When someone you know well or love suffers a loss, it is natural to pay your respects.
Interesting to note the use of the term "respect" in what is a common phrase for sharing the grief, showing compassion and support for someone who is mourning. For there was little respect shown in the actions described in yesterday's front page story about activity at Aramoho cemetery.
A visitor from Auckland was distressed to have his private time interrupted by a bunch of rowdy fellow mourners - although mourning is hardly what was described to the Chronicle. Boozing and music and other behaviour tended to suggest it was more of a party and not what one would expect to see at a gravesite.
This shows little respect for others, the person who they are mourning and even themselves.
The man is adamant he is not opposed to people drinking but feels getting loaded at a cemetery where others are trying to enjoy a moment of reflection over their own loss is simply not acceptable.
It's a curious dilemma, as alcohol has long been associated with grieving, and many a wake has lasted a long time with many tales told under the influence of the social lubricant.
It is fair to say too that people grieve in their own way - we are complex beings and our emotions can make us behave in ways that may seem odd. But it is not beyond reason to expect a modicum of consideration in such a public place. For what purpose do cemeteries exist? Certainly not as an extension of a garden bar.
Now Wanganui District Council has become involved and may consider imposing a liquor ban at city cemeteries.
Philippa Baker-Hogan, chairwoman of the council's community and environment committee, has asked for a report while also conceding that council must also ensure the policing of the current bylaw that precludes drinking of alcohol in cemeteries.
If that were the case, one wonders how that might impact on the Cemetery Circuit races, widely acknowledged to be a significant event and financial boon for the city. What of those people who stand on - and drink in the vicinity of - the graves during this event?
In a story last year that identified such instances during the 2010 event, it was acknowledged that there were a minority who acted this way, potentially causing damage to memorials. But damage is only part of the problem. There is the issue of respect for the final resting place of our ancestors.
Presumably the event is covered by a consent gained by the operators to enable drinking but it would be interesting to know how that kind of desecration differs from that described in yesterday's story.
Feedback: editor@wanganuichronicle.co.nz