"What is the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada? Is this going to be an ending? Or is it going to be another beginning? The answer will be revealed tomorrow morning.
Last summer when I already knew that the case was going to Ottawa, I decided that one way to fight the suspense would be to become focused on something else. I chose to enroll in a Master's level Executive Coaching course at Royal Roads University in Victoria. It's a full year intense course that has truly held me captive.
Today's assignment was to read, an essay, Brain-Based Approach to Coaching, by David Rock. It was perfect.
His premise is that "getting people to change is becoming increasingly important in our rapidly changing work environment."
But concludes that "change is much harder than we think." Apparently even the smallest changes take concentrated effort.
He makes a very convincing argument.
While everyone else might be focusing on what this Court's decision means for Grant and for our collective need for justice, that isn't want we as a family are focused on right now.
Even though we want justice and we want the courts to come up with the right decision, that isn't what will effect us.
Last night, I arranged a three-way telephone conference call so we could talk to our two adult children, about the anticipated decision.
First of all, we clarified for ourselves the three possibilities.
The first possibility is that the Supreme Court of Canada would uphold the trial's verdict of guilty. I assumed this would be the preferable decision.
The second possibility was that Supreme Court of Canada would rule in favor of the Manitoba Appeal judges decision to order a new trial.
The third possibility was that the case would ultimately be dropped, Grant would go free. None of could see this happening. Even if the case is dropped, Grant will never be a free man. The community, the police and those concerned will find ways to monitor his behavior.
What surprised me was how my preference for the first possibility that the Supreme Court of Canada would uphold the trial verdict, was not necessarily my children's foremost choice.
They were quite ambivalent about it all actually. Even though the bottom line is that we all want the justice system to make the right decision, they wondered openly if a final resolution might be a let down. It will be over. This is when I realized for our children, all of their adult life the last 30 years, they had been living with this question, "Who had killed Candace?" In their minds and lives this has almost become part of their identity.
We admitted that as a family, we had actually become accustomed to it. It had not necessarily been all negative, it had also held opportunities, privileges and learnings. We had learned to live in the tension.
If we were to take an image of the Old Testament, the people of Israel had first became very accustomed to slavery in Egypt, then they had became very accustomed to being nomads wandering in the desert for 40 years, so accustomed that when they reached the promised land, it is very clear that they weren't prepared to claim it for themselves. From all accounts, each transition, no matter how bad it was, like the slavery in Egypt, like the wandering in the desert, as a people they were reluctant to move into a new place.
We didn't want to be like them. At the end of the call we did conclude that even though we will naturally resist change, we will step into this new reality whatever it is. Just talking about it helped us let go of the comfort of the old. Even though the decision might thrust us into a new reality that might not seem familiar, we are optimistic that we will deal with it. The resilience we learned wandering in the nomadic desert, is transferable.
Having had this conversation relieved me immensely. It really doesn't matter to us as a family, whatever the decision. The three possibilities - are possibilities.
In tragedy, it's hard to find a good resolution; it's not black and white: it's a big fog of gray. - Paul Dano