Supreme Court rejects challenge on voting age

[McG]

Supreme Court rejects challenge on voting age
Canadian Press  
Thursday, 6 Jan 2005

Ottawa â ” The Supreme Court of Canada will not hear a challenge by two teenagers who wanted to see the voting age lowered in Alberta.

As is custom, Canada's top court gave no reasons for its decision Thursday.

Eryn Fitzgerald and Christine Jairamsingh started their legal battle to let young people vote before the 2001 civic election in Edmonton when they were still in high school. They have since graduated and are now at university.

A Court of Queen's Bench justice agreed with their arguments that voting-age limits violate their democratic and equality rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the judge also concluded the violations are justified to maintain the integrity of the electoral system.

â Å“It is clear that some restriction is necessary, since newborns and young children clearly do not have sufficient maturity to cast a rational and informed vote,â ? Justice Erik Lefsrud wrote in 2002.

The two girls challenged his decision, but the Alberta Court of Appeal unanimously upheld Judge Lefsrud's decision last May.

Mark Cherrington, a youth justice worker helping Ms. Fitzgerald and Ms. Jairamsingh with the case, said at the time that arbitrarily setting the voting age at 18 is unconstitutional.

â Å“We're not saying whether it should be 15 or 16 or 17, but right now where the line is discriminates against a lot of young people who are able to make informed decisions,â ? Mr. Cherrington said.

â Å“We're doing this because the right to vote is an important, fundamental right to any citizen of a country. There are close to one million Canadians who are 16 or 17.â ?

Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Canada's chief electoral officer, told members of Parliament in March that decreasing the voting age to 16 could help stop further declines in participation rates among young voters.

An Elections Canada study found that only 22.4 per cent of people between the ages of 18 and 20 voted in the 2000 federal election.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050106.wscoc0106/BNStory/National/

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Bit of a rant here but just how much do you think this whole exercise in stupidity cost the Canadian taxpayer?
Why do these things always seem to have to go too far?....Oh yea$$$$$$$....and that wonderful thing called legal aid. ^-^

 

[FredDaHead]

I kinda agree that the voting age should be changed. Either that, or they change the whole thing about being tried as an adult before you're 18. Either you get responsibilities AND rights, or you get neither. Right now a 17 year old kid has the responsibilities of an adult, but none of the rights. (IE, you get tried as an adult, but you can't do anything an adult is allowed to, including buying alcohol, voting, and not having to get your parents to sign official papers for you)

We shouldn't waste money by going to court about it though, I guess. Let parliament waste our money for us, eh?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
Either that, or they change the whole thing about being tried as an adult before you're 18

What are you talking about? You have never heard of the young offenders act?

Now I don't mean to sound condensending, though it will appear that way, but your last post is a good reason to keep it at least age 18 as I don't believe that  most people that age and younger put enough serious thought into something before they act.
[ie. posting info before checking ]
Bruce

 

[FredDaHead]

Quote,
Either that, or they change the whole thing about being tried as an adult before you're 18

What are you talking about? You have never heard of the young offenders act?
Bruce

Yes I've heard of it, but there IS adult sentencing imposed on minors, which is what I was talking about. Ok, so it's not an adult court, but it's still an adult sentence. Same difference.

About keeping the voting age at 18... Do old people really put much thought into voting? I don't think the phenomenon is limited to young people, really.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
but there IS adult sentencing imposed on minors,

This still makes no sense, are you saying that minors can go to an adult institution?

 

[aesop081]

Yes I've heard of it, but there IS adult sentencing imposed on minors, which is what I was talking about. Ok, so it's not an adult court, but it's still an adult sentence. Same difference.

About keeping the voting age at 18... Do old people really put much thought into voting? I don't think the phenomenon is limited to young people, really.

Bottom line is that we must draw the line somewhere.  What would be next ? allowing 10 year olds to vote in federal elections ?   what would be next after that ?

As for juvinile sentencing, do you know why most minors are not tried as adult ? Because they have no way of understanding the consequences of their actions.  Same could be argued for voting.

Sure, some are more mature than others but we can't start making "case-by-case" laws..........

 

[Michael OLeary]

So, the proposal being out forth is that the capacity for some minors to commit crimes "beyond their years," thus qualifying for trial and sentencing as adults, justifies a case to allow "adult privileges" ["buying alcohol, voting, and not having to get your parents to sign official papers for you"] for all minors?

Somehow, the logic of that argument just doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny.

 

[Sailing Instructor]

I think if the persons who brought this case up did so to cynically point out that a child is commonly just as informed as anyone older, I would be on their side.  But they didn't make this point, so all I can say is better luck next time.  Frankly, with all the uninformed voting & absurd simplification of 'the issues' by political parties, I'm not going to argue for democracy.

My thought on adult sentencing is that it comes before voting may be a way of preserving our laws & customs.  That is, we mould Canadian children into obeyance (&, perhaps more important, understanding) of the law before we allow them to have a say in how it's changed.

 

[FredDaHead]

So, the proposal being out forth is that the capacity for some minors to commit crimes "beyond their years," thus qualifying for trial and sentencing as adults, justifies a case to allow "adult privileges" ["buying alcohol, voting, and not having to get your parents to sign official papers for you"] for all minors?

Somehow, the logic of that argument just doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny.

The logic is that, since the whole Young Offenders thing is about kids not knowing better and becoming criminals at a young age and getting a second chance, this means that minors are not as responsible as adults, right? (And I agree with that, really) But when you can be punished as an adult, that means you are as responsible as one, no? If you're as responsible as an adult when you do bad stuff, why can't you be considered as responsible when it comes to positive stuff?

Seriously, I don't think people should be allowed to vote when they're under 18, but I also don't think they should be sentenced as adults until then either. Basically I meant to point out that it doesn't make sense to have responsibilities that far outweigh rights. Would it make sense to you if you were required to vote, but had no freedom of speech otherwise?

Anyways, I'll back down and shut up about this topic, now.

Oh, one last thing, I do think Sailing Instructor was right. The problem is, kids and teens get no chance to learn about the law, other than if they screw up. Sure they can go and read law manuals, but how many teens would really do that? We need some kind of civic courses or whatever, basically educating kids on both your rights and your responsibilities in society.

I'm really out of posting about this topic, now.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Freddy, it's intellectually dishonest to bring logic into the policy reasons supporting adult sentences for young offenders.

 

[McG]

Frederik G, sorry but your logic is grossly flawed.

Yes, minors can be charged in adult courts & given adult sentences for certain offences under certain condition.  Minors cannot arbitrarily be charged as adults for any offence under any circumstance.  I think this fairly reflects that a 16 yr old should know better than a 12 yr old.  

We expect our teenagers to know that it is unacceptable to smack grandma around with an axe.  However, it may be common that many teenagers have not grasped that certain mischiefs are inappropriate.  This is why the Young Offender Act has some room for consideration.  It does not bestow the full legal responsibilities that would be given to adults in all circumstances.  

 

[Pte. Bloggins]

Correct me if I'm simplifying this too much, but isn't there something wrong with a 16 year old being able to join the military, and not being able to vote? I know I was peeved about not being able to vote until I turned 18, think about it: you're considered old and mature enough to serve your country, but not old enough to elect its leaders.

I think they should let anyone who holds a military ID vote, whether they are 18 or not. 

 

[McG]

The 16 yr old & the 17 yr old cannot deploy on a DCDS operation.

 

[Pte. Bloggins]

Yes, I'm aware of that, but they're still in uniform aren't they, training just as anyone 18 or older.

 

[goodform]

It is quite interesting that we would let someone soldier before they are legally allowed to do a lot of things soldiers do. I'm not sure of the reasons for it all so I won't speculate.

 

[George Wallace]

It is quite interesting that we would let someone soldier before they are legally allowed to do a lot of things soldiers do. I'm not sure of the reasons for it all so I won't speculate.

It is interesting to see that you think that Canada has 'Child Soldiers'.   Canada, along with several other Western Nations, has pushed for the end of the practice of using children as soldiers.  

GW

 

[Michael OLeary]

http://sen.parl.gc.ca/lpearson/htmfiles/hill/19_htm_files/Child%20Soldier.htm

While the Canadian Forces enroll 16 and 17 year-olds, the Forces have a policy which precludes members under the age of 18 from participating in hostilities or from being deployed to hostile theatres of operations. The amendment to the National Defence Act, which received royal assent on June 29, 2000, strengthens this policy by entrenching it in legislation making clear that the Canadian Forces will not deploy any person under the age of 18 to a theatre of hostilities.

So, while you may train as a soldier while under the age of 18, you will not be permitted to execute that training until you are 18.

 

[goodform]

Michael, thanks for that.
GW, I'm sorry, I chose my words poorly, it wasn't my intent but I didn't say anything else in support. A good lesson in "impact, not intent".

 

[mo-litia]

Sure, you can join the military as a minor - with parental consent.  Perhaps minors should be able to vote - if their parents consent!