Wild Bill Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Wow! Finally we have political correctness causing blatant contradictions! Who woulda thunk it? I'm surprised it hasn't happened long ago! After all, we champion keeping liquor out of the hands of minors while simultaneously accepting the right of some citizens to hide their identity for what are claimed to be religious reasons. Leave the religion out of it and think about it. Can such contradictions work? Of course not! So how does someone's religion change anything? Something either works or it doesn't! Finding a scapegoat doesn't really change who's really to blame. Meanwhile, some are blaming Menzies for testing the contradiction. Others blame the newspaper that reported it, calling it trash as if that changes the validity of what it reported. Yet another ad hominem argument, I guess. It's all quite simple, people! Give your heads a shake! Political correctness CAUSED this to happen! Those that push such ideas are responsible. No one else! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 After all, we champion keeping liquor out of the hands of minors while simultaneously accepting the right of some citizens to hide their identity for what are claimed to be religious reasons. Who is "we"? It isn't me! I think teens should be allowed to drink. Not a 26'er of vodka, but a beer or two won't kill them. We ALL did it.... it didn't kill us. And it would take away the stigma... the fact that it is forbidden means that teens will get as much booze when they can and slam it at a party. If they were allowed beers now and again, would there be a need to binge drink? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Who is "we"? It isn't me! I think teens should be allowed to drink. Not a 26'er of vodka, but a beer or two won't kill them. That is legal as it stands now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 It's all quite simple, people! Give your heads a shake! Political correctness CAUSED this to happen! Those that push such ideas are responsible. No one else! No one knows if PC caused this, and highly doubt it. Perhaps the clerk thought the kid was older and let it go. They do card over 6millions times a year. A couple of mistakes is not something some should exhibit faux rage over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Perhaps the clerk thought the kid was older and let it go. They do card over 6millions times a year. A couple of mistakes is not something some should exhibit faux rage over. How would said clerk had known? His face was covered. The debate really isn't about alcohol age limits it's about why the clerk didn't ask to see the person's face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 How would said clerk had known? His face was covered. Maybe the clerk figured through other means that the person was of age. I dont know the details of why one thought so. But I can normally tell an approx age on other factors of a person. The debate really isn't about alcohol age limits it's about why the clerk didn't ask to see the person's face. The debate is silly, 6+ millions people carded, and a couple fall thru the cracks. BFD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) Maybe the clerk figured through other means that the person was of age. I dont know the details of why one thought so. But I can normally tell an approx age on other factors of a person. The debate is silly, 6+ millions people carded, and a couple fall thru the cracks. BFD. So you can tell the age of someone by the way they walk and how tall they are? Because those are the only attributes that can be observed from someone who's completely covered in a Burqa. http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/lNCYsl9V1iNlMfRPPW7W6w--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTMxMA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/153/2012/07/24/0724burka-jpg_200239.jpg Yep clearly over 19! If a private bar owner served Sambuca to a 14-year-old, their Liqour License would have been pulled so fast. But the poor unionized LCBO clerk can't be expected to make sure they aren't serving their highly-taxed controlled substance to people of the proper age. Edited July 25, 2012 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 If a private bar owner served Sambuca to a 14-year-old, their Liqour License would have been pulled so fast. I doubt it. In BC the government does occasional testing and then sends out warnings/fines. A licence isn't pulled unless it is particularly bad - repeated warnings/fines, history of selling to minors, etc. I would bet that Ontario is the same way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Finding a scapegoat doesn't really change who's really to blame. ... Political correctness CAUSED this to happen! Those that push such ideas are responsible. No one else! Then I have them to thank for my morning chuckle... moving on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 I would bet that Ontario is the same way. Correct This is why i use the term faux outrage on this . The radio waves are burning with idiots all up in arms over some booze being bought by a 14 yr old. Chances are, those who bitch have a 14 yr old stealing booze from the faux outrage folks liquor cabitnet. Now that is laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) Correct This is why i use the term faux outrage on this . The radio waves are burning with idiots all up in arms over some booze being bought by a 14 yr old. Chances are, those who bitch have a 14 yr old stealing booze from the faux outrage folks liquor cabitnet. Now that is laughable. Again it's not that a 14-year-old was served alcohol it's that the clerk didn't verify what the person looked like, likely because asking a Muslim woman in a Burqa to show her face would have caused trouble. If the kid came in wearing a Spiderman outfit would the clerks have acted in a similar fashion? I doubt it. Edited July 25, 2012 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) Again it's not that a 14-year-old was served alcohol it's that the clerk didn't verify what the person looked like, likely because asking a Muslim woman in a Burqa to show her face would have caused trouble. If the kid came in wearing a Spiderman outfit would the clerks have acted in a similar fashion? I doubt it. You nailed it, Boges! Some folks are frantically dodging the issue and trying to make it out to be all about an underage buyer getting sold a bottle. They are doing this because they do NOT want to face the identification and religious aspects of the incident, especially when it looks like people in burkhas get a free pass! Edited July 25, 2012 by Wild Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Again it's not that a 14-year-old was served alcohol it's that the clerk didn't verify what the person looked like, likely because asking a Muslim woman in a Burqa to show her face would have caused trouble. If the kid came in wearing a Spiderman outfit would the clerks have acted in a similar fashion? I doubt it. Well, the law is: 41. (1) The licence holder shall ensure that, before liquor is sold or served to a person apparently under the age of nineteen years, an item of identification of the person is inspected. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 719, s. 41 (1). (2) If a condition of the liquor sales licence prohibits the entry of persons under nineteen years of age at the premises to which the licence applies, the licence holder shall ensure that an item of identification is inspected before admitting the person to the premises. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 719, s. 41 (2). (3) The item of identification must include a photograph of the person and state his or her date of birth and must reasonably appear to have been issued by a government. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 719, s. 41 (3). (4) Without limiting the generality of subsection (3), the item of identification may be any of the types prescribed in subsection (5). R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 719, s. 41 (4). (5) The following types of identification are prescribed for the purpose of subsection 30 (6) of the Act: 1. A driver’s licence issued by the Province of Ontario with a photograph of the person to whom the licence is issued. 2. A Canadian passport. 3. A Canadian citizenship card with a photograph of the person to whom the card is issued. 4. A Canadian armed forces identification card. 5. A secure certificate of Indian status issued by the Government of Canada. 6. A photo card issued by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. 7. A permanent resident card issued by the Government of Canada. 8. A photo card issued under the Photo Card Act, 2008. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 719, s. 41 (5); O. Reg. 560/96, s. 1; O. Reg. 63/98, s. 13 (1); O. Reg. 230/03, s. 23 (1); O. Reg. 181/11, s. 10. 42. (1) At the request of an inspector designated under section 43 of the Act, the licence holder or an employee of the licence holder shall request evidence as to the age of a person on the premises to which the licence applies. O. Reg. 63/98, s. 14; O. Reg. 354/07, s. 8. (2) The inspector may make the request if he or she believes that the person may be less than 19 years of age. O. Reg. 63/98, s. 14. [emphasis mine] So, while I agree that they should be checking for ID, the fact that they didn't could be for a variety of reasons: incompetence, lazy, assumed the person was old enough etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Again it's not that a 14-year-old was served alcohol it's that the clerk didn't verify what the person looked like, likely because asking a Muslim woman in a Burqa to show her face would have caused trouble. If the kid came in wearing a Spiderman outfit would the clerks have acted in a similar fashion? I doubt it. See the thing is, none of us know why the clerk didnt ask. Cue the faux outrage now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 You nailed it, Boges! Nailed only for thoise who want to project their own reasons as to why the clerk did not ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Actually what is really laughable is the lenghts some posters will go to in order to obfuscate or divert the real point of this whole exercise. It is readily apparent that very clear and long standing laws were ignored and/or disregarded in the name of cultural sensitivity or fear of offending those of another culture. Quite frankly I dont give a rats ass if someone wants to wear a sheet or a Bozo the clown outfit in public, thats their choice to make. What I do care about is the fact that these laws appear to be discretionary, they apply to some, but in other circumstances not to others. The law states that the face of the person buying the substance must be visible. This is non negotiable, it is not discretionary. What happened has nothing to do with the amount of people carded in a year or kids stealing liquour, it has everything to do with selective enforcement of the law. That, in my opinion, is absolutely unacceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 See the thing is, none of us know why the clerk didnt ask. Nobody knows, but even the LCBO is saying that it may have been out of cultural sensitivity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 You nailed it, Boges! Some folks are frantically dodging the issue and trying to make it out to be all about an underage buyer getting sold a bottle. They are doing this because they do NOT want to face the identification and religious aspects of the incident, especially when it looks like people in burkhas get a free pass! No, "we" think that a mountain is being made out of a molehill. Anytime an employee fails to check id when they should be checking is a failure. It should be tested and staff should be trained to deal with this. But "we" don't know the reasons for why these 3 people did not check id. It's a pretty small sample size to come to any conclusions about anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 See the thing is, none of us know why the clerk didnt ask. Cue the faux outrage now. Well it did happen 3 times at 3 different stores. I'm not outraged, it just think this highlights a glaring hypocrisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 No, "we" think that a mountain is being made out of a molehill. Anytime an employee fails to check id when they should be checking is a failure. It should be tested and staff should be trained to deal with this. But "we" don't know the reasons for why these 3 people did not check id. It's a pretty small sample size to come to any conclusions about anything. Maybe to a lawyer! Common sense would suggest otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Nobody knows, but even the LCBO is saying that it may have been out of cultural sensitivity. Link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 So if the LCBO sells alcohol to a 14 yr., can you imagine if the corner stores were selling. BTW, McGuinty is against the idea. I am too, unless new laws were put in like, anyone buying alcohol for underage person gets 2 years jail time, storeowners pay a heavy fine for selling to underage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) So if the LCBO sells alcohol to a 14 yr., can you imagine if the corner stores were selling. BTW, McGuinty is against the idea. I am too, unless new laws were put in like, anyone buying alcohol for underage person gets 2 years jail time, storeowners pay a heavy fine for selling to underage. Yeah because all the other states, provinces and countries, that allow such a thing, have rampant alcoholism compared to Ontario. Convenience stores are probably better equipped to ensure underage people don't get alcohol because of all the scrutiny over tobacco sales. The reason we are treated like children in Ontario is to protect the union wages of LCBO and beer store staff. Dalton doesn't give a damn about social responsibility, only ripping the people of Ontario off. Edited July 25, 2012 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 I'm not outraged, it just think this highlights a glaring hypocrisy. What hypocrisy ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 No, "we" think that a mountain is being made out of a molehill. Yes, we think that. Or... I do. But "we" don't know the reasons for why these 3 people did not check id. I am willing to say that the clerks felt awkward about dealing with this person. So what ? What does it mean ? What are we supposed to do about this ? And, most of all, where is the hypocrisy ? Are 14 year old boys going to be wearing dresses again, like they did in the 80s ? Is this really a fear or transgender behavior masquerading in a burqua of xenophobia ? Oh, I had better be careful, or the outrage volcano may erupt on us again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.