As already kind of mentioned the problem isn't so much the law but the fact that they're doing it for youth first. Let's say if there was a new prohibition on alcohol, it'd be like enforcing it on natives for a couple of years before the rest of the populace.

Whatever though, I can understand why old people hate on young people. When I'm old I'll probably hate the young people more than most.

Originally Posted by Abid.Hasan

Whatever though, I can understand why old people hate on young people. When I'm old I'll probably hate the young people more than most.

lol, I already hate on young people. I remember when I was in grade 11 we had to write essays and present to the class on whether or not we are for or against curfews for teenagers. I was the only one for ||-.-.

Originally Posted by jhan523

We should be able to sue the government for discrimination....

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

The law is already being challenged:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/sto...-drinking.html

Again the McGuinty government is going to waste a bunch of money defending a law that with a tiny bit of forethought could have been made non-discriminatory. Manitoba already has 0.0 BAC limits for drivers who have less than 5 years driving experience. The Manitoba law isn't discriminatory and Ontario could have just followed suit, but instead we get this incompetent crap again.
http://www.mpi.mb.ca/english/dr_lice...ments.html# 4

The other problem I see with this law is that it means at every RIDE checkpoint, we're now going to be asked our age along with "have you had anything to drink tonight." Just like the racial profiling that would have occurred if SB 1070 hadn't been challenged in Arizona, this will lead to age profiling where all drivers under 22 would inevitably have a higher probability of being asked to submit to a roadside sobriety test, even if there are no reasonable grounds. This could lead to systemic charter violations for those under 22, as roadside sobriety checks and breathalyzers both have significant rates of false positives. This is a well meaning but poorly executed and discriminatory law that I hope the UWO dude in the article succeeds in getting overturned.

Originally Posted by thompson

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

That's irrelevant, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

"15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." [emphasis mine]

Could the government enact a law that had tougher restrictions for men to drive because men get are more often convicted of drunk driving? For example, the government could pass a law stating that all men must have 0.0 BAC, but females can have up to 0.05. This would quite obviously be indefensible given the Charter, so what makes the Ontario law that discriminates against those under 22 any different?

The new Ontario law makes those under 22 not equal under the Highway Traffic Act without reasonable public safety grounds to do so. Thus there appears to be clear grounds for a charter challenge and the court will ultimately have to decide if this discrimination is justifiable based on whatever grounds the government chooses to argue. In my opinion, any justification the Ontario government tries to give will essentially come down to less experienced drivers needing tighter restrictions. If that's true, then the Ontario government should just do the smart thing and rewrite the law to be similar to the Manitoba law, or just scrap the idea all together.

Originally Posted by dsahota

That's irrelevant, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

"15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." [emphasis mine]

Could the government enact a law that had tougher restrictions for men to drive because men get are more often convicted of drunk driving? For example, the government could pass a law stating that all men must have 0.0 BAC, but females can have up to 0.05. This would quite obviously be indefensible given the Charter, so what makes the Ontario law that discriminates against those under 22 any different?

The new Ontario law makes those under 22 not equal under the Highway Traffic Act without reasonable public safety grounds to do so. Thus there appears to be clear grounds for a charter challenge and the court will ultimately have to decide if this discrimination is justifiable based on whatever grounds the government chooses to argue. In my opinion, any justification the Ontario government tries to give will essentially come down to less experienced drivers needing tighter restrictions. If that's true, then the Ontario government should just do the smart thing and rewrite the law to be similar to the Manitoba law, or just scrap the idea all together.

How is it irrelevant? You are slightly confused as to what rights are. The whole point of a license is permission from a government authority to operate a car on public roads in the interest of public safety. If the government said you need a license for all people under 21 to go out after 9pm, then that is in opposition to the charter as it limits your right to free movement.

What is the difference when we say those 16 and under aren't allowed to get a license? Based on the principle of the charter, is this considered discriminatory?

It has been statistically shown that those 21 and under are more likely to D&D. Should insurance companies make all our insurance premiums equal then, no matter our age or sex?

Originally Posted by Charbs

But.. the debate still remains.. how many of those accidents were caused by someone who had 1 drink.. vs. someone who was over the original 0.08 (or 0.05 now) limit?

You're missing the point.

Firstly, people under 21 are the riskiest age group, so the law has been created to target that fact. Is it discriminatory? Of course it is, but discrimination takes place all the time and we only choose to label certain things as discriminatory and other things as the status quo. It's also discriminatory that <18 can't vote and <16 can't drive. If you are 21 and under, you are far more likely to take risks because that is simply how you are wired. Its not mean or predatory; its just realistic. Now, if they made the law apply for everyone, bars and restaurants would be out of business and pissed off. I have no doubt that this law will eventually be expanded, but at least it gives those businesses time to adapt and their customers to look into new modes of transport.

Secondly, when you drive in a 60 km/h zone, do you do 60 and below? I'm willing to bet, like me, you drive around 65-70 km/h. Why? Because you and I believe that its ok you bend that law so long as you don't bend it too far. Everyone feels this way! Guess what; people also feel that way about drinking and driving. This law takes away any chance to the play that game because if you dick around with it now, you are #@$#ed.

I think this law is great. I love going over to my friend's houses for a drink or two and it totally sucks that I can't have a casual beer anymore, but I'd trade that away if it means that the drunken retards out there on the road, some of which are sadly my friends, will be taught a firm lesson they won't soon forget.

Originally Posted by thompson

What is the difference when we say those 16 and under aren't allowed to get a license? Based on the principle of the charter, is this considered discriminatory?

There's a big difference between restrictions applying to minors (i.e. drinking age and when you can first get your license) and laws applying to adults. After 18, you're a fully fledged adult. Now the government certainly can make laws that do discriminate if they have a valid public safety concern. For example, older drivers (75 and older) are required to fulfill certain other requirements in order to drive.

Originally Posted by thompson

How is it irrelevant? You are slightly confused as to what rights are. The whole point of a license is permission from a government authority to operate a car on public roads in the interest of public safety.

The issue of whether driving is a right or a privilege is irrelevant because the relevant charter section applies to any law, and the Highways Traffic Act is a law. You don't have the right to drive a car on public roads, but you do have a right to not be discriminated against by the law governing who can drive on public roads.

My argument is that any public safety concern that the government tries to raise as a justification for the 0.0 BAC law would equally well apply to any slightly older driver with less experience (e.g. a 22 year old who just passed their G2), therefore the discrimination is not justifiable. In my opinion, the most appropriate remedy would be for the government to rewrite the law so it applies to drivers less than 6 years of driving experience.

Originally Posted by thompson

It has been statistically shown that those 21 and under are more likely to D&D. Should insurance companies make all our insurance premiums equal then, no matter our age or sex?

Insurance companies are private corporations who are allowed to decide their premiums based on criteria set by government regulations. They're not making laws and thus can set their premiums as long as it is within the bounds of government regulations. While the issue of insurance premiums is not a charter issue, in my opinion insurance rates should be solely based on driving experience and driving record; age and gender should have no role in setting rates. In BC, this is already the case and it works quite well.

Originally Posted by thompson

If the government said you need a license for all people under 21 to go out after 9pm, then that is in opposition to the charter as it limits your right to free movement.

Not sure what you're getting at here, your proposed law would violate the equality clause (section 15) and likely one of the fundamental freedoms (freedom of association). There is no "freedom of movement" under the charter, the freedom of mobility that is in the charter (section 6) deals with movement in and out of the countries and between provinces.