In two short sentences, Dalton McGuinty distills modern provincial governance to its purest essence:
Perhaps the most precious thing we have in society is our children, and that includes our older children. We owe it to our kids to take the kinds of measures that ensure that they will grow up safe and sound and secure, and if that means a modest restriction on their freedoms until they reach the age of 22, then as a dad, I’m more than prepared to do that.
Children are only perhaps the most precious thing in our society? Pray tell what, you hideous monster, could possibly be more precious?
Seriously though, 19-through-21-year-olds are not “older children.” They are “adults,” and the government should restrict their freedoms, if at all, with the same caution as any other adults’ freedoms. That’s not very much caution, in Ontario’s case, but it’s more than this. The impression, which the government is making no effort to disavow, is that certain adult drivers will no longer be permitted to chauffeur more than one teenager (unless they’re immediate family members, because siblings never bicker and distract each other) or have a glass of wine with dinner and drive home, perhaps hours later, simply because MADD supported it and because a grieving father had enough money to buy full-page newspaper advertisements and to gain an audience with the Premier. McGuinty actually says in that soundbyte that he decided to restrict young Ontarians’ driving privileges as a father, not as Premier. I believe him. And I’m not okay with it at all.
Print
Comment
Chris Selley: “if I didn’t know better, I’d suspect they were trying to make sure Canadians don’t drink at all!”
I’ll drink to that.
I remember that court reporter, too. Weird.
“proven that drivers up to 21 don’t have the attention span”
Beyond the dubious science behind this claim, as soon as you start playing Mad Lib with it, it falls apart. Replace ‘drivers up to 21′ with ‘asians’ or ‘women’ to see why.
There is some jurisprudence on age equality in the Charter, but not much. It seems to be ok to discriminate against young people for CPP (Law v. Canada) and social assistance (Gosselin v. Quebec) purposes, so I’m not sure how much traction you’d get on this issue.
I read these laws and I strongly agree with the Charter argument. I am over 21 and this proposed legislation will never affect me but I still am baffled by the legality. How can the ‘Ageism’ possibly be allowed. This age group is, for the most part, adults and while driving is not a right, they do have the right to not be discriminated by their age. It doens’t affect new drivers but all drivers in this age bracket. So get your G licence at 22, and you can have a drink on your way home from the test. This law was lobbied very strongly by one of the Families who lost a child in Muskoka last year to drunk driving. I know that would be an unimaginable loss but those kids were breaking laws that already were in place. Males are also known to get in more accidents than females, so why not just have this new law apply to them, oh wait, the concept of law is that it applies fairly and equally to all… Interesting?
This is un-believeable….
what happenens if you have your g2 and you are 100% sober and your friends are drunk at a party, by mcguintys proposal, you will not be able to drive them home safely. by this proposed law, they will be forced to either drive, or “DISTURB THE PEACE” while walking home drunk.
if he truly cares about children, he will let them make their own choices, and not force this on ontarian youth. i truly believe that this is a direct example of a a government controlling it’s citizens rights.
this is a vialation of the charter of rights. it should not be passed in provencial government.
I haven’t looked at the details of the law, so there may be many good reasons for opposing it. But given the fact that the privilege of being licensed is itself inaccessible before you reach the age of 16, challenging the proposed law on the basis of ageism probably won’t succeed, either in the courtroom or at the coffeemaker.
You gotta wonder what kind of person would express their grief with a frenzied lobbying campaign.
Ageism only applies when you turn 18. At that point you are legally an adult and are fully responsible for your actions. Hense the end of protection under the young offenders act. By accepting full responsibility for your actions you are granted full rights under the charter. That is when ageism applies. The other issue is that this is not simply an amendment to the existing graduated licence system, which would apply to all new drivers, it is an attack on an age group. Do you really belive that a 21 year old caught doing 11 km over the speedlimit should lose his licence for 30 days and get 4 points while a 22 year old, with the same amount of driving experience should recive a tickiet for 50 dollars and no points.
“Ageism only applies when you turn 18.”
Very well. The legal drinking age is 19 in Ontario, so you are legally prohibited from taking responsibility for the action of drinking for a full year after you are supposedly granted full rights under the charter to take such responsibility.
Like I said, I haven’t read the details of the proposed law, so I don’t know who will get what penalty for which offence if they are a day or more under the age of 22. It is not my point to say that this law would be a good or bad thing. I’ve said nothing one way or the other.
My point is that opposing it on the basis of ageism will likely get you nowhere.
Both driving and alcohol consumption are already restricted on the basis of age. In the first case, the age is lower than the legal age of adulthood, and in the second, it’s higher. If ageism was relevant to restrictions on alcohol consumption, as people are suggesting it might be in the case of this proposed law, then there would be legitimate challenge to the current drinking age in Ontario and other provinces whose legal drinking age is even one day over 18 years.
So I repeat my claim that ageism will not be a winning argument against this law, because laws already exist which discriminate on the basis of age, even for those who are legally adults and granted full rights under the charter.
With regards to driving, both insurance rates and vehicle rentals are restricted partly on the basis of age, even when you are above the age of 18. It’s not the only factor, but it’s part of the equation. Are these also against the charter? I don’t know if the restrictions are legal or if these are policies of the respective companies. Whether or not they are company policy, however, I don’t believe that independent companies are allowed to violate the charter, even if it might be easier for them to get away with it.
I’m not saying that I support this law, or that I don’t. I’m saying that if you oppose this law and you hope to persuade others to your point of view, then your efforts would be better spent on building an argument that takes into account more than just age, as it seems that age has not been used to (successfully) challenge existing practice.
Randy: “My point is that opposing it on the basis of ageism will likely get you nowhere.”
Yeah, well, no kidding. What you’re saying is that neither judges nor governments really care about applying Charter rights across the board, which will only surprise those Canadians (99% of the population, unfortunately) who think the law is the law and rights are rights, whereas actually everything’s political and 18-22-year-olds don’t vote. As to the judges, well, they’re not really into abstracts at the best of times.
Sorry, Randy, rereading my last post it seems aimed at you, whereas I appreciate your spelling out the paradoxes of the situation. It’s just irritating that when there’s a genuine Charter rights case staring us in the face we can’t do anything, whereas any number of absurd Charter appeals get upheld. Sorry to open the lid on the death-struggles of my idealism, it’s dying hard.
There is a fair argument for to be made for alcohol being a situation of ageism. However it long predates the charter and would likely be grandfathered in under “within reasonable limits to govern” clause. As for insurance companies their stance is that they discriminate between ages and races and not against them. This argument doesnt transfer into a public policy setting where one is forced into obeying the laws. The law will likely get wittled down before it becomes policy for fear it could so easily be overturned by a judge, it has left itself far to vunerable to legal attacks. Having said that the age bracket effected is not in a situation to fight such a legal battle and they also turn out to vote in record low numbers. With older drivers they are allowed to keep their licence if they pass a test at 80. Here, regardless of driving record you are limited by your age, it is not merit based. Its discrimination and there is very little legal argument that can be made to the contrary.
Brendan
I don’t know – I find it hard to disagree with such venerable paragons of wisdom as MADD, the Insurance Bureau, and the police union.
As a young-ish driver, I have found their past intrusions into my life only too helpful in relieving me of large sums of money, time, and good health. Hmm.