REFLECTIONS ON AFTER-HOCKEY ANARCHY

              
       FIRST, LET'S DEAL WITH THE CULPRITS -- I say the perpetrators of the Vancouver vandalism ought, at the very least, to be severely spanked and sent to bed without supper for at least 30 nights (and days) in secure, steel-barred rooms.

      Those who performed physical violence on other people in that post-Stanley Cup idiocy should, of course, get more appropriate penalties, according to the severity of their crimes.

      All convicted rioters should also have to undergo training, while in jail, in how to write on a chalkboard, a couple of thousand times:  "I will be a good boy (or girl) after all future sporting events, win or lose." (None of the rioters could be called a boy or a girl, admittedly, because they are people in grown-up bodies -- but it seems their skulls still contain infantile brains.)

      On their release, the culprits should be facing big bills for the damage they caused in Vancouver's downtown region with their rampaging, all such bills to be ascertained by the courts and/or the "searching" public inquiry we almost certainly now can expect to see launched by our political leaders here in British Columbia.

      In the meantime, we non-rioters can sit back and soak up the advice and reflections we'll find it hard to avoid from editorialists, columnists and other sociological "experts" on the toilet-training, parenting, possible educating and social and economic status of these only-marginally-civilized rioters.

      We also need to consider other factors related to the rioting and its aftermath, and I will now contribute to that debate,  but mainly in one particular only -- and that a somewhat political one.


      THE RIOTS HAVE BROUGHT AN OLD TERM TO THE FORE:
      "ANARCHISM!"
      Except that in the newspapers they didn't put it in italics and caps, or follow it with an exclamation point, in the way I have here, or in the way it was done frequently many, many decades ago.


      Our Vancouver police chief, Jim Chu, led the way in using the word "anarchists" to describe the sources of the rioting. Commentators have being using it as well. So it is out there and must be given some attention.


      "Anarchism" is a word loaded with political and economic meaning -- and it has been used in the past by entrenched interests against people working for social, political and economic justice and change aimed at improving life for citizens.


      Women's suffrage activists a hundred years ago got the anarchist label. So did people who worked for broader representation generally in elected bodies. People struggling for improved working conditions in sweat-shop days (still far from gone in many parts of the world) were "anarchists." People who demanded workplace bargaining power and unions, to improve wages and get better and safer working conditions, were given that appellation.


      In short, it has been a convenient term for those seeking to protect economic, political and other self-interest -- an all-encompassing pejorative aimed at denigrating someone or something.




      
      THE ANARCHISM MOVEMENT HERE, in Vancouver and B.C. generally, seems to be more or less non-existent.  I know -- there is an Anarchist Party of Canada, but I don't believe we can view it in the serious way that our law enforcement chief does. Here's why: it is called the Anarchist Party of Canada (Groucho-Marxist).  It is supposedly a dadaist sort of group. (You can look up "dadaism" on the web, if you like; it's kind of kooky, but too damn complicated to detail here.)


      Every once in a while the Groucho-Marxist anarchists have been in the news for pushing pies into the faces of well-known people, including onetime prime minister and opposition leader Joe Clark, and Bill Vander Zalm, before he became B.C. premier.


      About the only notice taken nowadays of this group, if it actually is one, is by Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia. One of its mottos has been "vote with a pie." Wikipedia says it was loosely affiliated, or shared many members with, the short-lived Rhinoceros Party of Canada, which championed the legalizing of marijuana, among other things.


      In the interests of balanced reporting and commentary, I have sought to make contact with somebody associated with the Anarchist Party, for a statement in response to the allegations about the riot and the "party's" part, if any, in it. So far, I have been unsuccessful, but will keep on trying.




      THE OXFORD UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY says an anarchist is someone "who admits of no ruling power, (is) an advocate of anarchy," or "one who upsets settled order."


     Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary says about the same, but also describes "anarchism" as "the theory that all forms of government are incompatible with individual and social liberty and should be abolished." Funk & Wagnalls also says anarchy is: 1. Absence of government. 2. Lawless confusion and political disorder. 3. General disorder.


      Another interesting definition of anarchism is to be found in the Great Encylopaedic Dictionary of the Reader's Digest, which states: "Political doctrine standing for the abolition of all organized authority and state machinery, and advocating the creation of a society in which men will be expected to live together in harmony on the basis of voluntarily respected mutual contracts."




      THOUGH IT IS SIMPLISTIC AT TIMES, I'D SAY IN THIS CASE that the Reader's Digest has given a pretty useful and concise definition of anarchy. It and the other word authorities combined would seem to give credence to Police Chief Chu's conclusion (except, I guess, for that "harmony" bit in the Reader's Digest definition).  I do wonder, however, whether the chief has given much, or any, thought to the idea that anarchism is a political concept, and not just violent, unlawful activity.

      I will study carefully anything he might say about anarchy in future. I do, however, have this question for him now: Is the chief making a suggestion that an actual organized group, who style themselves a political anarchy movement, started this riot by intent? If so, I think he ought to give the public the facts of the matter as soon as possible. Any time the police interest themselves in political matters, lawful or otherwise, we ought to be told.

      Although Chief Chu was not precisely accurate in his remarks about anarchy as a political concept (because, as we've seen, it theoretically does aim at societal harmony, cooperation and peace), he certainly was on the mark to state the Hockey Riots were a good sample of what anarchy can be like, perhaps in a non-political form, as in a breakdown of law.

      It might even be fair to say that what we witnessed in downtown Vancouver on the night of June 15, 2011, probably went far beyond anarchy.


      JUST ONE LAST THING -- a sort of sociological note. About all those car-burnings in the riots.  Surprised by that? Well, you shouldn't be.

      Don't you know? It's a cultural thing, learned behaviour, I think it's called. Take a look at movies and TV. How many dramatic programs and crime programs, and "action" and "adventure" movies are there that don't have at least one car-burning in 'em?

       Now, there's something for Chief Chu and our coming commission of inquiry to examine.