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.

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.

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.

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.

I’ll drink to that.

In The Honourable Lamp Post’s defence, she was tough, but fair. I really wasn’t making too much sense, if the official court reporter (the homeless guy on the corner) is to be trusted.

Hey Jack. I teach at the Royal Military College. One of my students told me that was in the Army as a soldier before she came to RMC to do her officer training for the Air Force. She joined the Army at the age of 16, but she wasn’t allowed to go on tour without parental consent until she was 18, although she wanted to.

I don’t know about that. Apparently, my sentence on that occasion was to pass-out on the steps of a local church and then get yelled at by my girlfriend for a good hour once I stumbled home. Methinks that a (Liberal appointed!) judge would have been somewhat more lenient.

Has there ever been a Charter challenge for age discrimination, if not on the driving agen then on the drinking age?

In 2004, I heroically challenged the drinking age law in Nova Scotia. Unfortunately, my appeal failed. In hindsight, I think the main problem had less to do with my poor grasp of the law, and more to do with the fact that I was arguing my case infront of a lamp post at 3:30 in the morning.

If we are to allow age as a reasonable basis for discrimination, and we’re talking driver’s licenses, it seems to me that no one over 75 should be allowed to drive. I’m sure they are some exceptions, but in general over-75 drivers are a public menace. As far as I’m concerned, it’s nothing less than a miracle that anyone can live on the roads of Vancouver Island.

Has there ever been a Charter challenge for age discrimination, if not on the driving agen then on the drinking age? It seems to me an open-and-shut case, but for the Robed Ones and their flexible definitions of “reasonable.”

Pretending for a moment that this is about safety as opposed to virtue, wouldn’t it be much more effective to require quick & easy driver’s tests ever, oh, 10 years? As is well known, there are a lot of terrible drivers out there and in the interest of forestalling vigilantism something must be done to make our roads safe for the children & their sires too.

But I bet a lot of young “children” will be voting against Mr. McGuinty in the upcoming election, if another party is willing to campaign against it. Will they dare? WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!