SAFE RAVES, NOT SECRET ONES

Police Chief Vince Bevan's announced intention to discourage his officers
from working at raves is misguided. Combined with his plan to "crack down"
on the parties, it amounts to a declaration of war against a legal
activity. That's not what the police should be about.

The recent deaths of some young people who had been to raves have
catapulted the marathon dance parties into the news. Emilie Lefevbre, an
18-year-old woman from Ottawa, was killed in a car accident a few weeks ago
on her way home from a rave. Allen Ho, a 20-year-old man, died in Toronto
after taking Ecstasy at a rave last year.

These are tremendous losses, and everyone can sympathize with the families
of these young people. Teenagers are killed by car crashes and drug
overdoses far too often, and it is always awful.

If Ms. Lefevbre and Mr. Ho had not gone to those parties, they would almost
certainly be alive. But it does not follow that the act of attending raves
is dangerous.

When a child on a bicycle is struck and killed by an automobile, we don't
blame bikes or cars or roads, or the act of driving. We blame the careless
driving or reckless cycling. Similarly, when someone is knifed outside a
nightclub in an alcohol-fuelled fight, we don't shut down all the bars in
town. So we shouldn't attack raves because some people who like them have
died.

There's no denying that people do illegal drugs at raves, particularly
Ecstasy and marijuana. These are drugs known to promote affectionate and
passive behaviour, respectively.

Ecstasy's possible ill effects haven't yet been properly studied; evidence
is mounting that it's more harmful than previously thought, but it's
illegal already anyway.

We don't have to condone the use of illicit drugs, but neither can we
condemn raves in general because some attendees use those drugs. If raves
are a problem because of drug use, we should block the Rideau Canal path
under the Laurier bridge, dismantle Champlain Lookout, and post police
officers at any number of spots in suburban parks.

The same logic, in fact, suggests police officers should be posted to raves
- -- as most organizers want them to be, and as Chief Bevan doesn't.

Raves have been around for years. Those who didn't participate didn't hear
about them because they were held in relative secrecy -- in disused
warehouses and underground parking lots late at night. Security was
lackadaisical and safety measures such as fire sprinklers and sufficient
exits were disregarded. In fact, doors were often locked and barricaded so
fewer guards were needed to stop people from dodging the cover charge.

When people are dancing all night, they need proper ventilation and an
ample supply of water to keep from overheating and dehydrating. Underground
raves are notorious for having no fresh air and having the taps in the
bathrooms -- if there are any -- shut off so the organizers can sell water
at hugely inflated prices.

Publicized raves attract the kind of attention that makes such stunts
impossible. When ravers go to parties supervised by off-duty police
officers, they (and, if they're young, their parents) can be assured that
at least minimum standards of safety and security are being met.

The police and other authorities can work with rave organizers to raise
those standards. (This, in a nutshell, is what the coroner's inquest into
Mr. Ho's death has recommended.) Or the police can deliberately frustrate
the organizers by trying to constrain their legal activities, and see the
standards disappear. If Chief Bevan successfully discourages legitimate
venues from hosting raves, the parties will just return to more hazardous
places. They won't stop -- we just won't know about them.

Ravers have gone from being a counter-culture to a sub-culture. In the
process, they've changed from being dangerous and hidden events to being
somewhat safer, more open ones. We should be encouraging the change, not
trying to reverse it.