|
Shufflingdead > Articles > Extracurricular
Ageism
Some forms of discrimination have been fought with massive social movements, yet ageism persists, seemingly with wide acceptance. I suppose that that's because dying to fight the discounts senior's receive at restaurants isn't quite worthy of the cause. Still, when particularly blatant forms of ageism get brought up, such as the recently approve curfew for minors in Sherwood Park, discussion starts to happen.
It was only a few years ago that I was a minor, living in Sherwood Park, and I can say with sincere conviction that my animalistic urges for late night shenanigans has only increased since that time. That's why I can't help but feel sympathy for these so-called youngsters with regards to this bylaw, which establishes a curfew for minors between 1am and 6am.
It seems like a cliché at this point, and one that is well known by anyone who has ever also been in this situation, but there is a significant lack of anything for a minor to do in Sherwood Park. My youth was spent playing video games late into the night at a friend's house, and then wandering home at some time that can only be described as ungodly. I wasn't drunk, vandalizing, or starting fights, but simply walking home. This wasn't the only way we found to entertain ourselves, of course, there was also late night bowling or movie-going, followed by marathon donut eating sessions at Tim Horton's, again concluding with a walk home.
While no one is going to be arrested for going for a 2am walk, parents of the minors breaking the law will be fined $100 for the first offence, and $200 for the second offence. What parents have to do with the night life of their 17 year old children is beyond all realm of understanding for me. At that age, that person would not even be required to go to school anymore, and could legally live on their own. I guess you have to be careful, you never know what those rascally independent teenagers are capable of after picking up their 7-11 bread.
I'm all for parental responsibility, but it seems to me that the best thing a parent could do for their teenage child is give them a little freedom. I probably would have lost my delicate grip on sanity if I had been forced to come home by 1am on weekends, and it certainly would have ended my already very limited physical activity by stopping all those late night walks. It's also ironic when you consider that this bylaw would not only discriminate against youths, but it would actually impede upon the parenting choices for the adults.
In addition, I am confident in saying that any kind of encounter with the police is a particularly traumatizing event for a lot of people, it certainly is for me, and would have been even more so when I was 17. Under this law, I suppose that as a young looking 21-year-old I'll have to be wary of age checks myself, an additional impediment this bylaw would create for those of the age of majority.
It would be pointless to break out any statistics on youth crime right now, even if all crime were committed by youth, this bylaw would still infringe upon what should be a right for everyone. Not all minors are breaking existing laws when they go outside past 1am, and so there is no reason to punish all of them for it.
The fact that such a bylaw is even considered indicates that society is still wildly more accepting of ageism, as opposed to other forms of discrimination. If such a law were to be proposed based on sex or race, it would likely inspire militant resistance. I think the next time I'm in a restaurant I will demand my senior's discount.
Discuss something on the forums - E-mail Us
|
