The Maple Leaf Lounge
- Thread starter Avro Arrow
- Start date
Hmm, so our Supreme Court looked at the bad decisions coming out of the U.S. Supreme Court recently, and thought, "hey, we want in on that!".
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...ushrooms-extreme-intoxication-brown-1.6451012
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calg...ushrooms-extreme-intoxication-brown-1.6451012
For provincial elections, if you're of legal age, a Canadian citizen, and you receive your party's nomination from the riding association that approves your candidacy, all that's left is the money. Oh, and enough signatures for the nomination papers.
Or he could simply cough up $$$$ and nomination papers, and get on the ballot that way. I think the only other way to be an age-restricted politician (other than municipal or federal) is senatorial - but you have to be (if memory serves) at least 35, citizen of Canada, and resident in the province you're going to represent (actually live there, not a phony situation like Mike Duffy had).
osterhoff showed how much of a little shit he is during the covid lock downs and his frequently violations of the rules but I guess he never argued in the caucus and thus avoided a ford size boot in his arse like barber and hillier.
Although both brown and ford benefit from the social conservatives in getting their leadership positions there's no love lost there have pretty much told sc's to go screw themselves (see their not nixing the sex ed curriculum like they said they would and there were at least two LGTBQIA members in ford's caucus).
Mmmm, I love me some Kids in the Hall. I might head over to Church&Wellesley and have coffee on the steps in celebration. If the steps are still there.
In this case I think they're doing their job and applying Constitutional scrutiny. As they said in their decision, the Government can reword the legislation to deal with the issue. If they had upheld it as written, it creates one of those pesky precedents.
Damn!!! I'm loving this new Kids in the Hall!! Especially since I look 10X hotter than them after all these years.
(I know because this guy tried to pick me up at Gerard Sq mall today.)
I didn't particularly disagree with the precedent, though. Previously, the understanding was that the act of voluntarily consuming/using the drugs or alcohol was considered "intent" for criminal law purposes. The court has said that this is still in place for lower levels of intoxication, but not when your intoxication rises to the level of automatism. So basically, you're still criminally responsible if you commit a crime while intoxicated, unless you go really all in on it and get yourself "too" intoxicated.
I just really don't like the thought that rapists and murderers can get an acquittal if they can claim, "but I was, like, so wasted!". (Yes I know this is a simplification, but still.) For an example, in the Brown case, Brown chose to go to the party, and then chose to take the mushrooms. He then broke into Hamnett's house and beat her with a broom handle. And now suffers no legal consequences. It doesn't sit right. (And Hamnett survived; in Chan's case, he actually killed his father.)
I guess I was wondering if it had happened even earlier than that. I don't find it to be a good look, IMHO. It makes it look like they're using a kid to further an agenda. And part of it is bound to feel weird in following a kid with little to no experience in politics. It's the kind of career where I think seniority matters in terms of getting experience, and overall life experience.
Both Shoresy and Letterkenny are filmed in my neck of the woods. In fact, have a friend who has an older green Ford Truck, and he was asked if they could use it. Next thing he knows, he's invited to the set and spent the whole day there while he watched them do multiple takes of one scene, just to get the angles they needed. The truck is seen in a 2nd season episode for about 20 seconds.
Ok, I thought maybe there was a bit more to it than that. It almost seems to me like there should be an age limitation to prevent situations like these from happening. It doesn't seem quite right.
I have heard of Letterkenny, although I've never watched it. I don't even know what Shoresy is. Do I have to turn in my citizenship?
I'm not entirely sure I agree. If you are legally an adult, I'm not sure that we should be limiting things based on age beyond that. If it bothers people, then they don't have to vote for the candidate, but I'm not sure a ban based on age would be appropriate. It would probably even be unconstitutional due to age discrimination.
Of course, Oosterhoff is a terrible, terrible person. But that doesn't preclude there being more kind-hearted young people who might want to try their hand at politics.
I grew up in the same general area as Listowel at the same time as Keeso. I never knew him but ten minutes in to watching the first episode of Letterkenny my ex wife and I started googling because it was exactly like an exaggerated version of where I grew up. He used storylines from when we grew up in the show. I always get excited when they name drop local places.
Shoresy is a spin off of Letterkenny featuring what was a minor recurring character that became a fan fav also played by Keeso (his face was never shown in Letterkenny and he speaks with a different voice). The character moved to Sudbury (where both shows are filmed) to help turn around a failing hockey team.
Here is a possible rationale for having an age limit. I'm not sure if could ever be legislated though, and really should be applied to things like driving and drinking.
Understanding the Teen Brain - University of Rochester Medical Center
Understanding the Teen Brain - University of Rochester Medical Center
And in fact, one of the actors in Letterkenny has his own restauraunt downtown.
Personally, I've never watched it beyond one episode. Not really my type of show. The vibe reminds me a lot of Trailer Park Boys, which I also didn't watch.
Well, of course there are perhaps a lot of young people who have lots of great ideas and aspiration, but that's kind the territory of an activists, and the good ones will sometimes get into politics from there after getting experience. Like we have a local girl from a family who I've known who's super into environmentalism and has captured the attention of both local, provincial and nationals, and while she does a great job bringing attention to topics that need to be talked about, I don't think she'd be quite ready to enter the ring of politics even when she gets of age. Although I could perhaps see her do that when she's a bit older. Yeah, a ban is likely not a great idea, and I'd be the last one wanting to discourage anyone from getting to do what they want, but I think for anyone wanting to get into politics at that young an age should know exactly what they're getting into, because it's a lot of pressure to live up to.
one of the online betting agencies had them in add that was aired way too often during the curling season. Was enough make sure I never watch their show.
Trailer Park Boys? See, it's the type of show that I can only deal with in very short doses.
There's a movement going on to lower the voting age to 16. I'm in favor of it, for a few reasons.
I remember being 16, and politically aware for quite a number of those years. Politics was a daily topic of conversation in my family, and I had an advantage: The custom was that after supper, the women did the cleanup and washing in the kitchen and the men gathered in the living room to discuss politics. My mother never felt I was competent enough to help in the kitchen (constantly expecting me to break her precious dishes), so that left me free to slip into the living room and listen to more interesting conversations.
I recall that every so often my grandparents and I would go to some mysterious place out in the middle of nowhere (that I now realize was one of those little country schools that still existed in the '60s). I had to wait in the van, because it was emphasized that my grandparents were going to do this extremely important thing called VOTING and kids were absolutely NOT allowed inside. You had to be 18 to go into that place, and so I had years of frustration because they wouldn't ever tell me what it was like.
Fast-forward to the '70s, when we did a unit on municipal politics in Grade 4 (one of the teachers at the school spent many years on city council), and in Grade 7 we learned about provincial politics (that happened to be an election year). I was 11 at the time and our teacher did not consider us too young during Grades 7-9 to know what was going on at the various levels of government. We were expected to read the newspaper, clip relevant articles and keep a scrapbook of them, write essays, and watch the relevant newscasts. This was expected for the provincial election (Grade 7), the Dickson Dam controversy (Grade 8), and the election of the Parti Quebecois (Grade 9). In Grade 8 our class attended the public hearings hosted by the Environment Conservation Authority - back when public hearings were actually for the public and anyone could speak; my teacher and a few classmates presented briefs about the environmental consequences of building the dam. We'd had a field trip to actually see the short list of sites, talk to some of the local residents, and really see for ourselves how much farmland would be destroyed.
The media played it up as a joke. The headline they used was "Blue jeans and bubble gum at the hearings" and implied that we had no idea what we were talking about and the students who presented briefs were just parroting their parents' views.
The newspaper was set straight on that.
As the years passed, I got more interested in municipal and federal politics, and attended the all-candidates' forums... even though I was still several years' too young to vote. I remember asking my grandmother to go with me (I was 16 or 17 at the time) and she said, "I don't feel up to it - you go and you can tell me who to vote for."
So I went, and made careful notes on each candidate... the yes/no/maybe (the maybes would depend on what they said in their writeups they were allowed to do in the newspaper). There were specific issues my grandmother and I were both interested in, and these forums taught me that there's no substitute for actually seeing and hearing a candidate make speeches and respond to questions since tone of voice and body language told much more at times than the actual words they spoke.
I don't know if she voted the same way I did or not. I respected her right to keep her choices to herself, though I'm pretty sure we both voted for one particular person (that school teacher who'd been on city council for decades) and avoided the slick-talking businesswoman who ended up being mayor for a lamentable number of years.
When I turned 18, I could not care less that it meant I could legally buy and consume alcohol. 40 years later I still have not bought and consumed alcohol. But I've had decades of voting experience and have also worked for Elections Canada. And now... I advocate for disabled voters' rights, because we're being royally screwed by the federal government. As in Charter level of screwed.
This notion that teenagers and politics don't mix may be true for some specific teenagers. But as a demographic, I think it's crucial to get them in the mindframe that voting is one of the most important rights they have and one of the most important things they can do, to maintain democracy and protect their rights and the rights of those who cannot vote.
Well the Leafs are out. Can't fault their effort. HopingI admire who were as a teenager and all of your accomplishments throughout your life. Still, you represent less than 1% of the population. There are good reasons for not letting 16 year-olds vote or run for any office beyond class president, even though you were clearly capable of more at that point. The question is: at what age should those restrictions be lifted?
My example of Understanding the Teen Brain wasn't meant to advocate for limiting political involvement, it was meant as an example rationale to be considered. You are the exception that proves the rule; most of us do not have your experience, abilities, or maturity at that age. I don't even have it at age 62.
I appreciate this.
I admire who were as a teenager and all of your accomplishments throughout your life. Still, you represent less than 1% of the population. There are good reasons for not letting 16 year-olds vote or run for any office beyond class president, even though you were clearly capable of more at that point. The question is: at what age should those restrictions be lifted?
My example of Understanding the Teen Brain wasn't meant to advocate for limiting political involvement, it was meant as an example rationale to be considered. You are the exception that proves the rule; most of us do not have your experience, abilities, or maturity at that age. I don't even have it at age 62.
Thank you.I have to ask, though... is it better to expect kids who are newly-graduated from high school to suddenly get the idea that voting is important, that each individual ballot matters, at a time when they're scrambling to get into whatever post-secondary institution they've chosen, or to get that first job, or (in the case of some of my classmates) get married right away?
Or would it be more beneficial to let them have a year or two of background that's taught in high school, so they know how the government is supposed to work, and get them in the mindframe that it's important? I'm not suggesting the teachers should tell them who to vote for - just that it's important, it matters, and if they don't vote, they're simply letting other people make decisions that will affect them without bothering to even try to have a say in it. If they have a chance to vote in an election before leaving high school, it might occur to them that voting really does matter when it comes to issues they'll be facing like post-secondary tuition, or job prospects for young adults.
This is something that junior high social studies teacher did for us. We were years too young to vote, but he taught us that even at the age range of 11-14, our views mattered. When I think back to that class, I recall that there were quite a few who did regularly vote as adults, and there was one other besides me who ended up working for Elections Canada.
That teacher is retired now. But I found out that he was part of the campaign team of one of the people I voted for in the municipal school board election last fall. I'd just happened to mention how it was that I was so enthused about this sort of thing, mentioned my former teacher's name, and was told, "He's part of my team and I'm meeting up with him later today." So I asked him to let my old teacher know that some of us still remembered what he taught us in the '70s and that we appreciated it.
Rick Mercer did a rant a long time ago that was aimed at college/university students, and it was very blunt: The politicians aren't going to take your demographic seriously unless they know that votes are at stake if they ignore you. The best way to let them know you expect them to pay attention is to make them work for those votes. That's why tuition and books and the rest of it are in such a mess... the politicians (of whatever party) think they can safely ignore the very people their decisions are affecting.
The "Rock the Vote" movement a few years ago was a great way to get students motivated, and on-campus polling stations helped immensely.
This sort of thing matters in Alberta. We have Jason Kenney running everything into the ground and an education minister determined to ram the most appalling curriculum through.
For example... any Canadians here should be able to tell me what's wrong with this particular exercise that was part of an elementary grade's social studies course (Grade 5, I think?):
Get a map of Alberta. Locate Regina and Duck Lake and measure the distance between them.
Here's another: Locate gravity on a globe.
Oh, and what they wanted the Grade 2 kids to do (when they weren't busy writing essays about Genghis Khan and the Silk Road)? Draw a map of ancient Greece and label the cities and surrounding bodies of water. Seriously. I have a Greek friend on another forum who's an author and lecturer and amateur historian. He knows his ancient Greek history. I asked him if 7-year-old Greek children would be able to do this assignment. He thought it was ridiculous, since Greek kids of that age don't learn this sort of thing. It's something they learn years later.
Never mind the teenage brain. Try to figure out Jason Kenney's brain and those of his followers. I'm not sure they have more than one or two they share amongst them.
I think it's a good idea in general to learn about the world around them, including politics, and I think that falls within history. The better they're informed, the better they'll be able to figure out what they want in life.
Being of voting age and voting is one thing, but it's an entirely different thing to be the person one votes for. I don't know if my teenage brain would have been able to fully grasp the idea, if that option were available. I know that there are many people are wiser than the sum of their years, but there are also many who would not be mature enough to deal with it and fall under the pressure of public scrutiny. And it's not so much that I don't think they should at that age, but that if they are truly interested, that they remain informed and involved by doing things in the community until a time that they can rise up at a later date and make a difference when the time is right.
I have never suggested that having a teenager for an MLA, MP, or even on city council is a good idea.
Similar threads
- Poll
