He who picks on young voters might take care, lest he thereby become unelected (or perhaps not)
The BBC have reported that, after a successful scheme in which off-licenses in Armadale (West Lothian) banned sales of alcohol to under-21s on Friday and Saturday nights, with a consequent reduction in "assaults, vandalism and general complaints about young people", the Scottish parliament want to roll-out a ban on supermarket/off-license sales to under-21s every day of the week, across the whole of Scotland.
There are many things which may reduce crime by removing citizens' rights: introducing a night-time curfew for just one example. But when elected legislators start picking on voters, it will hardly be a surprise if the voters bite back. 18-years old is deemed old enough to be sent into war and "die for your country" but not to buy a bottle of chardonay or a can of beer from the supermarket to enjoy over dinner. Are 18, 19 and 20-year-olds in Scotland really going to stand for this?
It fits into a wider theme, doesn't it:
So why not lock them all up, until the 14-16 year olds become 17, until the 15-24 year olds become 25, until first-time offenders die in jail, until blacks become white and people of low intelligence become intelligent? This is the natural extension of a policy to punish whole sections of people for the misdemeanours of a few.
The sad part is, Brits seem so eager to lose their rights that it's actually a vote winner! When Tony Blair tried to introduce 90-day detention without charge (a policy known by some as "internment") a BBC-On-Line poll found 41% of people in favour, and 72% of people in favour of an increase from the then 14-day maximum. I would like every one of them to inadvertently find themselves suspects in a terrorist investigation, in order to take metrics after just a week of how many revise their view!
There are many things which may reduce crime by removing citizens' rights: introducing a night-time curfew for just one example. But when elected legislators start picking on voters, it will hardly be a surprise if the voters bite back. 18-years old is deemed old enough to be sent into war and "die for your country" but not to buy a bottle of chardonay or a can of beer from the supermarket to enjoy over dinner. Are 18, 19 and 20-year-olds in Scotland really going to stand for this?
It fits into a wider theme, doesn't it:
- The state allowing itself to ban alcohol sales from under-21s because some of them will engage in loutish behaviour
- The state allowing itself to detain anyone without charge for up to 42 days (after it failed in its push for a 90-day detention without charge) because some people will be guilty of terrorist offences and the police don't want to be hampered with the inconvenience of charging them
- The state making suspects of every citizen by taking their fingerprints and DNA because some of them will be criminals
So why not lock them all up, until the 14-16 year olds become 17, until the 15-24 year olds become 25, until first-time offenders die in jail, until blacks become white and people of low intelligence become intelligent? This is the natural extension of a policy to punish whole sections of people for the misdemeanours of a few.
The sad part is, Brits seem so eager to lose their rights that it's actually a vote winner! When Tony Blair tried to introduce 90-day detention without charge (a policy known by some as "internment") a BBC-On-Line poll found 41% of people in favour, and 72% of people in favour of an increase from the then 14-day maximum. I would like every one of them to inadvertently find themselves suspects in a terrorist investigation, in order to take metrics after just a week of how many revise their view!