Tuesday, November 18, 2008

I'm glad Dalton McGuinty isn't my father

"Perhaps the most precious thing we have in society is our children, and that includes our older children," McGuinty said at Queen's Park.

"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."


"As a dad" doesn't get a vote for people over the age of majority. Even my over-protective parents understand that. Dalton McGuinty has, what, four adult children? He should understand this. Since OAC was eliminated, people finish high school at 17 or 18. That means they'd finish a four-year university program at 21 or 22, or a two-year college program at 19 or 20. These aren't children, they're young professionals just starting out. They are legally adults, they need to be treated equally to all other adults rather than put under specific restrictions just because of their age. While it is true that many, if not most, people under 22 haven't fully launched yet, that doesn't justify the law as treating them as less than fully adult. Their not having launched is between them and their parents, a private arrangement between familiy members. My mother does my taxes (Q: Why? A: Because she's a professional and I'm not.) but that doesn't mean it's reasonable for the law to require that people under 30 get their tax return signed by their mother. When my parents travel I help them find information on non-English websites, but that doesn't mean it's reasonable for the law to require that people over 50 get their travel arrangements vetted by a professional translator. Experience-based restrictions? If you must. Age-based restrictions? Completely inappropriate, arbitrarily treats younger adults as subhuman, and violates section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For example, I'm a horrible, nervous, skittish driver who hasn't been behind the wheel in a decade (aren't you glad?). I didn't finish graduated licencing within the allotted five years, but I have a G1 to use as ID. I also happen to be 27 years old. Under these proposed rules, I could go to one of those crammer driving schools that promises to get you through the road test in 24 hours, pass my G1 exit test and get a G2, and drive around with as many screaming idiots as I can fit in the car. However, a fully-licenced 21-year-old who's been driving every day since they were 16 (and who is, in fact, qualified to be my accompanying driver as I frantically practise for the road test) can't road-trip to the cottage or drive their whole band to the gig in the same van. But if the 21-year-old scootches over, nervous skittish me with a day or two of intensive driving practice and a freshly minted G2 under my belt can drive the whole lot of them.

I'm worried about this government. They seem to be tabling a lot of bills that might sound like a good idea at first glance, but really the issues are much more complex and the simplistic solutions might actually be detrimental. For example, recently they were talking about banning bottled water. Period. Problem: bottled water is also an emergency provision and we'd have enormous potential for disaster if it was banned without contingency plan. They did ban plastic bags at the LCBO without giving any thought to the fact that plastic bags end up in the landfill in their capacity as garbage bags and to actually divert plastic from the landfill they'd need a solution that addresses that. I shouldn't be spotting these problems, the government should be spotting them and addressing them before they even get to me. The government needs to be smarter than me, because, frankly, I'm not that smart! Get on it Mr. McGuinty!

This all came about from lobbying from MADD after some kids died in a car accident. I know it's bad form to speak ill of anti-drunk-driving organizations, but frankly the more I hear from MADD the less respect I have for them. They seem more focused on putting restrictions on people (especially young people) than on actually reducing drunk driving. For example, I distinctly remember in the early part of this decade (either when I was in uni or shortly thereafter) they wanted to ban alcohol on campuses - including res!. Yeah, brilliant thinking there. You've got an area where some of your target audience lives, a lot more of your target audience lives within walking distance, and that probably serves as a transit hub for the community. So make it so your target audience has to go further from their homes and the transit hub if they want to have a drink. Yeah, that's really going to cut down on drunk driving! (To say nothing of making it illegal for on-campus university students to enjoy a legal drink in their homes even though it's perfectly legal for their high-school dropout peers to do the same).

Why don't we ever see them lobbying for things that are non-punitive to prospective drinkers and prospective drivers? For example, why not lobby for the TTC to run the subways after last call? Why not lobby to make it easier to get alcohol permits for non-car-dependent locations than in car-dependent locations? Why not use all their resources to come up with a workable taxi voucher system for those take-the-keys-away situations? (Off the top of my head: 1. The bartender takes your keys and gives you two taxi vouchers - one to take you home tonight, the other so you can collect your car tomorrow. The next day you pay them a nominal fee that's less than the taxi rides would have cost and they give you your keys back. 2. With every purchase of a keg you get a certain number of taxi vouchers. How to fund it? Contributions from MADD, contributions from governments, contributions from alcohol taxes, bulk discounts on taxi vouchers. There are flaws, obviously, but that's at least 50% of the way to a workable system and that's just me off the top of my head in a mid-rant digression. Surely MADD with all their researchers and experts and influence can do better.) If MADD does do things like this and I just haven't noticed them and wasn't able to google them up, please post links in the comments to let me know. I don't want to dislike them, but they seem way more M than ADD and it's getting very difficult for me to have any respect for them.

6 comments:

jpg said...

I so thoroughly agree. But really, what could young people possibly be up to that's so important anyway?

CQ said...

Nicely said.
Average 20 & 21 year-olds are not supposed to be 'precious'.

laura k said...

Excellent post. I completely agree, and I'm more than twice the age of the people they are trying to restrict.

I agree re MADD, too. Why would they want to make it more difficult to have a designated driver?

laura k said...

[I am going to link to your post, so you might want to correct the spelling of McGuinty in the post title. Please feel free to delete this comment.]

impudent strumpet said...

Aww shit, and it's been up for days and already been linked to and googled to. Fixed it, but it's still preserved for posterity in the URL.

laura k said...

I know, those damn URLs that don't change. But I don't think most people notice that.