Hi all

Once again many many thanks to all who are supporting us by signing and sharing and even donating.

If you wish to get further involved in some way please don't hesitate to contact us at:

cemeteries4all@yahoo.com

In our last few updates we have updated on our communications with officials. All these communications have stated cemetery matters are for the council to decide and the council have no plans for a review or change of cemetery rules in the near future. We feel this may in fact be our answer and that rules will remain as they are - what we want.

Why haven't we declared a victory? Why are some people still feeling stressed and anxious? For some reason the other petition is still going and stating they are exploring other avenues and talking as if they have their rule change "in the bag". It would be helpful and interesting to know why they think this given correspondence we have had - did they not get told this? It's especially important for those who's mental health may be being affected by this issue to know what's going on. Although from what we have been told it is highly unlikely they will get a rule change we are staying around for now to keep fighting against their "No dogs" rule (with excemptions). 

A slight recap as to our reasons against the other petition and then some interesting reading material on cemetery usage which may be affected by the proposed rule change. 

When we first wrote our petition against  the petition for "Edinburgh Council to reinstate "No Dogs in Cemeteries" rule that was in place pre-Covid" they did not have a caveat for mourners and we were set up not only to protect the rights of mourners with dogs but also others who may use a cemetery respectfully and responsibly, for instance, as a safe place for solitude.

The other petition fairly quickly added a statement to their main statement that mourners with dogs and service dogs would be excempt from the "No dogs" rule they proposed. We sent out an update re this but stated we would continue with this petition as we were still against the "No dogs" rule even with these two excemptions.

To recap and be clear we are against the "No dog" rule (with excemptions) for the following reasons:

1. Excemptions single out mourners who should be able to keep their grief private if they wish.
2. Mourners may be at risk of having to prove why they are in a cemetrey with a dog - aside from the issues of how one would prove this having to do so could add stress and anxiety to an already awful experience and re-iterates the issue above re grief being a private matter for some people. Our update on 15th February cited a real life example of one mourner who has been made severely anxious by the proposed rule change in relation to this point. They have no idea how they would prove they were a mourner and may in fact be extremely affected if somone approached them to query their presence.
3. What exactly is meant by "service" dogs and would this need to be proved. There are many different ways that dogs help people from  your traditional service dogs for people with vision or auditory issues to assistant dogs who help, for instance, disabled people to unofficial support dogs. Dogs can assist people in many different ways, hence different definitions of "helping dogs". Some of these dogs are easier to get than others, such as charities for trained guide dogs, whilst others are harder to get, such as a trained dog to help with mental health issues. The processes of getting a "helping dog" varies and at times can require a lot of time and money on behalf of the person to get the dog verified. Further, such dogs are defined by the tasks they perform for a person. Many people may find the mere presence of their dog a support without them needing to perform tasks or people may need their dog to perform only 1 or 2 tasks - not the 3 which defines self trained dogs, and some other training forms. Therefore some people have dogs who support them but may not fit under the category in the petition for rule changes.
4. The "No dog" rule (with excemptions) makes no allowances for those who respectfully and responsibly go to cemetries with their dog and who follow rules whilst there - using the cemetery, for instance as a place of safety,  for quiet contemplation or even from historical or educational purposes. We discussed the use of cemetries as a supportive place in further depth in our February 10th update and cited a real life example on 16th February.
5. The other petition state the current rules are not followed by some so presumably new rules would not be followed by these same people. So any such rule change would merely disadvantage current  respectful, responsible users who keep to rules.

1. With regards to singling out mourners the other petition responded with this on nextdoor:

"Stop lying. Folks, read our petition - mourners are not being "singled out" - our petition states clearly that we fully support exceptions for dogs with mourners (by that we mean either attending a funeral, or visiting loved ones) and assistance dogs." From the nextdoor post we write about in the 14th February update.

They do not seem to realise by separating mourners from all other users they are in effect singling them out and rather than offering protection may actually disadvantage mourners.

2. In regards to how this would be managed the other petition has (in our opinion) been a little lacking with an answer. At times they have said this would be self policing - we know in their eyes this doesn't work as the current rules should be self policing and they are wanting a change to these. They also at times state they know not everyone will follow their proposed rule if it is passed - so why change anything? We currently know there is someone in one cemetery who talks to people breaking the rules -  how would mourners "prove" to them they should be there? The other petiton will give no answer on this and state it is not up to them to make such rules - yet they are trying to make a rule change? Even if they offerred some suggestions it might help anxious mourners, such as, the person from our 15th February update.

3. The petiton for "No dogs" rule (with excemptions) has not fully defined what type of "service dog" they mean. We presume this is the government definition but we cannot be sure. If it is the government definition then this leaves out some dogs which provide people with valid support thus meaning people may not be able to visit a cemetrey with their dog and therefore not be able to visit a cemetrey at all.

4. The other petition has barely addressed the issue of people using cemetries as a safe place for solutide during hardship. On 9th February they wrote:

"If you want to "get away from it all" with your dog, there are plenty of beautiful green spaces in Edinburgh to do that."

We clarified what we meant on the 10th in case previous wording had been ambiguous and they offerred no further comment.

However, when one person with autism and CPTSD shared on reddit that they have on occassion gone to a cemetrey with their dog (following rules) as they needed the quiet space the "No dogs" rule (with excemptions) petition replied by asking whether cemetries were an appropriate place for a dog walk. This is a person who struggles with noise and people and uses a cemetery, and it's unique environment, for solace on days they cannot face the wider world not just someone taking thier dog for exercise.

Perhaps they don't understand the concept of the cemetery providing a place of safety, solitude and contemplation or perhaps they don't agree that cemetries can bring people much needed benefits for psychological and mental health wellbeing they maybe even undertsand these benefits of cemetries but disagree they should be used in these ways- we don't know for sure but we do know their proposed rule change may not allow for it if someone has a dog with them.

For you our readers and supporters we would like to discuss this topic further to explain our stance on one of the reasons we are against the "No dog" rule with excemptions. 

Whilst we personally do not like the term "greenspace" in relation to cemetries as we feel it has connotations to parks we respect that cemeteries may offer people, including people with dogs, something other spaces cannot and this is often talked about with reference to greenspaces. 

We share a view with the council that whilst the core purpose of cemetries (storage for departed loved ones and a place to remember them) is important and should not be lost cemetries offer a unique space for individuals for a number of valid reasons.

We believe cemetries can offer a wide number of benefits to people, these mainly relate to supporting people through hard times or with certain issues although there are some other possibly more recreational uses as well such as educational history.

The council consultation on rules highlighted that members of the public, especially solo women and vunerable people, can feel safer in a cemetrey when walking alone with their dog. Source below (1). Indeed we have seen this with one person with autism and CPTSD stating they have used cemetries for the psychological safety offered by cemetries. 

In a study carried out by Edinburgh University in Morningside and Warriston cemetries the researchers noted many perceived restorative factors - related to mental health and wellbeing factors. "These include a temporarily apart from the hustle and bustle of the city, thereby enhancing the quality of being away" and a chance for unique reflection on life. It should be noted that the study was carried out pre-covid so statistics on use may differ from now as according to many sources, cemetries were used more during covid and such use may have continued, however, the beneftis noted in the study will reamin. The study was before current rules and presumably during a period where few burials happened. It is interesting to note that in Warriston cemetry 46.67% of use was people using the space with their dog - when the other petition states there was a no dog rule. If you look in the references of the article you can find many other research studies which look at other uses of cemetries and the positive effects on mental health and wellbeing - some of these may require logins to journals or databases. Source below (2).

An article written by AFTR, a company who can provide access to graves of loved ones living far from the actual grave via technology (something which we think is a great but sadly too expensive an idea for Edinburgh's cemeteries) have written an article on the health benefits of visiting cemetries. Source below (3). They have noted:

"Cemeteries are often quiet, peaceful places, free from the hustle and bustle of everyday life....provide a sense of calm and solitude, allowing you to clear your mind and unwind...can help you reflect on life and death...This can lead to a greater appreciation for the present moment, and a desire to make the most of the time you have...In short, visiting a cemetery can be a healthy and therapeutic activity." 

There are many more sources which state the health benefits both mental and physical and a quick Google search will find you many.  These will vary in quality but if you have access to academic data bases you will be sure to find more but perhaps better researched and more reliable sources.

Interestingly, one commenter asked about visiting historical graves with a dog and whether this would be allowed. AFTR (3) and Brompton cemetery one of London's "magnificent seven" cemetries (source below (4)) discuss the importance of the history of cemetries and how this can benefit people. AFTR state that cemeteries can help bring people closer to their ancestors and history and "can help you feel connected to your past, and can provide a sense of belonging and continuity". Indeed, we know of one cemetery user who is Edinburgh born and bred and has family going back at least 7 generations in Edinburgh - that's 7 generations spread throughout the city's cemetries. The Brompton article cites the abundance of history and nature that a cemetery can provide. Therefore not only putting people in touch with their history but the history of the location of the cemetery, some of it's famous inhabitants and reminders of those lost to war. These educational historical factors, especially in relation to war graves, can serve as a reminder to tough times in everyone's history, a mark of respect to those involved and a reminder not to take life as we know it for granted and that people have worked hard, at times giving their lives, for us to have the lives we have today. The Brompton article goes on to state "Brompton Cemetery was always intended for respectful enjoyment by the living as well as burial spaces for the dead" - there are other articles which mirror this ethos but we feel we have probably written enough for today.

To summarise there may be many respectful uses of cemetries which can benefit people outwith the initial prescribed use of protecting lost loved ones and allowing people to visit them. Many of these uses relate to mental health and wellbeing, including feelings of safety, security and belonging. Some of the people visiting cemetries for such uses may require their dog for support but may not fit with the proposed new rule. We personally would rather support someone who may be struggling by letting them continue to visit a cemetrey in times of trouble for safety, contemplation or any of the other mentioned reasons - and any respectful reasons we have not mentioned. Of course if would be impossible to legislate or regulate an excemption in relation to the uses described above - that is part of the reason we advocate for the current rules to remain. 

We appreciate not everyone will hold these views but we feel cemetries are very important for the living as well as the dead and that if somone shows respect, responsibility and adherence to current rules they should be allowed into cemetries with their dog.

(1) Report from the council on the proposed rule  change (to current rules). Section 4.3.2 relates to other uses the cemetery may have such as providing safety to women and vunerable people. 

https://democracy.edinburgh.gov.uk/documents/s47927/Cemetery%20Rules%20Update%20-%20FINAL%20v2.pdf

(2) Study by Edinburgh University:

https://www.mdpi.com/2413-8851/3/3/72

(3) Article by AFTR

https://www.aftr.live/en/blog/why-visiting-a-cemetery-can-be-good-for-your-health

(4) Article on Brompton Cemetery 

https://www.heritagefund.org.uk/news/walk-among-graves-improve-health-and-wellbeing