Well, what do you know? Now Tsering Damchog and Tsevegar Rimpoche have added their names to the 'Defend Christopher Hansard' petition and they are pissed at him too. That's four mysterious characters who were once singing Hansard's praises on Amazon and now are expressing their deep disappointment in the man - and on the wrong petition.

I will again advise the friends of Hansard to go and get him the medical help he needs and stop propping up his collapsing shamballa sand castle.

Moderator
As has been proven you were right about Mr. Black I stand corrected.

Dorje:
I wholeheartedly agree. CH should be seeking help. Those around and close to him should be advising him to do this, but first to STOP treating people.

I think the point that mediatoruk was trying to make is that UK law is very different to USA law both in its nature and content. If the case were to be taken to UK courts the results and responsibilities would be seen and treated differently. His point, I think, is that while naming Hansard about provable abuse is valid, trying to draw in those who out of good faith believed or worked alongside him may lay the accuser open to some form of scrutiny and possibly prosecution if those accused chose to go to law.

Before anyone says it… no I am not Hansard, no I am not subverting the thread, yes I am advising caution as this thread is about Hansard. This thread is not about subjecting those who have been, to use a JB phrase ‘Dur Conned’, to abuse or ridicule.

I am glad he is being forced to mend his ways, the only problem being can those he wronged ever mend their hearts?

James

Real-name-gone:

No, mediatoruk had only one point in posting here and it was to subvert this thread.

He first posed as a Hansard client "Frank Black" and then as a would-be lawyer doling out self-serving legal advice, which was actually more about intimidation than facts of law.

His legal points are and were moot, which he eventually admitted.

The important thing to understand through all this is that Hansard and his crew are watching this thread fairly closely.

This means that anyone posting here should be careful about sharing information that would tend to identify them.

That is, if you wish to remain anonymous, either through posts on the board and/or private messaging, don't disclose personal details or information.

Those who "believed or worked alongside" Hansard may have helped him to hurt others in some way.

There also may be people that profited from their association with Hansard.

These are reasonable issues to discuss in a courteous manner, keeping in mind that those involved with Hansard may have also been victims.

Moderator...I agree entirely and your comments raise an important; if to some, sensitive issue, namely could Christopher Hansard have deceived, and manipulated for example native people's in Canada, [i:33406f1f90]without [/i:33406f1f90]the active support and involvement of a number of 'believers'? Working in isolation, and minus a network of supporters, could he have arranged the schedules. hosted the workshops, organized the venues, managed the promotions, communicated within local groups? This is the [i:33406f1f90]active assistance [/i:33406f1f90]I referred to, from which surfaces reasonable and natural [i:33406f1f90]questions[/i:33406f1f90] of complicity.

Jeff Bowe:

Here is the point.

Were those people associated with Hansard, the folks that may have helped him, under undue influence?

Were they also manipulated, exploited and/or abused?

Were they also deceived?

There may be some that associated with Hansard for personal and/or financial gratification.

But did they know who Hansard was and what he was all about?

Let's not "throw the baby out with the bathwater."

There may be some people that knowingly helped Hansard for personal gain and they may be others that helped him, but were ignorant of his history and alleged abusive behavior.

I don't think that we will ever know the whole truth, all of the people involved and the level of involvement. Moderator I am gald to see that you puttting a voice forward to be cautious about painting everyone with the same brush. There are a number of people who supported and promoted CH, to various extents without knowing about his other " activities" ( Paul Nelson, Steve and Suzanne Lawson come to mind). Many of these people would take offense at being referred to as victims though. If your experience of CH was one of healing and empowerment then that is how you would promote him.
I know that there are a number of people whose experience of CH has been negative ( to say the least) and it must be very difficult for them to hear of others whose experiences were good. To those who support CH following this site; if CH is who he says he is A Bon Master Physician, then shouldn't he be answering to these people directly? Where is the accountability?
And Yes Jeff, in my opinion there are a slim few who, in my opinion profited from CH and looked the other way.

Hello Moderator,
I'm having a difficult time getting my post into the Christopher Hansard thread. Twice now it's been posted in a separate thread called Christopher Hansard Vancouver 1993/94. It's not meant to be a separate thread but an addiction to the existing 53 page thread.
Can you please re-post it in the original thread?
Thank you


Sure.

EZ[/color:a605cb022e]

For those who have enquired, Christopher Hansard first came to Vancouver in 1993 and 1994 to do retreats and workshops. He also taught some of the spiritual practices of Dur Bon to those who wanted to be students of the path. He said he was not a guru but a spiritual friend who could teach these practices to students.

His friends, supporters, students and workshop/retreat attendees grew rapidly in that short period of time.

Why did he stop coming? There were allegations of sexual misconduct from one student. Christopher Hansard denied misconduct, however there was sufficient cause for many of his students to seriously question his behaviour, and there was quite a furor. The result was that Christopher Hansard shut down all communication with his students here.

It seems that Christopher Hansard’s behaviour has deteriorated since then, with more accusations of sexual impropriety from clients and apprentices.

It is said that he is seeking help and changing his ways. He seems to be a rather slow learner for such an intelligent man, given that he’s had 13 years to learn from the debacle in Vancouver. That experience should have been a sufficient warning for him, so it seems unlikely that he will really change his ways or seek the help he may need.

Even if he is helping people as a medical practitioner, this does NOT absolve him from the harm he is doing.

Who is to know if he continues with sexually inappropriate behaviour as it seems to be behind closed doors and without the knowledge of his apprentices or others in the clinic? Yes, I think he should be stopped from practicing for a long period of time, as any medical practitioner should be held accountable for sexually inappropriate behaviour with clients, given the immense amount of emotional harm it causes, and the long term healing often required, and the feeling of isolation that these women experienced. And that’s only the ones we have heard from so far. How many are there? What is he doing to help those he hurt?

I don’t know much about his later visits to Canada, except that most people who came to his events in 1993/94 did not want to attend the later events, and that they were not held in Vancouver itself, but on Vancouver Island and other parts of Canada.

"I know that there are a number of people whose experience of CH has been negative ( to say the least) and it must be very difficult for them to hear of others whose experiences were good."

Sums up the dilemma for a lot of people I would guess.

"To those who support CH following this site; if CH is who he says he is A Bon Master Physician, then shouldn't he be answering to these people directly? Where is the accountability?"

Any ideas about what that might look like, how he might do that?