Last week saw an application to Edmonton Court of Queen’s Bench to add ‘age’ to the list of other discriminating factors under the Alberta Human Rights Act. For more than 30 years there have been proponents seeking agency for the inclusion of the word ‘age’ in the act, specifically to the section pertaining to discrimination regarding: goods, services, accommodation and facilities. Despite previous recommendations in 1984 and 2008 to address ageism in the act, there now seems to be sufficient momentum to gain traction and bring resolution to this long in the tooth argument.
What does ageism mean exactly? Quite simply, it refers to discrimination or prejudice on the basis of a person’s age. This has ramifications on people of all ages. Think of the many age limitations that exist. Let’s start with movie ratings – PG 13 for instance. This indicates that a person should be at least 13 years of age to see the movie due to its content. So a mature 12-year-old should not see a PG 13 movie? Does that smack of ageism? These are common sense guidelines, not laws.
Consider voting age. There is a lobby to lower the municipal voting age to 16, which some might argue is ridiculous. These are kids! What do they know? Want to know about liberalism, nationalism, or voting systems – speak to any high school student about what they are learning in social studies and you soon realize that they are indeed informed and aware of key issues. Yet, they cannot vote until they reach the age of majority. They can drive a vehicle at 16, serve in Canada’s military at 17, but not vote until 18. Some age restrictions come under federal jurisdiction, however the province can certainly look at those areas where changes could be made. Provinces set ages for drinking and gambling. In Canada this ranges from 18-19 while in the U.S.A. the magic number is 21. Will the addition of ‘age’ to the Alberta Human Rights Act bring about change in some of these areas? Should it?
What about employment opportunities? I know many capable, qualified, and talented professionals who have been passed over because they were deemed either too young or too old versus other candidates. Perhaps you have been discriminated against in this way? Since the word ‘age’ has not been in the act since its inception in 1972, the potential for age discrimination has been high. The best person should obviously get the job – removing the age bias officially, by law, certainly helps to promote equity of opportunity.
We know it is impolite to ask someone his or her age and that we should feel flattered when asked to produce ID at ‘we ID every one under 25’ establishments, but the focus on ageism in the news of late, has me seeing the landscape of existing age barriers, whether suggested or imposed, with a different mindset. Other provinces have added ‘age’ to their corresponding acts years ago. Why did this take so long to fruition in Alberta?
Finally, I could mention mandatory retirement ages and their impact but, instead, think of my grandfather, who at 85 had his driver’s licence revoked. Was this ageism? I would like to believe that it was a responsible and respectful decision, made in the interest of safety and well-being for both my grandfather and the general public. Was it hard on him? Yes. Was it the right thing to do? Absolutely. Was it discrimination based on age? No. So long as the metric for determination is fair and consistently applied, why not drive or work as long as is practicable. The ability of an individual versus an imposed age limit is key in such instances.
Dr. Seuss asserts that “adults are obsolete children.” Whether you feel young at heart or mature of mind, there is a delicate balance of individual rights versus collective responsibility that cannot remain the elephant in the room. The change to the act seeks to address this. Will the addition of ageism have a significant impact? Time will tell.
Tim Cusack is an educator, writer and serving member of the naval reserve.
