long as he kept to the task of reviewing, his comments were fair. However, he didn’t leave it at a review, he then plunged into what to me seems a personal diatribe about the definition of a Doukhobor. The review then became an exposition of his personal views rather than a review of the book.
Views on what constitutes a “Doukhobor” are varied. Even in Russia, following the death of Lukeria Kalmykova, there were the Doukhobors who accepted the leadership of Peter V. Verigin, The Lordly, and those who did not. The ones who accepted his leadership subsequently migrated to Canada. The ones who did not, remained in Russia and to this day some of those maintain their Doukhobor identity. These appear to be acknowledged by the Doukhobors of Canada, as Doukhobors. In Canada the Doukhobors split into three factions, namely the Community Doukhobors, the Independents and the Freedomites. In the interim, there has been much movement between the groups, with people changing factions for a variety of reasons. Each faction feels it is the “true” Doukhobor faction. Accordingly, this is a review of a review.
Following the loss of their lands in Saskatchewan, and the migration to BC, many Doukhobors chose to be Independent rather than joining the Community Doukhobors (The Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood or CCUB). On the directions of Peter V. Verigin, The Lordly, the Independents were shunned by the CCUB members causing rifts of friendships and families. This shunning continued for the lifetime of The Lordly. Accordingly, to some, the Independents were not “true authentic Doukhobors.” It is interesting to note that Peter The Lordly, didn’t call for the shunning of the then small group of Freedomite Doukhobors.
It seems Koozma Tarasoff cannot accept that there are descriptions of “Doukhobor” other than his. What are “authentic non-violent Doukhobors?” There may be some, but not many. Doukhobors have been quite willing to take up active resistance when it suited their purpose. It began with the fires of the burning of their arms in Russia. Yes, they are anti-war. But, antiviolent, only in theory.
When Peter P. Verigin (The Cleanser or The Purger or Chistiakov) arrived in Canada, following the assassination of The Lordly, he advised that he would be striving to unite all Doukhobor factions. In one of his early speeches, he likened the Doukhobor factions to a horse. The head being the Freedomites, the body being the Community Doukhobors and the rear being the Independents. In fact, he was ambivalent towards the Freedomites. He praised them and he damned them. In April 1930, during a meeting of all Doukhobors at Brilliant, BC, while the police observed, from a distance, He directed the Community Doukhobors to beat the Freedomites, who were non-resisting. This the Community Doukhobors, with the active participation of Peter The Purger himself, enthusiastically did, en masse. Non-violence? Doukhobors have always been more than ready to settle personal disputes with fists. They defended themselves very ably against non-Doukhobor onslaughts with their fists. Perhaps that is why they were not often set upon by non-Doukhobor bullies, who knew that they would have a fight on their hands if they tried. Members of all factions of Doukhobors, not only could, but did, fight.
The foregoing Doukhobor leaders did not proclaim the Freedomites to be non-Doukhobors. The view of Mr. Tarasoff is not shared by most of the Doukhobors. In the 1950s when I was growing up, there was a joke circulating among the outside community. Question: What’s the difference between a Freedomite and a Community Doukhobor? Answer: Five minutes.
To say that only 5% of Doukhobors were Freedomite is dead wrong. Especially during the time frame of the book. Following the arrival of Peter, The Purger, the number of Freedomites grew exponentially. At that time, they probably numbered closer to 50% of the Doukhobor population. Many claimed that he encouraged them to join the Freedomite faction. I don’t know.
Koozma Tarasoff, outlines the types of schools that Doukhobors wanted and then goes on to review the RCMP raids, beginning in 1954, to catch and forcefully place truant Freedomite Doukhobor children into the residential school that had now come into existence. What he misses is that initially the arrests were of parents and took place in 1953, under the “Doukhobor” section of the Criminal Code of Canada enacted specifically to deal with the public nudity of Freedomite Doukhobors. The parents were rounded up and all women received sentences of two years in jail and all men received three years. All with only a semblance of due process. The parentless children were taken to New Denver as “collateral damage” resulting from the arrests of the parents. That raid by the RCMP was not for the purpose of pursuing truant children. The hunting down of truant children began later in 1954.
Having said the above, it must be stated that those who committed criminal acts of violence, ought to have been, and were prosecuted as criminals, and that is as it should be. It is a matter of record that numbers of Freedomites did in fact bomb and burn both private and public property. Those few have tarnished the image of all Doukhobors. Koozma Tarasoff makes the baseless claim that most of the Freedomites had been burning and bombing public and private property. Most of the Freedomites arrested and sentenced to jail following the RCMP raid in Perry Siding had not committed the offenses with which they were charged and convicted, namely, public nudity. Those arrested in Perry Siding did not face charges of bombing and burning. Most Freedomites did not commit any criminal act. I do note that a number of people highlighted in the books of Koozma Tarasoff, as Doukhobors had Freedomite backgrounds. He does not go on to explain how they later morphed into “authentic Doukhobors.”
My point in the foregoing is that the book The Kissing Fence is a good and reasonably accurate review of what happened in the 1950s with the Freedomite Doukhobor children, and is well worth reading. The author has researched his subject well, and has marshalled his facts based on that research. The book is entertaining, informative and compelling reading.
The review of Koozma Tarasoff suffers from his trying to straddle two pedestals; that of the academic reviewer, and that of the advocate for his view of what constitutes a “Doukhobor.” The first ought to be objective, and the second is, by definition, subjective. If one tries to straddle both, one ends up on neither pedestal.
My objective in the above is to present a different point of view. Your blog is a valuable resource for any person interested in the topic of Doukhobors, and it is my hope that it continues to be published.
