Water polo and gasoline

I'm watching the aftermath of the Vancouver riots unfold, and I'd like to share some of my obserations.

I think lots of people were surprised by just how instant and far-reaching the social media effect would be. The booze, the crowd mentality (de-individuation is it called?), the 20-20 of hindsight, and now the Civil Liberties folks. If some of the participants had a "do-over" they'd most certainly do things differently.

One of the more interesting incidents is the Maple Ridge doctor's son, Nathan the possible future Olympian who appeared to be attempting to light a piece of cloth in an open gas tank on a cop car, and set it alight. I have an inordinate fear of gasoline and a tremendous respect for its volatility, and I am dumbfounded at this kind of action, but hey, that's just me. Thankfully the attempts were unsuccessful and the car along with some bystanders was not blown to kingdom come.

I see now the star athlete has taken steps to redeem himself, most likely advised by parents, a lawyer, or both. He got permission to have his name put out there (oh those foolish Young Offender Act provisions! but that's a whole nuther story) and to apologize publicly. He has been suspended from the national water polo team, and missed his convocation ceremonies.

What I fear is this: Time will pass; people will get on with their lives and their initial shock will subside, their reactions will become more subdued. The riots will seem less drastic and the need for consequences will seem less urgent.

Will this athlete be re-instated on the water polo team? I sure hope not. And this is not about vigilante justice; this is about accepting consequences for the choices you make. It's about getting a "do-over". I say he doesn't get one. If you get an exceptional opportunity, like representing your country on a team, you have a greater obligation to manifest integrity, don't you?

If he's let back on the team, can't you just hear the Olympic coverage next year? The focus won't be on skill or talent or winning, it will be on that one team member who nearly lost it all, and the riots will be perpetuated by newscasters who love a heart-tugging story, and the message will be: no matter what you do, if you wait long enough, or if you get a good enough lawyer, you'll be forgiven pretty well anything.

I'd like to know about the discipline policy of the water polo team. Who else has been disciplined over the years, and for what? Has anyone else been let go? If they were suspended indefinitely, what was the unacceptable behaviour -- was it anything like publicly attempting to destroy police property and setting a bad example for youth and endangering lives?

For certain, it's too bad it happened. I'm sure he regrets more than anything the events of that evening. But if he gets a do-over, if he is pardoned because he expresses remorse, then the message is: do what you want, play your cards right and you won't have to pay. Or maybe you will -- maybe you'll have to pay a big fine, but you'll still be on the team. Somehow this sounds so wrong to me. Or maybe I'm concerned for nothing because the suspension should last until there is a hearing of some sort, and given the number of eventual court cases, perhaps this won't get before the judges until at least a year from now when the Olympics are about to start.

I have a friend who got a phone call in the middle of the night that her son had been riding with a drunk driver who lost control of the car and it crashed, killing my friend's son. No matter how badly that driver may feel, he can't change the fact that it happened, and will have to live with this tragedy for the rest of his life. If we look the other way, we're saying that like the drunk driver, the water polo player didn't mean to do it, and is very sorry. . . but I don't think we should pat him on the head and say "There, there, it's okay, we know you didn't mean it."
His punishment might be 200 hours of community service. Public humiliation. Is that enough?

Selling the Rectory?

A few years back when I was visiting in Victoria BC I went to Mass, only to be informed via the homile that the Bishop had made a foolish investment decision (a racetrack in Seattle or something) and he was asking the parishioners to band together and replace the money that had been lost. I'm not sure of details but I believe the generous people bit their collective lips and made the debt go away. How nice of them.

I just read a few days ago that there's a similar problem on the east coast, only a lot more money is involved and the situation is a lot worse: the diocese needs to raise over $18 million to pay off a class action child abuse lawsuit. A beautiful piece of history, an old rectory, is on the chopping block, and if it's sold, they'll still need millions of dollars more. The parishioners are understandably upset. That's a lot of money. Property that they worked to buy and maintain -- and because of some sick person, must be sold.

I always wonder about the wisdom or benefit of large payouts for past wrongs, like giving millions to survivors of residential schools, or in this case survivors of sexual abuse by clergy. It's like saying money solves everything, money rights a wrong, and both assumptions are inaccurate. Yes I guess money can help buy therapy, but it frequently involves some innocent bystanders taking the brunt of the blame. Those parishioners had nothing to do with what the priests did, yet they are the ones who have to pay. One problem is supposedly solved (victims get $$$) but another is created (parishioners get screwed).

I don't think I'd be putting my envelope in the collection plate anymore. In fact, what if all of the people stopped with their contributions? What if no one bought the diocese buildings that were for sale? Then who'd pay? They'd have to find the money somewhere else, and that's not likely to be a fruitful search. Still, the wrong people are being punished, and the problem doesn't get solved by throwing money at it.

I don't pretend to know what the solution is, but I figure the current attempt to right past wrongs is demoralizing, damaging, and without merit.