# Liberals Want Voting Age Lowered to 16



## Celticgirl (1 Nov 2008)

*Grits want voting age dropped to 16 *  

But premier isn’t so sure younger teens mature enough

By AMY SMITH Provincial Reporter 
Sat. Nov 1 - 6:07 AM

The voting age in Nova Scotia should be reduced to 16, says Liberal Leader Stephen McNeil.

Mr. McNeil introduced a bill in the legislature Friday that would shave two years off the minimum age of 18. 

"At 16, I believe those young Nova Scotians are mature enough to understand and realize that decisions that we as government are making will impact their lives," he said. 

"A 16-year-old today will be affected by the fact we’ll be talking and passing legislation dealing with post-secondary education, for example, that they’ll have to live with. They should have a right to cast their ballot on that and pass judgment on the government."

Mr. McNeil said he also thinks reducing the voting age would help boost voter turnout. Along with the legislation, he said, civics should be brought back into the province’s high schools.

"This is a way to engage them early on and allow them to have their voice in the democratic process," he said.

At 17, Laura Wright says she could make a well-informed decision if she had the right to vote — but she’s not sure about some of her peers.

"I just don’t know if students are ready to make that decision at such a young age," said the student at Citadel High School in Halifax.

"I just don’t know that 16 is the appropriate age. . . . You’re faced with a lot of decisions at 16. You’re in Grade 10, you’re entering your first year of high school; you’ve got a lot going on personally, socially, academically. It’s a lot to take in that year. I know it was for me."

Laura, who said the law should not be changed, feels that by the time students turn 18 they are more mature, better informed and ready to cast a ballot.

Premier Rodney MacDonald said he has some concerns about changing the voting age, and his view echoed Laura’s.

"The age of 18 reflects a student or young person leaving their high school years, getting prepared to go on to their post-secondary education or into the workforce. And there is a difference between a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old," he said. "So I do have some reservations with respect to the bill."

Still, he said, he will review Mr. McNeil’s proposal and give it some consideration.

Link to Full Article

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I cannot express how heartily I disagree with this proposal. I don't believe that most 18-year-olds fully comprehend the process and the impact of their votes, let alone those a year to two years younger. 

Here's where I think the Liberals are getting this idea: Some schools had a mock election around the time leading up to the real federal election. The Liberals were likely a popular vote among students. I know that at my daughter's elementary school, the Liberals won by a landslide.

You know, if we lower the voting age to 8 (my daughter's age), the Liberals would have it made in the shade.  8)


----------



## Spanky (1 Nov 2008)

16 does seem a little young.  That being said, there are large numbers of 18yrs plus individual who haven't a clue about the process or the issues.  I'm sure there are many students who are more aware and informed than adults.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Nov 2008)

So?

Does this mean that he wants to lower the Age of Majority in all legislation by two years?

You will be allowed to purchase liquor and smokes legally in Nova Scotia when you are 16?

The Age of Consent will be lowered again, with regard to Rape, in NS?

You will be permitted to obtain a Drivers Lic two years earlier?

They will then legally recognize children over the age of 16 to be adults, and therefore not subject to the International Laws against Child Soldiers?

What else will 16 year olds then be justified to claim rights to?


----------



## Snafu-Bar (1 Nov 2008)

It's the Liberal party, they realize the only new voters willing to cast a balllot thier way are probbaly under the age of voting...

 It in no way will happen due to the above aforementioned hand in hand age related issues.

Cheers.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Nov 2008)

I'm all for it.  The Young Offender Act would have to stop at 15!


----------



## George Wallace (1 Nov 2008)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I'm all for it.  The Young Offender Act would have to stop at 15!



A ray of sunshine in the mists.


----------



## Celticgirl (1 Nov 2008)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I'm all for it.  The Young Offender Act would have to stop at 15!



That is an interesting take on it.   There certainly would have to be changes made to a lot of other existing laws if this age lowering were to be implemented. It's a slippery slope, indeed. I just cannot see this proposed law passing in Parliament...not now, not ever. The Liberals are certainly good at coming up with 'new and interesting' ideas to keep them in the media spotlight.  8)


----------



## Mike Baker (1 Nov 2008)

And while we are changing some laws, why not ban guns. Lord knows these are steps in the right direction :

Beav


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Nov 2008)

The Beaver said:
			
		

> And while we are changing some laws, why not ban guns. Lord knows these are steps in the right direction :
> 
> Beav



Don't even suggest that sarcastically or in jest. Some dipper or liebral will hear you and spin it as support.


----------



## dbouls (1 Nov 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So?
> 
> Does this mean that he wants to lower the Age of Majority in all legislation by two years?
> 
> ...


Just for clarity


I don't know what the age restrictions are where you live, but here in Ontario it's all across the board anyways.

Alcohol and Tobacco: 19yrs.
Voting: 18 (Obviously)
Drivers license: 16 (learning permit only)
Age of Majority: 19

No, they do not want to lower all legislation by two years. They are not changing the Age of Majority. It doesn't even say that they want to do that in the article.
Age of majority is the legal term of saying someone is an "adult", they are of majority and they are not a minor. This varies from province to province. 18 in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island, 19 in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. In some cases this can mean that people over 18/19 are the only people who can buy alcohol/tobacco and enter in a binding contract.

Voting age is NOT Age of majority. As you might know, the voting age used to be 21. Now it's 18. Did everything change by 3 years? (Don't know, ask yourself that question) Nowhere in the Canada Elections Act does it say you have to be of majority to vote.
Voting age across Canada is stated in the Canada Elections Act (Part 1 section 3)

I agree with Celtic girl that most 18 year olds don't know what's going on in our elections, but the people who don't know what's going on don't vote anyways (See voter turnout -- 59.1%) by lowering the voting age, we'll just open the field to more people that WON'T VOTE.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Nov 2008)

dbouls said:
			
		

> No, they do not want to lower all legislation by two years. They are not changing the Age of Majority. It doesn't even say that they want to do that in the article.
> Age of majority is the legal term of saying someone is an "adult", they are of majority and they are not a minor. .



So?  They want to allow children the right to vote then?     >




			
				dbouls said:
			
		

> Voting age is NOT Age of majority. As you might know, the voting age used to be 21. Now it's 18.



At one time the Age of Majority was 21.  Now it is 18.


----------



## Love793 (1 Nov 2008)

It looks to me, like a desperate attempt to gain more uninformed voter support in any up coming elections. I can only imagine how many ridings in the recent federal election would have been swayed to the left had this been in effect. I'm sure however that it would raise the voter turn out.


----------



## GDawg (1 Nov 2008)

Most 20, 30, 40 year olds don't have a fraction of a clue as to what is going on around them. Age and intelligence/situational awareness aren't locked together.
I am willing to bet most 16 year olds would be unwilling to take the time and trouble to go and vote on their own. This is probably just a bid for more proxy votes for those who have apathetic teenagers at home. Something like this; "You can either rake the lawn or vote liberal with me tomorrow"


----------



## Mike Baker (1 Nov 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Don't even suggest that sarcastically or in jest. Some dipper or liebral will hear you and spin it as support.


Oh whoops, never thought of that. 

And it *IS* sarcasm.



			
				GDawg said:
			
		

> Most 20, 30, 40 year olds don't have a fraction of a clue as to what is going on around them. Age and intelligence/situational awareness aren't locked together.
> I am willing to bet most 16 year olds would be unwilling to take the time and trouble to go and vote on their own. This is probably just a bid for more proxy votes for those who have apathetic teenagers at home. Something like this; "You can either rake the lawn or vote liberal with me tomorrow"


I agree totally. I mean, how many people really care, and I mean REALLY care, about what political parties say they will do if they were in power, and then actually make a very smart decision. Add 16 an 17 year old's to the mix, and we have quite the cluster f*&k.

Beaver


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Nov 2008)

They probably want this to come into effect about the time the young dauphin Trudeau emerges for the leadership and run at PM. All those lovestruck young women that voted for his dad proved it wasn't what was in their heads that counted. I remember the females in my family caring less about his socialist policies and more about what a snappy dresser he was. His win was based on love struck puppies, not level headed voters.


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Nov 2008)

The lowering of the voting age to sixteen is hardly imminent and would apply only to Nova Scotia in any case. The Liberals are the third party in that province behind the PCs and the NDP. This seems like a bit of gamesmanship. Maybe it is a slow news day ploy to get some attention and the leader's picture in the paper. In my opinion it is a case of making a teapot out of a tea cup.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Nov 2008)

I say sure thing, since they are capable of choosing a leader while we are at it lets impose a draft and change the Young offenders Act to end at 16 as well, With privilege comes responsibility.


----------



## McG (1 Nov 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> "At 16, I believe those young Nova Scotians are mature enough to understand and realize that decisions that we as government are making will impact their lives," he said.


At 10 most should be able to "understand and realize that decisions ... [made by government]making will impact their lives."   That does not mean a 10 year old knows what factors to consider when choosing who to vote for.  It's not just a mater of intelligence or maturity either.  At 16, there are very very few who have considered the responsibility of financial independance (let alone experienced it).  While at 18 many (most?) are still living under the financial umberalla of thier parents, at least by this age most are starting to think of the responsibilities of living independant in society and are even starting to step-out and experience it.

I wonder if the experience of this responsibility (or at least the expectation that one is thinking of this) should not be one of the over-ridding factors in where the appropriate voting age is.  Living at home under mom & dad does not truely develop the appreciation of the functions of our society that one should be considering when choosing where to give a vote.  For someone that's always had thier meals handed to them, Communism may sound like a great idea  ...

As I said, at least at 18 we can expect that people are starting to experience this real world so that they probably have some experience background in which to understand the decision they will make.


----------



## RangerRay (12 Nov 2008)

When I was 16, the thought of my classmates being given the right to vote gave me the willies.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (19 Nov 2008)

I too am skeptical and hesitant at this move. I think that the current age of 18 is a perfectly fine rubicon to cross for voting rights. However they do bring up a valid point regarding, in a sense, "taxation without representation". Though a counterpoint to that would be that legally speaking, a person under the 18 is under the responsibility of their parent and therefore their views are represented through that. Maybe letting emancipated minors, minimum age 16, allowed to vote would be an interesting idea as technically speaking we have allowed them to live on their own and represent themselves, therefore they should have the legal right to vote.

-C/D


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> ...rubicon.......
> ..... emancipated minors......



Crikey, at the ripe ole age of 49, I have never heard of the word rubicon before, and as for emancipated minors, shyte bloody gawd almighty, what dictionaries and/or text books do you spend your entire hours awake reading?  

Now back on topic. On the more sane side of reality, at 16 to vote in a government, yet not old enough to have a beer, or deploy into harms way, or be an adult at that, well giving someone the keys to a car at 16 is bad enough, but keys to elect a government is even more insane.

Stay with 18. A 16 yr old is a child (even though at 16 I thought I knew it all - boy was I wrong).

As much as those ghey Libs want this, it aint going to happen.

EDITed to remove 'insult'


----------



## Steel Badger (19 Nov 2008)

Rubicon?   16 year olds from Nova Scotia can now cross a small stream on the border of Transalpine Gaul and contest Pompey for the control of Rome?


----------



## TheHead (19 Nov 2008)

Overwatch Downunder that's un-called for, as much as I disagree with cog-dis's opinions at time just because he has a better vocabulary than you doesn't mean you are free to insult him. Also I don't understand why you have to insult the Liberals by calling them "Ghey/Gay", sexual orientation should never be used as an insult.


Now, back on topic.  

   I disagree with this proposal also.  I find people at the age of 16 don't do enough critical thinking of their own and are swayed more by media than independent research.


----------



## slowmode (19 Nov 2008)

Liberals...thats all i have to say


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Nov 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Crikey, at the ripe ole age of 49, I have never heard of the word rubicon before, and as for emancipated minors, shyte bloody gawd almighty, what dictionaries and/or text books do you spend your entire hours awake reading? Between being an obvious student and fighting on the anti-war front, methinks you have little or no time for you so called Reserve duty.
> 
> In short, get a life.



Overwatch Downunder...........stick to the topic.
You are over the line.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (19 Nov 2008)

To clear up any misunderstandings. As Steel Badger pointed out, Rubicon is a historical reference. What I mean by "rubicon" is that, the age of 18 is a perfectly fine line needed to cross in order to be considered an adult. As arbitrary as it may be, its a fair enough one. As well, an emancipated minor are those under 18 who have freed themselves from the control of their parent or guardian. Wikipedia has a relevant article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipated_minor

I hope this helps clear up any confusion.

-C/D


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Nov 2008)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Overwatch Downunder that's un-called for, as much as I disagree with cog-dis's opinions at time just because he has a better vocabulary than you doesn't mean you are free to insult him. Also I don't understand why you have to insult the Liberals by calling them "Ghey/Gay", sexual orientation should never be used as an insult.



A little bit direct perhaps, but not an insult. If I was to 'insult' him, I'd go for a PM to him.

Firstly, he is nothing but a troll, and I have had a gutful of him, so Mr Head, stop being so bloody PC. Read his ENTIRE history before you go toe to toe with me. We are on the same side.

This troll insults us serving members everytime he opens his gob.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Nov 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Firstly, he is nothing but a troll, and I have had a gutful of him, so Mr Head, pull your head in, and stop being so bloody PC. Read his history before you go toe to toe with me lad!
> 
> So cut the insult crap out, this troll insults us everytime he opens with gob.


 That's it. Open your mouth again, and you're gone. The only one trolling here is YOU!!

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## ARMY_101 (19 Nov 2008)

There's already a problem with voting in Canada, but it's not going to be fixed by lowering the voting age.  It's already been pointed out that even some 18-year-olds are not mature nor informed enough to be able to understand how voting for Stephen Harper versus Stephane Dion will impact their lives (some couldn't even name the five major parties).  With barely 59% of eligible people coming out to vote in the most recent election, it needs to be examined why people are not voting before we go to try and expand the age for voters.  Perhaps politicians making more of a connection with young audiences who are looking for information on subsidized education and how they will be looked after could help younger people get to the polls, rather than simply lowering the age requirements.


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Nov 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That's it. Open your mouth again, and you're gone. Milnet.ca Staff



Point taken.

Head, sorry for the outburst. WRT ghey, please take the time to do a search on this site for this word and see how it is used. Go here  http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search2, and type in ghey, its got nothing to do with people's sexuality, and the term has even been used by Moderators on this site. See for yourself.

CD, you're on ignore. I won't be baited by you or your posts anymore. Your posts often flash me back to some rather unpleasant times, and things I've endured, so people with your way of thought still get to do this freely. Time will tell for you on this site.

Mods, I appologise for my two posts in this thread. My emotions/frustrations just got the best of me. I admit that.

I've come too far on this site to be punted for remarks I perhaps should have thought over about first, or better yet not posted at all. As a senior member of this site, I would like to warn other senior members that no one is immune to 'Modulator discretion', so please keep your emotions in check, as we've all come too far to be removed from here.

Sorry to all if any feather rustled.

At 49, and a Veteran at that, its another lesson learned.

Emotions and frustrations now in check.

OWDU


----------



## TheHead (19 Nov 2008)

Thanks for clearing that term up with me Down Under.  

Cheers.


----------



## 1feral1 (19 Nov 2008)

Like I said mate, we're on the same side.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Nov 2008)

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> Rubicon?   16 year olds from Nova Scotia can now cross a small stream on the border of Transalpine Gaul and contest Pompey for the control of Rome?


:rofl:
YES!


I think that a sixteen year old is (a) too much emotion and (b) not legally responsible.  What do I mean by this?   Let me explain
16 year olds are just coming out of the "fun" part of puberty.  We all know that emotions cloud judgement, and at 16, a person doesn't have the experience to realise that judgement is impaired.
A 16 year old who is convicted of comitting murder will be treated as a "young offender".  A 16 year old cannot display nude pictures of himself/herself.  A 16 year old cannot deploy as a member of the CF beyond Canada's borders.  Yet some wish to take such a person and give them the privilege, perhaps THE GREATEST privilege we have, and that is the power to vote?  As the horse  used to say: "No sir, I don't like it"


----------



## a_majoor (19 Nov 2008)

While 16 year olds don't (for the most part) have the maturity and judgement of their older peers, older voters often don't take the time to study or know the issues either (see here).

Maybe we need to ensure voters know and understand what is going on: Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" offered volunteering for some sort of national service, or you could administer a quiz at the polling station ("Which party proposed "X"?), or even just sell votes (Really. If you had to purchase a ballot from the State, you probably would be more inclined to know what you are buying). I'm sure the really smart people on this forum can come up with more reasonable proposals.


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Nov 2008)

And their Liberal cousins in Upper Canada don't want their prospective voters to be able to give two friends a ride to Timmy's for a coffee.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (20 Nov 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Maybe we need to ensure voters know and understand what is going on: Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" offered volunteering for some sort of national service, or you could administer a quiz at the polling station ("Which party proposed "X"?), or even just sell votes (Really. If you had to purchase a ballot from the State, you probably would be more inclined to know what you are buying). I'm sure the really smart people on this forum can come up with more reasonable proposals.



I must vehemently disagree with this idea on so many levels. The first, administering quizzes would not only be a huge bureaucratic burden (not to mention who would decide the questions? How can we make sure the questions are not biased?), but also it would disenfranchise many groups and peoples. Remember, "voting tests" were exactly what was used in the southern United States to disenfranchise black voters. Furthermore, selling votes is a horrible idea as well. The right to vote is inalienable, and to have it become a commodity would be the worst thing possible. I cannot even begin to list the flaws with that as it should be inherently obvious, but I think the most obvious is that money is not, and should not be, a measure of ones franchise whatsoever. People in poverty have the right to vote because they are affected by the choices of their government, by making it into a commodity you are literally disenfranchising them. People in poverty are already the most affected by national policy, and to even limit their abilities even more is abhorrent. 

As for Heinlein's political ideology, I, as many others find it to be untenable as far as national policy goes. Despite being proud of what I have done and continue to do (that is, serving my country) it shouldn't be a measure of ones franchise either. Yes I understand that civic non-military service would be offered as well, but it really flies in the face of equality that we strive for in our society. For a great rip on Heinlein just watch the movie Starship Troopers, it was directed and shot as a satire of the book. One can especially see this at the start with its blatant jingoism and militarism (e.g. the kids squishing bugs on planet earth in "doing their part", and "who wants bullets?" and kids rushing over to grab them). The military has a very set and special way of doing things, but they are designed for that purpose only. Militarism outside of the military as an institution leads to very bad situations.

-C/D


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> The military has a very set and special way of doing things, but they are designed for that purpose only.  Militarism outside of the military as an institution leads to very bad situations.



And in democratic states I think the most common example is called UNIONISM.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Nov 2008)

Then how do you propose to have voters know and understand what they are voting for. Do you want elections decided by people who vote for a candidate without knowing what he stands for?



> Here are some highlights of Zogby's poll of Obama voters:
> 
> * 57 percent thought the Republicans still control Congress. Note that this is worse than a random result, since there are only two possible answers.
> 
> * Only 12 percent could identify Obama as the candidate who said that his energy policies would cause the cost of electricity to skyrocket.



People pay more attention when they go out and buy bread and milk, so we should expect at least _that_ level of attentiveness when selecting our legislators.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (20 Nov 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> And in democratic states I think the most common example is called UNIONISM.



Disagree. Unions have by far and large been a great overseer of worker's rights. There is very little militarism in the way I am speaking of in terms of politics, and Unions still serve a great purpose overall. 

-C/D


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Disagree. Unions have by far and large been a great overseer of worker's rights. There is very little militarism in the way I am speaking of in terms of politics, and Unions still serve a great purpose overall.
> 
> -C/D



You can't have the job if you don't belong to the union.
You have to belong to the union and you have to pay the union dues.
The union will decide when you go on strike, even if you can't afford it.
The union will decide what's good for you.

Nope, no militarism there.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Disagree. Unions have by far and large been a great overseer of worker's rights. There is very little militarism in the way I am speaking of in terms of politics, and Unions still serve a great purpose overall.
> 
> -C/D



I don't know what sort of unions you've been exposed to, but the CAw has become nothing short of a political corporation. Workers rights are so far down their list of goals, it's not even on the screen. No militarism? Try attending a rally down here. Methinks your just regurgitating some party line you read somewhere. If you had any dealings or relationships with real (big & powerful) unions you'd not be thinking the way you are.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (20 Nov 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't know what sort of unions you've been exposed to, but the CAw has become nothing short of a political corporation. Workers rights are so far down their list of goals, it's not even on the screen. No militarism? Try attending a rally down here. Methinks your just regurgitating some party line you read somewhere. If you had any dealings or relationships with real (big & powerful) unions you'd not be thinking the way you are.



While some unions have certainly become powerful in that sense, I think in this case though throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the right step. Historically speaking, unions have been defenders of human rights, workers rights, family rights and proper wage controls. Otherwise there is no check on the inherently strong profit margins by organizations (whereby to increase profit, the workers are squeezed even more). Organization of workers for their own benefit is important. 

While the union as a monolithic organization does decide "for you" in a sense, it is still a collective of people and ideas. You mention that "the union" decides to go on strike but you forget that this is done through democratic processes of voting and appointments, and there are usually union wide votes on such actions. 

Michael, I believe our definitions of militarism are misconnecting, so with that I disagree with your assertation of militarism in unions. Majority rule, and organizational unity is no more militaristic than majority ruled democracy.

-C/D


----------



## Rodahn (20 Nov 2008)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> You can't have the job if you don't belong to the union. and
> *You can't be in the union unless you have the job!!!*
> The union will decide when you go on strike, even if you can't afford it.
> The union will decide what's good for you.



Even more so when I started. That actually happened to me in 73, when I applied for a job..... Small wonder I detest unions.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> While some unions have certainly become powerful in that sense, I think in this case though throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the right step. Historically speaking, unions have been defenders of human rights, workers rights, family rights and proper wage controls. Otherwise there is no check on the inherently strong profit margins by organizations (whereby to increase profit, the workers are squeezed even more). Organization of workers for their own benefit is important.
> 
> *While the union as a monolithic organization does decide "for you" in a sense, it is still a collective of people and ideas. You mention that "the union" decides to go on strike but you forget that this is done through democratic processes of voting and appointments, and there are usually union wide votes on such actions. *



This statement just confirms for me that you've never been a REAL participant and you really have no true experience to be espousing the socialist party line. Get your head out of the books and student discussions. Time for jaundiced look at the real world. You're in for a real rude awakening.


----------



## Marshall (20 Nov 2008)

Im 18, and 16 was not too long ago. And when I remember how my classes were during school... I would not put such an important matter in the hands of a 16 year old.

18 is low enough, I still think half the people my age around me should not vote. Many people (and probably NOT just 18 year olds) do not even look at politics, and probably just show up to vote for whomever looks nice or has the better color on their lawn signs.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Nov 2008)

Unions exhibit militant behaviour, not militarist behaviour.  What is in common is the authoritarian streak.

Trade unionism has been responsible for some excellent labour legislation, but not as much as the guardians of its mythology would have us believe.  Most of what we hold to be good about our labour laws is the result of general public pressure, to which labour unions contributed.  But so did non-unionists.

You have to have the mind of a child - or perhaps a teenager - to fail to understand or be aware of the ways in which unions really can "decide for you".  Union executives can and do make decisions which result in information being withheld from members, and whether the membership will be offered an opportunity to debate and vote.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Nov 2008)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> You have to have the mind of a child - or perhaps a teenager - to fail to understand or be aware of the ways in which unions really can "decide for you".  Union executives can and do make decisions which result in information being withheld from members, and whether the membership will be offered an opportunity to debate and vote.



Yup,......and I'm the VP of my local.

CD, once again I would like to know if you have first hand experience or are just telling us what you studied somewhere.
I'm getting ready for job actions and then a possible strike in little over a month.......and you?


----------



## Steel Badger (21 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> While some unions have certainly become powerful in that sense, I think in this case though throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the right step. Historically speaking, unions have been defenders of human rights, workers rights, family rights and proper wage controls. Otherwise there is no check on the inherently strong profit margins by organizations (whereby to increase profit, the workers are squeezed even more). Organization of workers for their own benefit is important.
> 
> While the union as a monolithic organization does decide "for you" in a sense, it is still a collective of people and ideas. You mention that "the union" decides to go on strike but you forget that this is done through democratic processes of voting and appointments, and there are usually union wide votes on such actions.
> 
> ...





C/D.. I have to ask? have YOU ever participated in a Union in any form; or are you basing your judgements entirely on what you have read?  I have 10 years experience as an active Union member, ( 7 of them as a Steward) and I must say that your ideas of Unions are idealistic and "Ivory Tower" to say the least. Perhaps you should lend greater creedence to the comments of Messers Monkhouse et al. THOSE gentlemen have a great deal more experience with the beast than I.  In addition there are MANY knowledgeable members out here who have offered their opinions to you ( Herr O'Leary  etc,) in open discussion. I am concerned regarding the tone and content of replies your mate... to me it appears as if your stock answer to these members is to tell 'em to "JOG ON" because of the mystical insight you have....

Might be the distance or worldview from the sandbox; or might be my aluminium pot syndrome kicking in; but I would suggest you review how you deal with people mate.....

(Edited for completeness, oh and spelling....durn mess tins...)


----------



## CountDC (21 Nov 2008)

Marshall said:
			
		

> Im 18, and 16 was not too long ago. And when I remember how my classes were during school... I would not put such an important matter in the hands of a 16 year old.
> 
> 18 is low enough, I still think half the people my age around me should not vote. Many people (and probably NOT just 18 year olds) do not even look at politics, and probably just show up to vote for whomever looks nice or has the better color on their lawn signs.



you missed the "my father and his father and his father voted _insert party here_ and so am I" group.  Unfortunately there are still lots of those that will vote for the "family" party regardless of who is the new face or what their current policies are.


----------



## R. Jorgensen (21 Nov 2008)

I don't like the idea of Voting Age being lowered to 16; just because through Grade 11 so far (Yes, I'm in Grade 11, not Grade 10 like the article says) most 16 year-olds haven't the slightest clue of even how the Canadian Parliamentary system let alone voting works - they are completely ignorant. However, I am very informed on Canadian Politics and I have had several Legal Studies, Social Studies and Political Studies teachers say that for my age, I know too well of politics - but I beg to differ. I am informed and knowledgable enough that I would put my vote in the right direction (the government should come up with a system where people under 18 but no younger than 16 can sign-up for a 'young voter' status or something, teehee...).

Alberta is messed up; there is a rumour going around that the Alberta GDL system has changed regarding age (14 - Learners GDL 7; 16 - GDL Class 5 [Restrictions apply]) however I am still running off of the confirmed rules.

Alcohol and Tobacco: 18yrs.
Voting: 18 (Obviously)
Drivers license: 14 for Learners Permit (GDL Class 7); 16 for GDL Class 5; 18 for anything higher than Class 5
Age of Majority: 18
Consent (Sexual): 14 (I still believe this is the age which people gain legal sexual consent rights, I heard it was changed or is being changed to 16)


----------



## tynanfromBC (21 Nov 2008)

If lowering the voting age means 16 year olds will begin to pay taxes, then by all means. 

Before they go about talking about lowering the legal voting age, perhaps a reform of the electoral process is in order? It's hard for a 16 year old to really understand the workings of International Relations, Federalism, or the proper workings of a state (beaurocracy and all). Perhaps they should begin to look at our outdated electoral system, and propose a change to Proportional Representation and actually make the votes count.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Nov 2008)

Lowering the voting age is sensible, if first we nerf the powers of government.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Nov 2008)

tynanfromBC said:
			
		

> Perhaps they should begin to look at our outdated electoral system, and propose a change to Proportional Representation and actually make the votes count.



Uninformed teenage voters coupled to an undemocratic voting system (how many 16 year olds will be in control of the appointed "party list"? How do voters reach appointed "party list" candidates for accountability?). Wow, you really have found the *worst* of all possible worlds.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (21 Nov 2008)

Well if they are proposing that the legal age for voting be 16, then the public and high schools better start teaching these kids about the system and it's workings before allowing them into the booths.

 Cheers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Nov 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Well if they are proposing that the legal age for voting be 16, then the public and high schools better start teaching these kids about the system and it's workings before allowing them into the booths.
> 
> Cheers.



That would defeat the whole purpose wouldn't it? They don't want educated voters........they want sheep.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (21 Nov 2008)

Just the liberal dinosaurs...  ;D


----------



## Armymedic (21 Nov 2008)

If Ontario Liberals bring in the new driving law, then that province's Conservatives and NDP parties will fight desperately to get 16 yr old voters....all whom are not old enough to drive, nor drink, but to dispose of a crappy provincial government.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (22 Nov 2008)

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> C/D.. I have to ask? have YOU ever participated in a Union in any form; or are you basing your judgements entirely on what you have read?  I have 10 years experience as an active Union member, ( 7 of them as a Steward) and I must say that your ideas of Unions are idealistic and "Ivory Tower" to say the least. Perhaps you should lend greater creedence to the comments of Messers Monkhouse et al. THOSE gentlemen have a great deal more experience with the beast than I.  In addition there are MANY knowledgeable members out here who have offered their opinions to you ( Herr O'Leary  etc,) in open discussion. I am concerned regarding the tone and content of replies your mate... to me it appears as if your stock answer to these members is to tell 'em to "JOG ON" because of the mystical insight you have....
> 
> Might be the distance or worldview from the sandbox; or might be my aluminium pot syndrome kicking in; but I would suggest you review how you deal with people mate.....
> 
> (Edited for completeness, oh and spelling....durn mess tins...)



Despite various Union's problems in the end eliminating them completely would not be the solution. I'm sure those of you with Union experience could in the very at least agree with me on that regard?

-C/D


----------



## Steel Badger (22 Nov 2008)

C/D old son, I believe I asked you a question: Have you ever been involved with, or part of a Union?  

One would imagine the polite response would be to answer it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Despite various Union's problems in the end eliminating them completely would not be the solution. I'm sure those of you with Union experience could in the very at least agree with me on that regard?
> 
> -C/D



I'll answer your question - No I don't agree. There are laws in place now ensuring the fair and safe treatment of workers. Many big corporations now operate quite well without the unions and sometimes better. Should there be some sort of watchdog organisation to overlook things? I'd be open to that, but would have to see what the mandate is first and how they were going to operate. BTW, I've had plenty of experience with unions.

Now, you've been asked questions. Answer them, and I suggest you take to heart the post I made to you in another thread.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Nov 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Now, you've been asked questions. Answer them,



C'mon guys, his lack of an answer *IS* the answer.

He was part of a trade union so secret, and so powerful that it reaches the highest levels of society and carries out a secret agenda of national domination. He cant admit that hes a member or reveal anyone's membership in it.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Nov 2008)

Well, I'm going to out him:

C/D: you are in arrears for your dues to the *Illuminati International Brotherhood of Templars and Freemasons * local 10101

The rest of you scofflaws (and _we_ know who you are) can expect your next statement delivered by black helicopter by the end of the month! This has been going on far too long, and the Grand Master expects prompt dues payments in the future, or else.


----------



## Steel Badger (22 Nov 2008)

Artorius old nut; if this thread turns into a recruiting tool for the GALLANT AND IMPERIAL LOYAL FRONTIERSMEN of IMPERIAL CANADA ( Stealth DIVISION) United COMMAND, Splinter Division.....


----------



## a_majoor (22 Nov 2008)

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> Artorius old nut; if this thread turns into a recruiting tool for the GALLANT AND IMPERIAL LOYAL FRONTIERSMEN of IMPERIAL CANADA ( Stealth DIVISION) United COMMAND, Splinter Division.....



No, those are just the collection agents for the Grand Master......


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Nov 2008)

Fun's over. Enough of the hijack. Back on topic.







Milnet.ca Fun Police


----------



## PAT-Platoon (22 Nov 2008)

recceguy, I hope it's alright if I at least answer their question? Yes I have been involved in Unions in the past, and hopefully in the future as well.

-C/D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> recceguy, I hope it's alright if I at least answer their question? Yes I have been involved in Unions in the past, and hopefully in the future as well.
> 
> -C/D



As what?  How long? How many strikes you been in?  Negotiations?..........


----------



## Steel Badger (23 Nov 2008)

Bruce, that is what I wanted to know... we shall see if he answers,     given that he his very reticent to elaborate on his own sit.


----------



## HunterADA (23 Nov 2008)

tynanfromBC said:
			
		

> If lowering the voting age means 16 year olds will begin to pay taxes, then by all means.



You mean they DON'T in Canada?! Wow. The longer I stay out of the US, the more I realize just how different other places are.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Nov 2008)

Ha....how did I miss that?

Of course they do if they have any sort of income,....just like at any age.


----------



## ettibebs (23 Nov 2008)

I'm absolutly against any lowering of the voting age.  I don't think people have the experience and knowledge to make such decision at that age.  If in 1995 the voting age had been at 16 in Quebec, we probably would not be part of the confedaration anymore. Among the young there was a big majority for independance.  At least at the school I went to...  
I think young voter are to at risk to be taken by what is cool at the moment instead of what is truely raisonable and desirable for the nation.  It's easy to be blinded when you don't have the experience to know what is just political spin and what will really happen if you vote that way.  I know I was...  :-[


----------



## Steel Badger (23 Nov 2008)

Sorry for my latest derailing of the thread all; but having asked C/D a question, I feel I deserve an answer to it. Certainly I believe that Bruce deserves one as well. Why does C/D appear to be more and more an "ivory tower" wallah who hides behind hyperbole?   Perhaps he has reached HIS Rubicon here?


Iacta Alea Est C/D.

Again. apologies all


----------



## Marshall (23 Nov 2008)

tynanfromBC said:
			
		

> If lowering the voting age means 16 year olds will begin to pay taxes, then by all means.



By paying taxes what do you mean? For their wages they receive? I am fine with that since I am going 19 soon enough ^^ (although I have been paying for a year now anyways)


----------



## ARMY_101 (23 Nov 2008)

HunterADA said:
			
		

> You mean they DON'T in Canada?! Wow. The longer I stay out of the US, the more I realize just how different other places are.



Taxes are paid on our income from any age, but further taxes are taken off once one works past the age of 18.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Nov 2008)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Taxes are paid on our income from any age, but further taxes are taken off once one works past the age of 18.



I'm no expert but I don't think "extra" are taken off due to any age......any "extra" would be based on earnings.

[and if that is the case, army101 then this would be the second time you have placed yourself as having facts that you do not have, something we frown highly here at army.ca.]

EDIT: confused "army101" with "army08" from the underage drinking thread.


----------



## ARMY_101 (23 Nov 2008)

And that is not something I'd like to get into again 

Perhaps I can try and clarify.  Income tax rates are the same no matter what age - "15% on the first $37,885 of taxable income".  The "extra" I spoke of come from Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance deductions, not a "higher" percentage of tax being taken off.  My apologies for the misunderstanding.


----------



## Marshall (23 Nov 2008)

Well I definitely know I was being taxed for a lot more my first payment after 18. But that must of been the pension tax?


----------



## CountDC (24 Nov 2008)

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> And that is not something I'd like to get into again
> 
> Perhaps I can try and clarify.  Income tax rates are the same no matter what age - "15% on the first $37,885 of taxable income".  The "extra" I spoke of come from Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance deductions, not a "higher" percentage of tax being taken off.  My apologies for the misunderstanding.



Change that to CPP only - EI is deductable regardless of age.


----------



## STONEY (4 Dec 2008)

Maybe they should make the age for members of parliament 16 couldn't do worse than the crowd there now.


----------



## PantsMcFist (4 Dec 2008)

STONEY said:
			
		

> Maybe they should make the age for members of parliament 16 couldn't do worse than the crowd there now.



No doubt there.

I personally don't mind if the voting age is lowered to twelve, let's just make sure the kids are given a good grasp of civics before then.  Hell, most adults don't really understand the system.


----------

