Conflict Resolution Group Paper: Facilitating Discussions

A Conflict Intervention in Guelph

April 6th, 2011

Submitted to: Professor Farhoumand-Sims

Submitted by: Sean Dawson, Sue-Anne Hess, Elizabeth Kellett,

Chelsea Sutcliffe, & Emily Tousaw

Course: ECS 5131

Overview of the Conflict

The initial conflict between the Guelph Westminster Woods (WW) community and the

Guelph Sikh community began in October 2009 (Nasswetter 66). A Sikh Gurdwara proposal was

made public and the conflict began to escalate between the Sikh Society and the WW residents.

Issues arose surrounding the construction of the Gurdwara on claims of urban planning such as

noise, traffic, parking, light pollution, and different architectural styles. Those who opposed the

Gurdwara used social networking tools such as blogs and a website entitled “Stop-the-

Gurdwara.com” to rally against the proposed Gurdwara (Findlay). While most residents had

legitimate planning concerns, others made racial and ethnic slurs about the Sikh community and

based their opposition to the Gurdwara on racial issues, alleging violence of the Sikh community

and religion (G&BZ). The blogs containing racial comments frustrated the Guelph community,

residents of WW, and the Guelph Sikh Society (G&BZ; Findlay) and people who opposed the

Gurdwara for reasons unrelated to racism or prejudice felt silenced or labelled as bigots (G&BZ).

The anonymity of blogs and frustration with a potential new house of worship in a residential

area led to heated discussions, which may have allegedly led to two bricks being thrown through

the current Sikh Gurdwara front window in March 2010 as the proposal was moving forward.

As the situation escalated, WW residents appealed the proposal, though it was withdrawn

a few days before the deadline (Findlay). After making concessions on the height and size of the

Gurdwara domes, and being carefully reviewed by the City of Guelph and the Department of

Planning, Engineering, and Environmental Services, rezoning of the site to accommodate the

Gurdwara was recommended for approval by Planning Services to the City Council, without

community appeal, on June 7, 2010 (Nasswetter 66).

2

The Plan

Our intervention team has been invited by City Council, the Guelph Sikh Society, and

residents of WW community to engage in a series of facilitated discussions that work towards

peaceful resolutions and relationship building between the major actors. We have been asked to

meet with two members from the Sikh Society and WW Residents’ Association; Guelph City

Council Ward, Ian Findlay; and city development planner Katie Nasswetter. Each person

attending has been nominated as representative by their respective communities. To ensure

equality, only two members from our intervention team will participate directly.

Phase One: This first encounter will be centered on building relationships and trust. It will be

conducted as a facilitated discussion and the goal will be to come up with strategies for positive

communication between all parties.

Phase Two: Phase Two will take place at a mutually decided location. This second phase will seek

to reach out to participants in a series of activities that include writing out and clarifying any

misperceptions each party has about the “other.” Parties will then come together to look at

brainstorming about the possibility of a third phase.

Phase Three (optional): Phase Three would be carried out by the participants in two parts. Part

I will encourage each party to come together on the day of the ground-breaking ceremony of the

Sikh Gurdwara. Part II will encourage parties to come up with ways to promote multiculturalism

within Guelph. Options could include but are not limited to: forming a Guelph Multicultural

Group that looks at building lasting relationships within the community, or bringing together

youth to form a multicultural youth group.

3

Who?

The intervention team was instructed by City Council to invite only two representatives

from each party as a single representative may be too vulnerable and more than two

representatives would overwhelm the dialogue structure. Joseph V. Montville supports this by

suggesting that the ideal number of representatives involved in a problem-solving workshop

should be between three and seven, with the intervention team inviting two to five

representatives (Montville 114). Montville suggests some variation on these numbers is

acceptable, so for the purpose of this intervention two representatives from each party will be

ideal.

The Guelph Sikh Society is expected to send their council vice president Dr. Ravi Rai,

who has been an active spokesperson for the Society throughout the conflict, along with another

society member. The WW community association is expected to send their chair Adam Minnion,

in addition to another member. The intervention team has invited Ian Findlay (ward two

representative) and Katie Nasswetter (city development planner) due to their expertise on this

conflict. The intervention team has elected to send two of its members in order to keep numbers

even and avoid power imbalances. No formal minutes or recording of the discussion will be

taken, and no press will be invited in order to ensure all parties feel comfortable to speak freely.

Phase Two of the intervention process will involve the same parties and representatives

as above. For the third phase, the representatives will be given the option of inviting two youth

representatives from their parties. The intervention team feels it is important to involve youth but

elected not to in earlier phases because there was no clear indication the youth were directly

4

involved in the conflict. Youth involvement in Phase Three of the intervention will help to build

future healthy relationships between the communities.

What?

Facilitated Discussions: Our intervention team has chosen the conflict resolution method

of facilitated discussions because the substantive conflict has already been resolved and there is

no longer a need for arbitration, negotiation, or bargaining. However, tensions still exist between

the Sikh Society and the WW residents and given that the Sikhs will be present within this

neighbourhood, the intervention team would like to focus on building relationships between the

two groups and fostering mutual respect. According to Montville, facilitated discussions or

workshops “make possible a process of undermining negative stereotypes held by the

participants and re-humanizing their relationships. By dealing with each other at close quarters

over a period of days, representatives of the groups in conflict learn that they can act openly and

honestly with each other…” (Montville 114). We would like to find interests common to each

group to strengthen relationships and humanize the other.

Discussions have proven successful in cases of “divided societies” (Castarphen and

Shapiro 188). The discussion process is “designed to change conflictual relationships over time.

[It] is more than just good conversation and less than a structured negotiation” (Slim and

Saunders in Castarphen and Shapiro 188). By providing a safe environment and structured

interaction, participants can explore the issues that separate them and identify common interests

and concerns to help build relationships and develop long-term solutions (Castarphen and

Shapiro 188). The strategy of facilitating discussions will allow the participants to focus on

5

relational issues, rather than substantive or procedural issues and it is our hope the interpersonal

dynamics will be shifted (Castarphen and Shapiro 189).

It is also our hope that by strengthening the relationships between Sikh Society and WW

residents through facilitated discussions, public consciousness may be transformed (Montville

123). Montville explains that a “change of attitude depends…on interpersonal communications

networks in which respected opinion leaders and then near peers accept the new information as

valid and thus change their attitudes” (Montville 124). By inviting parties to the discussion, we

hope to strengthen the relationships of those representatives who, in turn, can exemplify and

permeate these positive relations to the larger communities.

Facilitator Role: Our roles as interveners must also be intentional. Inspired by the

approach of Mitchell in the Northern Irish conflict (Curran, Sebenius, and Watkins), we want to

create and secure a mutual space that welcomes each party to the table. We will plan the

agendas and adapt them as required; oversee and guide the discussion as necessary, taking into

account the mood and atmosphere of the meetings; and use different styles of facilitation

depending on the discussion (from a laissez-faire approach to one that is more controlled). We

will also be reconcilers, to help improve relations between the Sikh Society and the residents.

(Castarphen and Shapiro 201). Our team is especially concerned with creating a space where we

can serve the needs of the parties, build teams appropriate to these needs, avoid coercive

behaviour, and move forward objectively (Potapchuk 4). Our two representative members will

need to use their positive, open and non-judgmental interpersonal skills, to earn the trust of the

parties so that they can guide the process (Potapchuk 4). We feel that in order to gain the trust of

the participants, establishing these elements is crucial.

6

To maximize the effectiveness of our procedure, our intervention team will be aware of

four main qualities of the procedure: fairness, participant satisfaction, effectiveness, and

efficiency (Sheppard 169). We want to ensure that each participant perceives that the process is

fair; we will do this by agreeing to terms and conditions of our facilitated discussion. Regarding

objectivity, we are committed to ensuring neutrality as third party interveners. We will assume a

certain level of disputant control by allotting time for participants to speak and to listen; and we

will protect each participant’s individual rights by ensuring these times are respected (Sheppard

169). To ensure participant satisfaction (Sheppard 170), we will guarantee confidentiality; we

will also ensure that the participants are committed to the procedure and the outcome by having

each community nominate interested representatives to attend. Effectiveness of the procedure

will be evaluated at the end of each discussion: the participants will be surveyed to find out what

they learned, and what improvements or changes they would like to see in the next session. The

quality and quantity of information (Sheppard 170) will be considered in this discussion – it is

not an opportunity for participants to rant and judge the others, but to be fair, open and honest in

order for the interveners to manage interpersonal conflict. Finally, the intervention team will

strive for efficiency by considering the timing of the procedure (in terms of ripeness and an

appropriate amount of time between each session); and being the least disruptive as possible

(Sheppard 171) by asking participants to agree collectively on the next date of the session (dates

to be proposed by the intervention team).

Finally, our intervention team will facilitate these discussions in the spirit of conciliation,

in which an intervener working with parties “attempts to correct misperceptions, reduce

unreasonable fears, and improve communication to an extent that will produce face-to-face

discussion…” (Potapchuk and Carlson 32). We will use our role as interveners to truly listen and

7

understand the issues at heart. As Curle explains, “once an intervener has listened and understood,

the words on how to interpret the actions of others will flow in a way that begins to diminish the

psychological barriers between the parties” (Potapchuk 7). As third party interveners, it is critical

that we explain our focus on improving communication, promoting face-to-face interaction, and

providing alternative approaches for action (Potapchuk 6). We will actively listen, interpret, and

respond as necessary.

Where?

The intervention team has put significant time and energy into selecting an appropriate

forum for Phase One of the intervention. As W. Potapchuk and C. Carlson point out, the proper

choice of a forum for dispute resolution is critical to its success (Potapchuk and Carlson 36). The

authors also suggest the interveners must consider the cultural and social factors that may be

associated with a venue (Potapchuk and Carlson 37). As a result, the intervention team has

decided that because food plays a central role in bonding in most societies, Phase One will take

place at a restaurant over dinner. The restaurant chosen is Circa 79, a popular Italian restaurant in

the north end of Guelph. The restaurant has limited seating, allowing the discussion to take place

in private. The restaurant is a neutral setting for all parties for two reasons: it is outside of ward 2

(where the Gurdwara is to be built) and its cuisine is not indigenous to any specific party.

Potapchuk and Carlson suggest that when holding a discussion in a new forum it is

important to set out procedures and processes (Potapchuk and Carlson 37). Considering this, the

intervention team has decided to begin the discussion with a brief introduction to the event along

with strategies for positive communication. These strategies will include requirements that all

parties treat others with respect and that offensive, insulting, or aggressive language will not be

8

tolerated. Furthermore, the parties will receive an explanation of the choice of forum, as

Potapchuk and Carlson suggest, demonstrating that it is a good space for discussion and the

exchange of ideas (Potapchuk and Carlson 37).

In addition to the strategies for positive communication and information about the venue,

the facilitators will also guide the participants through an icebreaking exercise to begin the

discussion. The exercise will ask that participants speak briefly about a hobby they enjoy. This

will provide an opportunity to connect on a personal level that will help promote dialogue and

reduce hostility through common interests. As Cheshmak Farhoumand-Sims suggests, discussing

matters of personal importance humanizes the other and increases willingness to resolve conflict

(January 26, 2011). The intervention team is confident that the chosen venue, the strategies for

positive communication, and the icebreaking activity will create the ideal conditions for a

meaningful and beneficial dialogue between the parties in the conflict in order to promote

discussion.

The second and optional third phases will be held at a location of the parties choosing,

with a level of involvement from the intervention team that the parties see fit. This again avoids

the intervention team being overly prescriptive in the process.

When?

Our initial meeting with the groups will begin one month before the ground-breaking

ceremony for the Gurdwara. Our purpose for conducting the intervention at this time is to foster

good faith between the two groups so they can potentially plan the ground-breaking ceremony for

the construction of the Gurdwara in an act of solidarity.

9

The reason we chose to do our intervention at this time is because it is a true time of

ripeness according to Hancock. Landon Hancock uses William Zartman’s idea of ripeness by

indicating that negotiation, or in this case, intervention, comes about when two groups reach a

mutually hurting stalemate (Hancock 196). The stalemate comes at a time when the Sikhs are

feeling unwelcome in the WW neighbourhood, and the WW residents are upset that they “lost.”

This mutually hurting stalemate allows for the beginning of the intervention as ripeness is

present (Hancock 196). Zartman’s notion includes recognition at the outset of the ripeness by the

interveners and we have decided that the ground-breaking ceremony is a good time to ease

tensions left over from the conflict through the relationships we hope will be built through our

intervention process.

This is also a time in which both groups are looking for and are willing to engage in a

“search for a peaceful settlement” which also indicates a situation is ripe (Hancock 199). Since

the Gurdwara has been approved for building, both groups are hoping to reach understanding,

recognizing that they will be regularly involved with each others’ communities.

Richard Haass lists four prerequisites for ripeness: the desire to come to an agreement,

the ability of the leaders to agree and then sell the agreement to their groups, the ability to protect

their interests in the negotiations and the ability to create a negotiation (intervention) process that

is acceptable for the parties involved (Hancock 197). The groups in this situation want to solve

their problems and have agreed to come to the table with the intent of changing their perceptions

and building relationships that are acceptable to both parties. We feel that now is the time for the

intervention because the stalemate and ripeness may not last as construction commences

(Hancock 200).

10

The purpose of pursuing and using ripeness in this intervention is that the groups will be

involved in a timely and appropriate manner of helping both communities grow together and

understand each other. In this way, understanding that the conflict is ripe, the groups will be able

to put an end to tensions, and hopefully come together after three sessions to work towards a

ground-breaking ceremony that they have planned together, in their quest for sustainable, peaceful

resolutions.

Why?

We recognize, contrasted with conflicts where issues of justice or power imbalances must

be addressed, that our primary objective in this instance is the building of positive relationships

(Montville 115) to clear up misperceptions and move to a place of mutual understanding. For

example, by inviting the contribution of the city planner in the discussion, we hope to clarify

questions involving any zoning issues, traffic concerns, noise levels, sewer problems and so on.

However, for less tangible, relational issues (such as interpreting the views and

behaviours of others) we must keep in mind how attitudes and emotions have shaped the conflict

(Bowman). The perception of another’s actions and intentions may be misinterpreted, leading to

a negative emotional response, which, in turn, escalates the conflict (Maiese). We will use the

work of C.R Mitchell to consider, “common phenomena of group perception during conflict, and

distortions or misperceptions caused by high levels of tension, fear, suspicion and anxiety” (99).

It will be crucial to consider Mitchell’s arguments when looking at misperceptions of the two

major parties involved in this conflict in order to identify and address how group perceptions

have influenced similar feelings of “fear” and “suspicion” within this conflict situation.

11

Therefore, we have designed this intervention process in a way that we hope is sensitive

to the wide range of emotions that the participants may be feeling, such as fear (as mentioned),

shame, anger and pride, guilt, sadness or contempt (Jameson, Bodtker, and Jones 200). We

recognize that each person's emotional response is expected to be different and hope to provide a

non-critical environment that allows parties to feel and experience resolution of these emotions

(Maiese). We are especially aware of the possibility that members of the WW Association may

be experiencing emotions of humiliation and 'loss of face' (Fisher and Ury 28), given that their

efforts to stop the Gurdwara from being built were unsuccessful.

We believe that a key strategy within our intervention is to identify and address specific

misperceptions in Phase Two. For example, the following statement of a member of the

opposing party alleges,”…Sikhs are “known for their violent doctrine,” while another wrote of

“the generally low view of Sikhism as a religion” and referred to the 1985 Air India Bombing

which was orchestrated by Sikh separatists (Tracey). Both of these statements illustrate the

unhelpful nature of these types of stereotypes (Avruch and Black 131). We hope that first, by a

safe encounter with the “other,” these attitudes may be replaced by a personal experience

(Montville 111) and second, that once a basic relationship of trust has been established, a well-

facilitated large group conversation may provide the opportunity to address them directly

(Montville 115).

Properly identifying the perceptions and thinking of each party helps to contextualize the

conflict and put into perspective the fears of each of the two main parties involved. Fisher and

Ury remind us that it is important to,

Put yourself in their shoes… Out of a mass of detailed information, they tend to pick out and focus on those facts that confirm their prior

12

perceptions and to disregard or misinterpret those that call their perceptions into question. (23).

Bringing to light the perceptions of each party will help to focus our discussion

throughout the session. Without a clear understanding of each party’s perceived notions of the

‘other’ we would not have the ability to assist either party along the path to reconciliation

because,

The ability to see the situation as the other side sees it, as difficult as it may be, is one of the most important skills a negotiator can possess. It is not enough to know that they see things differently”. (Fisher and Ury 23).

We believe that this conflict situation in particular suffers from misconceived notions of

the “other” as Dr. Ravi Rai, head of the Sikh Society in Guelph, mentions, “I think the biggest

problem is people don’t really understand how we operate” (Kirsch). It is our hope that this

facilitated discussion will bring to light the fears of each main party and put to rest the

misinformed ‘realities’ that each party has about the ‘other’. By creating a safe space for parties

to discuss their fears and perceptions we hope to be able to facilitate a positive discussion that

will address any tensions that exist between the parties.

Our ultimate goal is to facilitate the transition from mistrust and hostility between groups,

to mutual affirmation and co-operation (Hoglund and Svensson 370). We intend to be quite

visible at the first meeting (to diffuse tensions), but less so in the second meeting. In fact, we

hope that by the third meeting, the parties will no longer require the presence of an intervention

team and may be able to create mutually affirming options for the future unassisted (Fisher and

Ury 63). Of course, relying on the needs of the parties, we are willing to continue the facilitation

if needed. For example, as a way of 'saving face' (Fisher and Ury 28) it might be possible to

involve members of the Residents' Association in 'Beautiful Guelph City', or other community

13

celebrations. We are also aware that the Gurdwara is slated to be built in May so we would hope

to foster healthy relationships between the parties that will allow all to feel welcome to be

present at the ground-breaking as a gesture of unity.

Reflections

We understand that this intervention may not go as planned. While we have done our best

to design an appropriate intervention for the conflict situation we cannot predict the outcomes of

this human interaction. We strongly feel that by bringing the members of each party together we

will be able to help facilitate constructive outcomes in a peaceful manner. Our decision to only

include two members from each party may be a weakness but our hope is that through an initial

meeting further concerns of the group can be addressed and additional people from the

community may be invited in the future. The relationship between Sikhs and WW residents is

embedded in a larger structure, and as interveners, we want to encourage the relationships

fostered in these discussions to extend to and influence the greater Sikh and Guelph

communities. However, this is not guaranteed through our intervention process.

We hope that this process will be flexible and dynamic. We have identified one possible

flaw in that only adults (and not youth) are included in the decision-making process. Perhaps the

participation of children and youth should occur from the beginning? According to the UN

Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 12 calls for the respect of views of children and

states, “(W)hen adults are making decisions that affect children, children have the right to say

what they think should happen and have their opinions taken into account…”(UNICEF).

Towards the end of our first facilitated discussion we hope to incorporate the idea of youth

14

contributing to the peace talks. It is our hope that by Phase Three the adults involved in the

intervention will see the added value of including youth in the peacemaking process.

We also understand that this process that is not one to be hurried. We are relying on the

co-operation and ‘buy-in’ of each person at the table to propel this intervention forward. For

example, we recognize that ice-breakers between previously opposed parties will involve some

risk and possible vulnerability. We rely on parties’ willingness to ‘stick their neck out’ (Hoglund

and Svennson 330) in small ways, to show their interest in reconciliation. This is something that

can only be invited, but not forced.

We have hoped-for goals, but not deadlines, as we would like to continually emphasize

the non-critical nature of this process. We would hope, (consistent with Fisher and Ury's theory)

that as the intervention continues, parties would be able to form their own goals and take on

ownership of this process, relying on the creative strength of relationship-building (Redekop

277). We hope to involve participants in decision-making as much as possible, increasing their

ownership as appropriate, while offering a healthy level of support to maintain trust and focus

(Curran, Sebenius and Watkins 526).

15

Appendix

Appendix A – budget/timeline

Phase 1: Initial Meeting and intervention (facilitated discussion): April 2, 2011, Dinner at Circa

79 Italian Restaurant

Outline of evening:

6pm-6:15: Welcome

6:15-6:30: Icebreaker: Sharing with a group a hobby you have

6:30-6:35: Setting up strategies for communication

6:35-7:00: Identifying expected outcomes from the intervention team, from the parties, etc

7:00-8:00: Trust-building exercises,

8:00-8:45: Discussion to identify future goals, suggestions for improvement

8:45-9:00: Wrap-up of discussion, agreeing on a place to meet next time

Cost incurred for this dinner meeting: Chart paper, $19.99, Dinner for 8 people $372.30 (incl.

HST and 15% tip), total $392.29, services contracted: $1000.00 for 2 interveners for the evening,

plus 500.00 for a tailored plan.

Cost for phase 1: $1892.29

Phase 2: Where they have decided to meet, for dinner

6:00-6:15: Agenda for the evening

6:15-6:30: Reminder of ground-rules and Icebreaker

6:30-7:45: Addressing misperceptions: Writing them down, discussing the hurt, dispelling myths

7:45-8:00: Opportunity for groups to respond to each other (opportunities for community)  

8:00-9:00: Planning the third phase and ground breaking ceremony

Cost incurred for another dinner meeting if at a restaurant, decided by participants: Chart paper:

$19.99, Dinner for 8 people $300-600, depending on where they have decided to go. Services

contracted: $1000.00 for 2 interveners for the evening, plus $500.00 for phase 2 plan

Cost for phase 2: $1819.99-2119.99

16

Appendix B – Concepts Used in the Intervention

Source Concepts Used

Avruch, Kevin and Peter Black. Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application

- understanding how unhelpful cultural stereotyping is in conflict and the necessity to avoid it

C.R. Mitchell. The Structure of International Conflict

- considering group perceptions during conflict, and distortions or misperceptions caused by high levels of tension, fear, suspicion and anxiety

Castarphen, Nike and Ilana Shapiro. Case Analysis: Facilitating Between Gang Members and Police

- the dialogue process creates a safe space and structured interaction for participants; this will assist participants in identifying common interests and long-term solutions, and clarify misperceptions

- focus on relational issues

Curran, D. Sebenius, J.K. and Watkins, M. Case Analysis: Two Paths to Peace: Contrasting George Mitchell in Northern Ireland with Richard Holbrooke in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

- the importance of the collaborative approach and

Farhoumand-Sims, Cheshmak. Approaches to Resolution Lecture.

- use of personal stories or information to connect on a personal level beyond the identities of the conflict

Fisher and Ury. Getting to Yes. - the importance of being empathetic to the other party’s point of view and the emotions behind it

- understanding that the parties may want to ‘save face’

Hancock, Landon E. To Act or Wait: A Two-Stage View of Ripeness

- using William Zartman’s ripeness requiring a mutually hurting stalemate

- using Richard Haass’ ripeness including desire for agreement, ability to agree, protecting interests, process acceptable to both parties

Jameson, Bodtker, and Jones. Like Talking To A Brick Wall.

- the importance of addressing emotions in conflict

Maiese, Michelle. Emotion. - the importance of emotions: being aware of and sensitive to them and how they can make a conflict worse

Montville, Joseph. The healing function - Montville stresses the importance of workshops with

17

in political conflict resolution between three and seven participants, to rehumanize relationships

- transforming public consciousness: if respected representatives from both communities can forge new relationships, hopefully these will extend to the greater Sikh and WW communities

Potapchuk, William and Chris Carlson. Using Conflict Analysis to Determine Intervention Techniques.

- focusing on conciliation to work with parties to correct misperceptions and reduce unreasonable fears

Potapchuk, William. The Third Party Role: A Comparative Examination of Burton, Curle, and Laue

- as third party intervenors we want to serve the needs of the parties, build teams appropriate to these needs, avoid coercive behaviour and move forward objectively

Slim, Randa and Harold Saunders. Managing Conflict in Divided Societies: Lessons from Tajikistan.

- facilitated dialogues can help to foster reconciliation and understanding in ‘divided societies’ (societies in conflict where issues of identity and self-determination for certain groups exist)

Redekop, Vern Neufeld. From Violence to Blessing.

- the creative power of relation-building

Sheppard, Blair H. Third Party Conflict Intervention: A Procedural Framework

- when planning our intervention, our team made sure to focus on four main qualities of procedures themselves: fairness, participant satisfaction, effectiveness, and efficiency

18

Works Cited

Avruch, Kevin and Peter Black, "Conflict Resolution in Intercultural Settings: Problems and Prospects," in Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application, edited by Dennis Sandole and Hugo van der Merwe. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993.

Castarphen, N. and Shapiro. “Facilitating Between Gang Members and Police.” Negotiation Journal. April 1997.

Curran, D. Sebenius, J.K. and Watkins, M., “Case Analysis: Two Paths to Peace: Contrasting George Mitchell in Northern Ireland with Richard Holbrooke in Bosnia-Herzegovina”. In Negotiation Journal, October (2004).

Findlay, Ian. "Anti-Gurdwara meeting slated, organizers unclear." Ward 2 Guelph: The Deuce. Guelph, 4 March 2010.

Findlay, Ian. Telephone interview. 20 February 2011.

Fisher, Roger; William Ury and Bruce Patton. “Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In”.  New York: Penguin Books, 1991.

G&BZ. "410 Clair Road East." Ward 2 Guelph: The Deuce. Guelph: Ian Findlay. 30 November 2009. Web. 18 March 2011.

Hancock, Landon E. "To Act or Wait: A Two-Stage View of Ripeness." International Studies Perspectives (2001): 195-205.

Hoglund, K. and Svensson, I., “‘Sticking One’s Neck Out’: Reducing Mistrust in Sri Lanka’s Peace Negotiations”. Negotiation Journal, October (2006).

Jameson, J.K., Bodtker, A. M. and Jones, T., “Like Talking to a Brick Wall: Implications of Emotion Metaphors for Mediation Practice.” Negotiation Journal, April (2006).

Maiese, Michelle, “Emotions: Beyond Intractibility. ” Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Resolution Consortium, University of Colorado: Boulder. 2005. Web. 1 March 2011.

Mitchell, C.R. “The Structure of International Conflict”. United States: St. Martin’s Press, 1989.

Montville, Joseph V. “The Healing Function in Political Conflict Resolution.” Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice Integration and Application. (Ed.) Dennis J. D. Sandole and Hugo van der Merwe. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1993.

Nasswetter, Katie. “410 Clair Road East: Proposed Zoning By-law.” Guelph, Ontario, Canada: City of Guelph, 2010.

19

Potapchuk, W and Carlson, C. “Using Conflict Analysis to Determine Intervention Techniques.” Practical Strategies for the Phases of Mediation.

Redekop, Vern Neufeld. From Violence to Blessing: How an understanding of deep-rooted conflict can open paths to reconciliation. Toronto: Novalis, 2002.

Sheppard, Blair H. “Third Party Conflict Intervention: A Procedural Framework.” Research In Organizational Behaviour vol 6. 1984.

Tracey, Scott. “Standing Room only as council considers Sikh Gurdwara proposal”. Guelph Mercury. 7 December 2009. Web. 29 March 2011.

UNICEF. “Fact Sheet: A Summary of the Rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.” UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. 10 Feb. 2006. Web. 3 April 2011.

20