Just a quick reminder that I've changed addresses for this blog.
All future articles will be located at http://www.chicobandido.com/
I have moved all my old articles over there as well.
Please make sure you change your favourites/bookmarks.
Thanks,
Steve
January 16, 2009
Reminder about new blog address
January 15, 2009
How much is your dog worth?
*** PLEASE CROSSPOST ***
How much is your dog worth? How much would you give to keep your dog as part of your family?
How about ONE DOLLAR?
What appeared, on the surface, to be a "pit bull" issue in Ontario has now become a complex legal argument worthy of the highest court in the country, affecting all dog owners in Canada.
Banned Aid, the group that challenged Ontario's new dog legislation in 2005, is taking their fight to the Supreme Court of Canada to ask the following questions:
Does the government have the right to ban anything when it is not abnormally dangerous or unhealthy? At last count, twenty-seven children in Canada have been killed by dogs. Ontario's new legislation does not target any of the dog breeds involved in those incidents, only a type of dog that has never killed a child in Canada.
Does the government have the right to ban anything when they can't properly identify what it is? The government has targeted dogs of all shapes and sizes, including seven-week-old mixed-breed puppies, American Bulldog, Bull Terrier, Chesapeake Bay Retriever, Collie/Jack Russell mix, Dalmatian, Dogue de Bordeaux, Vizsla, Jack Russell Terrier mix, Labrador Retriever, Neapolitan Mastiff, Rhodesian Ridgeback, and Rottweiler.
Does the government have the right to ban anything when there are proven, effective, less discriminatory and less invasive alternatives to managing it? The city of Calgary has demonstrated a logical and fair method of managing dogs that has given that city a reputation throughout North America as the most effective animal control department on the continent, yet Calgary does not target specific breeds in their legislation.
Does the government have the right to put people in jail, levy heavy fines, and confiscate and destroy property, based on flimsy evidence that has been directly contradicted by the vast majority of experts worldwide? In this particular case, the jail time can be up to six months, the fines up to $10,000, and the articles of property being confiscated and destroyed are live family pets.
This issue affects everyone. A Supreme Court ruling in our favour will prevent other provinces from following Ontario's path, whether it be "pit bulls" or other types of dogs or dogs in general.
To-date, Banned Aid has raised (and paid) $650,000 to fight this legislation in the Ontario Superior Court and the Ontario Court of Appeals. They now need $67,000 by the end of January 2009 in order to file an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Can you afford ONE DOLLAR for every dog in your family? Can you afford ONE DOLLAR for every dog you've ever had? Can you afford FIVE DOLLARS or TEN DOLLARS?
There are six million dogs in this country, yet it has been an intense struggle over three years just to raise ONE DOLLAR for every ten dogs!!
If you want the laws of this country to protect you and your family (including your dogs) from increasingly anti-dog governments, then it's time for you to step up to the plate and start giving money, now.
Send a cheque or money order payable to "Banned Aid" to:
Cathy Prothro
National Secretary/Treasurer - Banned Aid Coalition
351 Pleasant Street
Dartmouth NS B2Y 3S4
If you prefer to send the money directly to the law firm, then send cheques or money orders payable to "Ruby and Shiller" to:
BANNED AID LEGAL CHALLENGE FUND
c/o Ruby and Shiller
11 Prince Arthur Avenue
Toronto, ON M5R 1B2
Go to http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/ and click on the "Make a Donation" button near the bottom of the page to use Paypal. If you have a credit card, you do NOT have to set up a Paypal account when you do this.
If you bank online, you can send an Internet E-mail Money Transfer to
treasurer@doglegislationcouncilcanada.org
If you prefer to deal only in cash, then just drop in to any CIBC branch and deposit the money directly into the Banned Aid bank account using the following information:
Banned Aid Legal Fund
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,
Penhorn Mall,
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Account 00513 010 1526839
Please don't let this issue die for lack of funds. Now is your opportunity to help fight for all dogs and their families across Canada.
Don't let somebody else take care of it. Please act now!
Please crosspost this to as many people as you can.
Many thanks,
Steve Barker
September 17, 2008
New Blog Address
Well, I'm back, sort of!
Hit a wall for a while, especially after I moved out to British Columbia.
I've changed addresses for this blog.
All future articles will be located at http://www.chicobandido.com/
I have moved all my old articles over there as well.
My first new one will be a summary of September 15 and 16 at the Ontario Court of Appeals.
Please make sure you change your favourites/bookmarks.
Thanks,
Steve
January 30, 2008
Goodbye Ontario!
Recently, I made the decision to move to British Columbia. I'm flying out there, with my dogs, on February 1.
A whole lot of things have happened recently in my life that point to this being the right thing to do. Surprisingly, very little of it has to do with the Ontario law. Mostly, it's what I've wanted to do for a long time (long before Bryant and company) and now's the right time.
To put it simply, I'm just going out there to see what happens. Nothing more. Nothing less.
My e-mail address will definitely change, but I'm not sure to what. For now, I can be contacted at blog01 @ chicobandido.com (no spaces).
I will continue this blog, as well as some other websites I'm working on, and I will absolutely continue to fight breed-specific legislation in Ontario and in the rest of Canada.
Steve
December 18, 2007
Sad, angry, and frustrated
The pit bull puppy in my earlier story Animal cruelty and the Ontario government is now on her way to be cremated. She died this morning at the vet's office.
She never left the vet's office from the time my friend brought her in, torn and bleeding from a barbed wire "collar".
Her body simply gave out. She had spleen problems, probably from being kicked so hard or so much. She had a bladder infection, as well as infection in the neck wounds. Apparently, there were other things wrong as well, too much and too many for her five-month-old body to handle.
The man who was to be this pup's final home is still going to take her, along with the remains of his old boy who is going to be put down tomorrow after living a long and happy life.
So this little girl, nameless to the end, becomes just another statistic in this war on dogs. But not in my heart, nor in the hearts of her rescuers.
There are so many of these stories, so many of these dogs.
I want so much to blame the Ontario Liberal government for this dog's death, and perhaps there is some part of this tragedy that can be pointed at them. Certainly, the "pit bull ban", and the fear it created in this dog's rescuer with its insistence on killing unoffending, non-biting dogs, is the reason these owners were able to walk away and the reason they'll be free to get another dog tomorrow.
But the reality is that, no matter what laws are in place, dogs will always be dying because of stupid, irresponsible, negligent, or just plain abusive owners.
I blame the breeder who created and sold this little girl to live her entire life in pain and fear.
I blame the dog's owners for taking out their hatred of the world on a dog that wouldn't fight back.
I hope I run into them one day.
I really do.
Nobody knew this girl's name, so I think I'll call her Dolores (sorrow, pain).
December 17, 2007
Another great tribute to the Dog
When I found Eulogy on the Dog, I felt that I had found one of the best descriptions of dog's devotion to man.
Now, I have been sent this wonderful piece, which is more about man's devotion to dog, after his dog has died. It is written for a setter, but is applicable to all.
We are thinking now of a setter, whose coat was flame in the sunshine, and who, so far as we are aware, never entertained a mean or an unworthy thought. This setter is buried beneath a cherry tree, under four feet of garden loam, and at its proper season the cherry strews petals on the green lawn of his grave. Beneath a cherry tree, or an apple, or any flowering shrub is an excellent place to bury a good dog. Beneath such trees, such shrubs, he slept in the drowsy summer, or gnawed at a flavorous bone, or lifted his head to challenge some intruder. These are good places in life or in death. Yet it is a small matter, and it touches sentiment more than anything else. For if the dog be well remembered, if sometimes he leaps through your dreams actual as in life, eyes kindling, questing, asking, laughing, begging, it matters not at all where that dog sleeps at long and at last. On a hill where the wind is unrebuked, and the trees are roaring, or beside a stream he knew in puppyhood, or somewhere in the flatness of a pasture lane where most exhilarating cattle graze, it is all one to the dog, and all one to you, and nothing is gained, nothing is lost, if memory lives. But there is one best place to bury a dog. One place that is best of all.
If you bury him in this spot, the secret of which you must already have, he will come to you when you call - come to you over the grim, dim frontiers of death and down the well remembered path and to your side again. And though you call a dozen living dogs to heel they shall not growl at him, or resent his coming, for he is yours and belongs there. People may scoff at you, who see no lightest blade of grass bent by his footfall, who hear no whimper pitched too fine for mere audition, people who may never really have had a dog. Smile at them, for you shall know something that is hidden from them, and which is well worth the knowing. The one best place to bury a good dog is the heart of his master.
Courtesy of Kris K.
December 15, 2007
Animal cruelty and the Ontario government
I am hesitant to write this article because the dog in question appears to be of the "pit bull" type. I appreciate the sympathy that such stories generate. I am also aware that this type of incident might encourage an image of "pit bull" owners as abusive drug addicts.
It is not my intention to highlight the abuse, horrific as it is. Nor is it my intention to stereotype the owner, although there are similar dog owners out there. Nor is it my intention to focus on the breed as the reason for the abuse or as the reason for the article.
The case of Michael Vick, and others like it, seems to confirm the opinion of the uneducated public that there is something different about these dogs, that only these types of dogs endure this, that only these types of dogs are owned by idiots.
I want to stress that I have seen similar atrocities committed against all types of dogs, by all types of owners. This is not just a "pit bull" problem.
The difference, in this case, is that, because the dog is illegal in Ontario, the Ontario Dog Owners' Liability Act (also known as the "pit bull" ban) prevented appropriate action by the rescuers, threatened the wrong people, and protected the abusers.
Recently, a friend of mine was walking at mid-morning in a park in Toronto. The friend's name shall remain private. The name of the park and the date shall also remain private to avoid identification of my friend and of the veterinary clinic.
A young couple, approximately 20 years old, one male, one female, were in this park. The temperature was approximately -4 Celsius with a -9 wind chill (25 F, 16F). This couple were wearing T-shirts and were barefoot.
My friend's description of them included the phrase "seriously whacked out on something", particularly the man.
With the couple was a dog. The dog appeared to be a female pit bull type, approximately four to five months old. Around the dog's neck was barbed wire fencing, attached to a chain. The snow around the dog was bright red.
The man was lifting the dog into the air by the chain (and hence by the barbed wire "collar"), yelling at her, punching her and kicking her. Blood was pouring out of holes in the dog's neck.
My friend, who has seen many injured dogs, described the screams of the dog as "nothing like I've ever heard before".
My friend intervened, attempting to persuade the young man to stop. He turned his attention to my friend, who was then physically assaulted and knocked down on three separate occasions. Finally, my friend turned to the young girl and offered money for the dog, which was accepted.
As a final gesture before leaving, the young man opened his pants zipper and proceeded to urinate on the dog, with some of the urine entering the holes in the dog's neck. This generated further screams from the animal.
The couple walked away, sans dog, but eighty dollars richer.
Now, my friend is standing in the middle of a Toronto park with a seriously injured, probably dying, dog. What next?
Can't call the police. Couldn't even have called the police earlier prior to intervening. Can't call the Toronto Humane Society or the SPCA. Can't call Toronto Animal Services.
Why not?
Because the dog is illegal in Ontario and any involvement by authorities pretty well guarantees the death of the dog.
Any pit bull type dog born in Ontario after November 26 2005 must either be adopted (by Animal Services) outside of Ontario (not much chance of that), sold to a "research facility", or killed.
There are no other options.
So my friend took a cab, with a bleeding dog, to a veterinary clinic (which shall remain nameless). The surgery cost $500 (forty stitches) and, with the subsequent medications and follow-up medical care, the total bill will easily top $1,000.
My friend also found a home for this dog in northern Ontario, with someone whose dog had recently died of old age and who will care lovingly for this dog for the rest of her life. That person must also remain nameless.
Here are the laws that were broken in this incident.
The young people abusing the dog:Criminal Code of Canada, Section 446 - Cruelty to Animals.
The original rescuer:
The Dog Owners' Liability Act, Section 6 - Own an illegal pit bull.
The Dog Owners' Liability Act, Section 6 - Breed a pit bull.
The Dog Owners' Liability Act, Section 6 - Transfer a pit bull by sale.The Dog Owners' Liability Act, Section 6 - Transfer a pit bull by sale.
The veterinary clinic:
The Dog Owners' Liability Act, Section 6 - Own an illegal pit bull (including fail to transfer the pit bull to the pound for "disposition").
The Dog Owners' Liability Act, Section 6 - Transfer an illegal pit bull by gift.
Criminal Code of Canada - Failure to report animal abuse.The Dog Owners' Liability Act, Section 6 - Own an illegal pit bull (including fail to transfer the pit bull to the pound for "disposition").
The final rescuer and home for the dog:
The Dog Owners' Liability Act, Section 6 - Transfer an illegal pit bull by gift.
Criminal Code of Canada - Failure to report animal abuse.The Dog Owners' Liability Act, Section 6 - Own an illegal pit bull (including fail to transfer the pit bull to the pound for "disposition").
The original rescuer must remain nameless in this article for fear of prosecution under the Ontario Dog Owners' Liability Act.
The Dog Owners' Liability Act, Section 6 - Transfer an illegal pit bull by gift.
City Bylaw - Fail to register the dog with the city.
Criminal Code of Canada - Failure to report animal abuse.
The park name and the date and time of the incident must remain private to avoid identification of the rescuer and of the veterinary clinic for fear of prosecution under the Ontario Dog Owners' Liability Act.
The veterinary clinic must remain nameless in this article for fear of prosecution under the Ontario Dog Owners' Liability Act.
The final rescuer and home for this dog must remain nameless in this article for fear of prosecution under the Ontario Dog Owners' Liability Act.
I can assume that I also am party to all these law-breaking activities, since I know the names of everyone involved (except the abusers).
On the other hand, the original abusers walk away, not only richer, but without fear of animal cruelty charges, because, in order to charge these people with animal cruelty, the dog would have been seized under the Dog Owners' Liability Act and killed.
Oh, and one more thing. They can get another dog tomorrow.
Does this make sense to anyone except Dalton McGuinty and Michael Bryant?
UPDATE DECEMBER 18: Sad, angry and frustrated
November 08, 2007
A good article with a few missteps
Here is a reasonably intelligent commentary on "pit bulls", albeit from an author who is admittedly biased toward this particular type of dog. Like myself, however, he wasn't always that way.
You can read his story at:
http://www.indianapolismonthly.com/article.aspx?id=17766
In general, this is a well-articulated discussion of the plight of these dogs on this continent. There are, however, a few comments with which I take issue.
This is not meant to be a criticism of the author. From what I have read, I think he's a wonderful owner with a big heart and a good understanding of dogs.
Unfortunately, that does not turn everything he says into the gospel truth.
Perhaps Canada is different, but I do not feel that there is an overpopulation of "pit bulls".
I believe that there is an overpopulation of the wrong type of owner combined with a media-inspired fear of the dogs that results in many dogs ending up in wrong hands or in shelters. With the right education, more effective legislation, and a different public attitude, those dogs could just as easily have ended up living great lives with responsible owners in good homes.
The population of the dogs is not the issue. Popular breeds, by the very nature of being popular, have more bad breeders and bad owners than rare dogs.
There are backyard and puppy-mill breeding issues.
There are breeders who are breeding for the wrong reasons, including for fighting, size, and aggression.
There are owners who shouldn't own this type of dog, or any type of dog, period.
But if the right education and the right laws were in place, these types of owners wouldn't be able to get dogs at all and the good owners would not be prevented from rescuing and saving dogs, regardless of the size of their heads.
I also have some issues with the blanket statements made by the veterinarian, by the author, and by Dr. Andrew Luescher, who I'll talk about separately.
The veterinarian says that people with children should pick a dog that, "if a child walks across its tail or jumps on them or whatever, nothing’s ever going to happen.”
Not only is this a statement unsubstantiated by any factual data whatsoever, it is the exact opposite of the reality that occurs every day in North America.
There are many dogs of ALL breeds that are highly intolerant of children jumping on them or stepping on their tail. There are many dogs of ALL breeds that will, and have, reacted negatively and violently to such accidental incidents.
The "pit bull" type of dog, however, is renowned for its willingness to endure such assaults. In fact, it has been my experience that this particular type of dog not only tolerates physical onslaughts by little humans, but, in many cases, enjoys them and seeks them out.
On the other hand, one of the breeds that the veterinarian so highly recommends is actually, by far, the number one biter of children in my city and is very high on the list across the country. Assuming that we can even pretend to track breed biting accurately, that breed's numbers are much higher than those of so-called "pit bulls".
The statements about "freakish strength" and the bite that the author has "never seen anything like", although perhaps accurate from the author's point of view, do nothing to help the dogs being targeted by breed-specific legislation. Writers must start to recognize that any public statement by them, even if it is supporting the dogs, will get twisted and used by politicians and other media personnel to support their reasoning for eliminating that type of dog.
This happened in Ontario where dog owners, happy to talk about how fast or strong or determined their particular dogs were, suddenly found their statements being quoted by politicians as proof that this type of dog is "qualitatively different" from other breeds.
I've never seen the "freakish strength" or unbelievable bite from either of my dogs. Without a doubt, my dogs are strong dogs and they choose to bite hard (on tug toys), but they do not appear to be abnormally different from dogs of other breeds.
Perhaps these attributes might exist in a particular dog that is bred from particular lines and trained to bite hard, that has been trained to hold that bite and that has been physically trained for strength.
I've seen Labrador Retrievers and German Shepherds that are just as strong as my dogs. I've seen small terriers that have dislocated their owners' shoulders. I've seen a French bulldog that broke its owner's arm trying to get to another dog.
As for the bite beyond belief, my older dog owned a Kong, one single medium black Kong, for four years. It was destroyed in five minutes by a visiting Jack Russell Terrier.
My dogs' favourite toys are the rubber spheres that have two little rubber feet on the bottom. When my girls are given a new one of these, those feet are gone within minutes. But, that happens with my close friend's Dobermans and her Shepherd/Collie mix as well. The body of that toy lasts forever in my house.
Now to Dr. Andrew Luescher.
He is the director of the Animal Behavior Clinic at Purdue University.
This "clinic" (as it's called) is famous in the dog world for being the home of Dr. Alan Beck, the only animal behaviour "scientist" in North America who agrees with breed banning and who spouts statement after statement about the differences between "pit bulls" and other dogs, yet has no practical real-world experience at all with "pit bull" type dogs.
As a researcher and one who tries to look at every fact and statement with an objective eye, I would personally be wary of using any statement from any person associated with Purdue's Animal Behavior Clinic. There appears to a suspect agenda at that particular facility and I would take anything coming from there with a huge grain of salt.
Virtually every dog that the average pet owner has in their home today does not do today the particular activity for which it was originally bred. Many house pets are physically incapable of performing those functions. Most house pets are not particularly interested in performing those functions. No (or extremely few) house pets have been trained to perfect those functions.
It may be true that you can find these extreme attributes and behaviours in a dog that was bred specifically for its function, that was raised in that environment, that was trained (encouraged) to act in a certain manner, that was physically conditioned to be an extreme athlete, and that has been successful at it (many aren't).
But that situation has no bearing whatsoever on your average house pet, many of whom interact happily with dogs, cats, rabbits, and people on a daily basis.
The fat, happy yellow Lab next door, who goes to the park twice a day and doesn't even want to chase a ball, bears no similarity whatsoever to the highly conditioned and meticulously bred and trained competition field dog that is out swimming through swamps and crashing through brush to retrieve the next bird.
The laid-back, lazy mastiff who greets all visitors with a wagging tail and an investigative sniff, or even a welcoming pair of paws on the visitor's shoulders, is not the same dog that fought alongside Roman soldiers or protected the estates of English noblemen.
Just remember when you're reading articles, even the positive ones, that ALL generalizations are dangerous, even this one.
November 07, 2007
Summary of Ontario committee presenters
Caveat's earlier article quoting from the Bill 132 clause-by-clause committee meeting encouraged me to go back and look at some of the data I collected during that time.
Here's a summary of what types of people presented at the four days of hearings and whether they were for or against the Bill.
102 deputants (presenters) testified in front of the committee over a four day period.
45 were individuals.
57 were organizations.
22 individuals were for the Bill.
22 individuals were against the Bill.
1 was undecided.
6 organizations were for the Bill.
50 organizations were against the Bill.
1 was undecided.
Of the individuals for the Bill:
Of the individuals against the Bill:
The neutral individual was an average citizen not associated with any organization.
Of the organizations for the Bill:
Of the organizations against the Bill:
The neutral organization was a township.
I will be expanding on this in the very near future.
The full text of all committee hearings can be found here:
Committee Hearings - January 24 2006
Committee Hearings - January 27 2006
Committee Hearings - February 2 2006
Committee Hearings - February 3 2006
Committee Votes - February 10 2006
Their minds were made up!
If you want proof that the mind of the Ontario government was made up BEFORE the Bill 132 committee hearings, you need look no further than these comments by Conservative MPP Joe Tascona and NDP MPP Peter Kormos, in opposition to the Bill.
Any rational, logical person could not listen to what these two men had to say and still believe that targeting a certain canine appearance could possibly reduce dog bites.
Keep in mind that that these statements came AFTER four days of committee hearings, in which 80% of the presenters and EVERY credible canine expert rejected the Bill 132 solution. The government had already been told what the problems would be with their approach and what solutions were already working.
Tascona and Kormos simply compressed those four days into a few thoughtful and logical sentences.
Thanks to Caveat.
http://caveat.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/11/6/3338433.html
November 05, 2007
Pick and choose your hatred
The Government of Ontario issued a press release on November 2 stating that the focus of this year's "Crime Prevention Week" (November 4 to 10) will be eliminating racism, hate crimes, hate propaganda and violence to make Ontario safe.
When I read the entire release, looking at it from an Ontario "pit bull" owner's point of view, the rhetoric struck me as entirely hypocritical. This government has been the direct cause of countless incidents of vigilantism and hatred against an identifiable group of citizens. This government has clearly promoted hatred and a canine version of racism, based on no valid data and based entirely on physical appearance.
Here are a few excerpts from the press release. Look at these statements as viewed by a dog owner in Ontario, targeted by discriminatory and hate-filled laws.
I am adamantly opposed to any type of hatred. Normally, I would look at statements like these and offer my full support.
Unfortunately, being now a victim of hatred and discrimination, not only supported by this government, but initiated by it, I find it difficult to take their stated objectives seriously.
These words may, indeed, be just that: words. Words designed to appease a frightened, media-manipulated public. Words to make us feel safe.
"Making Ontario safer"
"Keeping Ontario safer"
Michael Bryant, FORMER Attorney General of Ontario, has used those phrases ad nauseum to justify numerous human rights abuses and violations of citizens' civil rights.
For another member of Dalton McGuinty's party to now come out and promote this government as our "protector" is simply a bad joke.
Here's the full press release:
http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2007/11/02/c3373.html?lang=_e.html
October 31, 2007
An illogical leap
Craig McInnes of the Vancouver Sun wrote this article in September which initially appeared to lament the dangers of loose dogs to children.
The basic premise of the first third of his story, and certainly the gist of the headline, is that a child, when walking or playing in a place where the child is supposed to be and allowed to be, should not have to worry about being bitten by a dog.
Owners of dogs (of any breed) should not risk children's safety by assuming that their dogs won't bite and thus leaving their dogs loose and unsupervised.
AMEN! I couldn't agree with you more, Craig.
The story begins with McInnes being threatened by two dogs (a black Labrador retriever and a younger dog of similar size) who were in the back of a pickup truck and not restrained in any way.
He then moves to two examples of dogs that simply should have been left alone because, unmolested, they would not have bitten anyone.
Again, perfect examples of situations that should not have happened.
The last example McInnes uses is of a pit bull shot by a police officer while attending a call about a dog biting its owner. The dog was shot on its own property, apparently as it threatened the police officer.
Although I believe that there is a tendency among police officers to shoot "pit bull" types more quickly than others, there appears to be some justification for these actions. I don't know the whole story, so I won't comment further. The particular details are actually not the point here.
The point is that, in the last third of his article, Craig makes a leap from this story (of a dog biting its owner inside its own house and then being shot by police) to how parents of children should not have to be worried about the trustworthiness of an approaching pit bull.
It doesn't appear to matter that he just finished talking about a Labrador Retriever threatening him!
It doesn't appear to matter that he just finished talking about a boy whose skull was ripped to shreds by a team of sled dogs!
It doesn't appear to matter that that he just finished talking about the owner of a Cocker Spaniel who bugged his sleeping dog and almost lost his nose as a result!
All of these incidents have faded into the background because McInnes translates a single case of a dog biting inside its house into public concern about dangerous, unpredictable, overly strong, loose running pit bulls!
It doesn't seem to matter to him that a "pit bull" type dog has never killed a child in Canada. Ever.
McInnes started off great and, if he had stayed in that vein, he might have actually accomplished something in terms of helping prevent dog bites.
Instead, he's simply become another source for "pit bull ban" protaganists who want to justify their tunnel vision approach to dog bite prevention.
Stop loose running dogs.Good idea.
Don't allow protective, territorial dogs to reach the general public.Makes sense.
Prevent children from reaching tethered or backyard dogs.Another good idea.
Teach children (and others) not to bother dogs that aren't bugging anyone.Perfect.
Tell everyone that "pit bulls" are really the dogs that everyone should be worried about if they're loose.HUH?
Comments like those at the end of McInnes' story lead directly to comments like this from Kory Nelson, city attorney for Denver, Colorado:"Anybody who shoots a pit bull running loose is justified," said Nelson, the Denver city attorney. "The only difference between a pit bull and a gun is that a gun won't chase you down the street."
And comments like that lead inexorably to breed bans and the deaths of thousands of dogs, simply because people like Craig McInnes decide to conveniently ignore the fact that it was not a pit bull that threatened him from the back of that pickup truck.
Instead of focusing on the issues, the lack of control and training, the irresponsibility of particular, individual owners, McInnes felt it necessary to turn the whole thing around and make it about "pit bulls".
Instead of using his newspaper space to do something good, the only McInnes has managed to accomplish is to increase the likelihood of vigilantism and legislation aimed at pit bull owners.
In the end, he has done nothing to help reduce dog bites.
Media catches up
Tuesday uncovered a few more media outlets covering the story of the eleven-year-old boy ordering his dog to attack other children.
I won't be so presumptious as to pretend that letters to the editors from myself and others made a difference. It's probably just the rest of the news organizations catching up to the Toronto Star.
Globe and Mail
City News
The most detailed story to-date is, surprisingly, from the Vancouver Province (the story happened in Toronto).
Vancouver Province
Interesting that two of these three organizations chose to identify the dog as a German Shepherd rather than the Irish Wolfhound / German Shepherd mix that was reported in the original story.
I am constantly reiterating that breed is the least important factor in dog bites. In this case, we have unsupervised children, a dog with a biting history, and a boy that decides to settle his arguments with the others by ordering his dog to attack. Clearly, breed was not the issue here.
It still bothers me, however, when I see these inconsistencies, because it is these very media reports that politicians use to justify breed banning.
October 29, 2007
Where is the media?
Thank you to the Toronto Star for being the ONLY paper to print this story.
I was not able to find the story in any other newspaper. This incident did not happen in a small, obscure town with only one daily or weekly paper. This happened in Toronto, with at least six daily newspapers and many online news organizations, as well as television and radio.
Yet, only one newspaper deemed this story fit to print.
Note that there is no mention of breed in the headline. In fact, the breed of the dog is mentioned once, in the sixth paragraph.
I have included the entire story below so that you can play a game. It's a very easy game.
Simply replace the phrase "Irish Wolfhound / Shepherd mix" with the phrase "pit bull".
No change in circumstance. No change in injuries.
Imagine what the media response would be to that story. Imagine how many news organizations, not only in Toronto, but across the province and the country, would grab that story and run with it.
Imagine the headlines.
"Pit bull mauls eight-year-old girl"
"Pit bull used as attack dog"
"Pit bull used as weapon of revenge"
"Pit bull chases and attacks four children"
"Girl lucky to be alive after being mauled by pit bull"
Instead, we get "Girl suffers leg injuries in dog attack". Is "Irish Wolfhound / Shepherd mix" too long to put in the headline?
Imagine the questions and comments.
Where were the parents?
What was an 11 year old child doing with a "loaded weapon"?
Why was the dog "trained" to attack (based on the ability for a child to "sic" it on other children)?
Why has the dog not been destroyed?
Why was the dog not destroyed and/or the owners charged in the previous biting instances?
I'm not necessarily suggesting that the dog should have been destroyed earlier or even that it should be now, just that these would probably be the questions if the breed were different.
There could not be a better example of the double standard in the media when it comes to certain types of dogs.
Here's the full text of the story.Girl suffers leg injuries in dog attack
TheStar.com
October 28, 2007
Rachel De Lazzer
Staff Reporter
Children throwing berries at each other allegedly prompted an 11-year-old boy to sick his dog on a girl on Saturday.
Injuries to the girl, 8, were not as serious as initially thought, police said yesterday. She underwent surgery on the day of the attack but suffered no muscle or tissue damage and was kept in hospital for a 48-hour period as a precaution so hospital staff could watch for signs of infection.
"Her leg was surgically repaired and will be scarred," said Det. Martin Woodhouse, referencing the incident report.
The attack occurred on Kingston Rd. near Manse Rd. when four neighbourhood children in a townhouse complex began arguing after the children began throwing berries at other children.
One boy became upset and fetched his dog PJ from his house and allegedly sicked him on the offending children, who were frightened and fled. Police said the dog pursued them and bit the victim in her left leg thigh area.
The dog is a seven-year-old Irish Wolfhound-Sheppard mix that has a history of biting, said Woodhouse.
The boy is too young to be charged, but Woodhouse said typically police will talk to the parents about discipline in such a case.
"We'll interview the boy and we'll interview the parents and tell them what's right and wrong" he said.
The dog was turned over to Animal Control for quarantine and it's not clear whether the dog will be destroyed. Woodhouse said police would typically suggest it be put down especially in a case where a dog has a history of biting.
With files from Jackson Hayes
© Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2007
October 26, 2007
Agenda? Who? Us?
The blatant media pandering to an irrational public fear is starting to get a little old.
Below, I've copied all three articles from the St. Catharines Standard about a dog and woman being bitten by a "pit bull". I had to do this because, unfortunately, the Standard, like the rest of the Osprey Media publications, start charging for their stories after seven days. It's a shame, because I can get stories from the Toronto Sun, Toronto Star, and Globe and Mail from months ago for free.
So what gives a newspaper the right, after being told that a dog is a cross between two separate and distinct dog breeds, to forget about the one breed and focus only on the other?
Is a cross between a German Shepherd and a Labrador Retriever any more one than the other? Should the media just call it a German Shepherd? How about a Labradoodle (Lab + Poodle)? If that dog bites somebody, should the headlines read "Poodle mauls boy"?
Why is, then, that the phrase "pit bull" causes everyone to just focus on that one word? Is it because it MUST be the "pit bull" part that did the attacking?
Sorry, folks, the statistics, especially in this country, do not support that view. There are many dogs in this country, including the Labrador Retriever, that bite more, maim more, and kill more.
Labrador retrievers and mixes have attacked just as many people and, in many cities, more people than "pit bull" types. Does that make me dislike Labs? Of course not, but it simply recognizes that many different types of dogs bite, sometimes very seriously.
Labrador retrievers and mixes have killed more people in Canada than "pit bull" types. Does that make me afraid of Labs? Of course not, but it simply recognizes that many different types of dogs kill, even though dog bites are one of the least likely causes of death in the world.
I'm not picking on Labrador Retrievers here. That breed just happens to be the second half of the dog in this story.
But what rationale, what logic, what facts, support the instant dropping of the identifier "Labrador Retriever" in favour of the identifier "pit bull"?
We can argue all day about whether "pit bull" is even a breed. In fact, if you use the word "pit bull", you should really just use the word "retriever" instead of "Labrador retriever" because it's the same concept - a group of dogs that may look similar or that may be used for similar purposes.
What if the Labrador Retriever had a huge number of bites in this country and the Golden Retriever, Chesapeake Bay Retriever, and Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever weren't even on the radar in terms of biting? What if the statistics just said "retriever - 5,000 bites"? Wouldn't that just drive the Golden, Chessie, and Toller owners nuts to be lumped into the same group?
Welcome to the world of "pit bull" owners!
Just so that you can see what this St. Catharines newspaper did, here are the three articles.
Keep in mind, people get bitten by dogs in St. Catharines at least once a week. The injuries here (to both dog and woman) were minor. It appears that it was most likely a dog fight and people stuck their hands in the middle, which is always a bad idea.
It actually sounds like the Lincoln County Humane Society is being pretty decent about not overreacting to a pretty typical dog fight.
Yet, we have THREE articles about the incident in this small town newspaper. I wonder if the newspaper would have the guts to go back through Animal Services records and report on ALL other dog fights where owners got bitten and ALL other bites from dog to human over the past year.
Now that would be responsible reporting.
All articles below were written by Grant LaFleche.
http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=746433
Grimsby woman bitten by pit bull
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The Lincoln County Humane Society is trying to determine whether charges will be laid following a pit bull attack Tuesday morning in Grimsby.
“The dog was not muzzled,” said humane society executive director Kevin Strooband. “All breeds of pit bull have to have to be muzzled when not on their own property.”
The incident happened shortly before 8:30 a.m. when a resident at a Slessor Boulevard apartment building was walking her Rottweiler in the hallway.
Strooband says she passed a teenaged boy walking a pit bull/Labrador cross.
“What happened was he lost his grip on the leash when the pit bull went for the other dog,” he said.
The pit bull bit the Rottweiler, and then also bit the woman, identified by her landlord as Jennifer, on the arm and leg.
However, Strooband said the injuries were minor. The 37-year-old woman was taken to the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital for treatment. She was released a short time later.
The teenager was also injured trying to separate the dogs, but his injuries did not require medical attention.
Strooband said the pit bull has been quarantined for 10 days. That is standard procedure in cases when dogs bite a human to see whether the animal develops any symptoms of rabies.
Copyright © 2007 St. Catharines Standard
http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=747834
Pit bull quarantined after attack
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
The Lincoln County Humane Society is trying to determine whether charges will be laid following a pit bull attack Tuesday morning in Grimsby.
"The dog was not muzzled," said society executive director Kevin Strooband. "All breeds of pit bull have to have to be muzzled when not on their own property."
The incident happened shortly before 8:30 a.m. when a resident at a Slessor Boulevard apartment building was walking her Rottweiler in the hallway.
Strooband said she passed a teenaged boy walking a pit bull/Labrador cross.
"What happened was he lost his grip on the leash when the pit bull went for the other dog," he said.
The pit bull bit the Rottweiler, and then also bit the woman on the arm and leg.
Strooband said the injuries were minor. The 37-year-old woman was taken to the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital for treatment and released a short time later. The teen was hurt trying to separate the dogs, but his injuries did not require medical attention.
Strooband said the pit bull has been quarantined for 10 days, standard procedure when dogs bite a human to see whether the animal shows symptoms of rabies.
Copyright © 2007 St. Catharines Standard
http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=749545
Pit bull involved in attack released from quarantine
Thursday, October 25, 2007
A pit bull that bit a Grimsby woman Tuesday has been released from quarantine by the Lincoln County Humane Society.
The dog was placed in quarantine as a matter of procedure following the Slessor Boulevard incident. Dogs that bite humans are kept in quarantine for 10 days to see whether symptoms of rabies develop.
However, humane society executive director Kevin Strooband said Wednesday the public health department gave him the green light to release the animal.
The dog is going with its owner to Milton where it will be observed for 10 days.
The pit bull bit a 37-year-old woman around 8:30 a.m. Tuesday. The woman was walking in the hallway of her apartment building and came near a teenager walking the pit bull. The pit bull bit the other dog and its owner. Both the woman and the dog are fine, Strooband said, and suffered only minor injuries.
Ontario law requires all pit bulls be muzzled outside their own property. This dog was not. However, Strooband said charges will only be laid if the victim wants them to be. As yet, no charges have been laid.
Copyright © 2007 St. Catharines Standard
October 19, 2007
Dangerous and Disruptive Pets Survey
Here is a brief summary of a survery conducted by Ipsos Canada. The summary was also produced by Ipsos, so the "interesting tidbits" listed for each city have been selected by the editors of the news release and, as such, may not actually be the most revealing statistics.
I'm hoping to get the full report and I certainly will be making more comments on this document in the near future.
Attention News Editors:
'Dangerous dogs are a product of poor upbringing, not genes,' says 86 per cent of Canadian Ipsos respondents
Dangerous and Disruptive Pets Survey released by Ipsos Canada at Summit for Urban Animal Strategies
CALGARY, Oct. 18 /CNW/ - Most community members polled from across the country believe that an animal's upbringing plays a bigger role than breed and size when determining dangerous behaviour. With that being the case, it is not surprising that pet owners were named as the primarily responsible party for managing disruptive pets, with local humane societies coming in second and the municipal government being named as third. These were just some of the findings of the 2007 Urban Animal Survey, released today by Ipsos Canada at the Banff Summit for Urban Animal Strategies.
The online survey asked questions about disruptive and dangerous pets to a nationally representative Canadian Household Panel, in eight communities throughout Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. Although the questions focused on potentially harmful urban pets in general, an overwhelming majority (95 per cent) of Canadians who have felt threatened by pets named canines as the culprit. In fact, dogs also came out on top as the most common type of pet found to be disruptive (93 per cent of instances) - whether that be making excessive noise, or leaving feces on public or personal property.
Of the Canadians surveyed, 83 per cent have had their lifestyle disturbed by a pet. Be that as it may, over one-fifth (22 per cent) of our tolerant community members were not at all concerned about disruptive pets in the community.
"We discovered that although more than half of respondents felt that the existing legislation in their community was sufficient for managing disruptive pets, an even larger majority of constituents - seven in 10 - indicated knowing little or nothing about pet-related legislation," says David Webb, Senior Research Manager for Ipsos Canada. "Given these stats, there is clearly still work to be done on an education and awareness front."
When it came to dangerous pets, community members were concerned for their own safety, that of their family and that of others in the community in similar proportions (32 per cent, 39 per cent and 39 per cent respectively). Interestingly, 77 per cent of Canadians surveyed said that pet owners should be the responsible party for managing dangerous pets, but 70 per cent believed that the humane society or SPCA were the ones doing the job. Is there a perception that pet owners are shirking their responsibilities? Perhaps, since almost half of respondents (49 per cent) completely agree that how a dog is raised determines its behaviour - not genetics.
Despite this fact - there is still a consensus among community members (53 per cent) that people should be banned from having specific types of pets, and a similar percentage (51 per cent) are in favour of banning specific breeds of dogs from 'Leash Free Parks.' In fact, a particularly cautious 24 per cent of respondents want all dogs to wear muzzles in public places.
"In speaking with our session leaders and delegates, we discovered that the topic of disruptive and dangerous animals was one that stimulated a great deal of discussion and debate," says Larry Evans, Chair of the Banff Summit Organizing Committee. "With this in mind, we commissioned this survey by Ipsos Canada to find out how the community at large were affected by these types of animals in their everyday lives."<< How do the Communities Compare?
About Ipsos Canada
Hamilton/Burlington, Ontario
St. Catharines, Ontario
London, Ontario
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
St. Albert, Alberta
Calgary, Alberta
Vancouver, British Columbia
Capital Regional District of British Columbia
>>
Ipsos-Reid is Canada's leading marketing research and public affairs company in Canada, both in terms of size and reputation. It operates in seven cities and employs more than 300 researchers and support staff in Canada. It has the biggest network of telephone call centres, as well as the largest pre-recruited household and online panels in Canada. Its Canadian marketing research and public affairs practices are staffed with seasoned research consultants with extensive industry-specific backgrounds offering the premier suite of research vehicles in Canada, including the Ipsos Trend Report, the leading source of public opinion in the country. Ipsos-Reid is a member of the Ipsos Group, the second largest survey-based marketing research company in the world.
For copies of other news releases, please visit:
http://www.ipsos-reid.com/media/content/PRE_REL.cfm
About the Banff Summit for Urban Animal Strategies
The Banff Summit for Urban Animal Strategies (BSUAS) is a specialized conference of thought leaders from across North America who come together to consider strategies for improving animal care in the community. Delegates who are known for their contributions to Animal Control, Animal Welfare, Animal Wellness and Community Collaboration are invited by the event's selection committee. This year's Summit, which was held at the Banff Centre from Tuesday, October 16 to Thursday, October 18, focused on the theme of "Disruptive and Dangerous Animals in Our Communities."
Further information regarding the BSUAS can be found at www.bsuas.com.
These are the findings of an Ipsos-Reid poll conducted from September 7 to 21, 2007, of panelists living in the participating communities. A sample from the Canadian Household Panel was sent an e-mail invitation asking them to participate in the study. With a sample of this size, the results are considered accurate to within +/- 2.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, of what they would have been had the entire adult population been polled. For individual communities, the margin of error would range from +/- 5.4 to +/- 7.6 per cent. The Canadian Household Panel is continually monitored and balanced against Statistics Canada demographics including gender, age and income to ensure it is representative of Canadian communities.
For further information:
For media inquiries, contact Charlene Lo, Optimum Public Relations - (416) 436-8651, charlene.lo@cossette.com or David Webb, Ipsos Canada - (519) 780-4704, David.Webb@Ipsos-Reid.com
Original link:
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2007/18/c5516.html
October 10, 2007
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME!
As the clock clicked over to 12:00 AM, October 11, I found myself sitting in front of the TV, watching the final numbers roll in from the Ontario election. Probably the worst birthday present I've received in my life.
Liberals 71 seats 42.12% popular vote PC 26 seats 31.55% popular vote NDP 10 seats 16.95% popular vote Green 0 seats 8.05% popular vote Other 0 seats 1.34% popular vote
So, I sat in the living room, singing a song and hugging my dogs:Happy Birthday to me
I know it sounds like a pity party, but it really only lasted for half an hour. I'm more determined than ever to get rid of this government, succeed in court, and increase public awareness. I believe we're going to have to make significant strides in all three areas in order to be successful.
Happy Birthday to me
Happy Birthday, dear pit bull (dog) owner
Happy Birthday to me.
This is not just an Ontario fight, it's Canadian, it's North American, it's worldwide.
So, on with the fight.
In the words of Winston Churchill:Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never —- in nothing, great or small, large or petty —- never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense.
VOTE TODAY
Today, YOU can make a difference.
YOU can change the lives of thousands of dog owners and save the lives of thousands of dogs in Ontario.
To do this, you MUST:
1. VOTE
If you don't vote, don't complain later about what you get. I hope that every dog owner in this province, not matter how tired, sick, busy, bored, or disillusioned, drags themselves to the voting booth.
To find out where to vote and who your candidates are, go to
http://faq.elections.on.ca/faq/performsearch.do?type1QuestionId=1
2. DON'T VOTE LIBERAL
Put simply, if the PC or NDP parties get in power, even in a minority government scenario, we will at least have a chance of overturning the Liberals' dog-killing, rights-trampling legislation.
If the Liberals get in power, then there will be no reversal of this law. In fact, there is a real possibility that it will get worse.
3. VOTE STRATEGICALLY
Vote for who is most likely to beat the Liberal candidate in your particular riding. I've received a number of complaints because I seem to be promoting one party over another. That is true. I am. But I'm not saying vote PC to everyone, everywhere. I'm saying vote for who can beat the Liberals where you are (see point #2). That's all.
I respect that it's a bit much to ask you to vote for a party to whom you may have been opposed your whole life. I know a lot of people who would never vote PC and a lot of others who would never vote NDP.
So, if you can't bring yourself to vote strategically, then at least go back to point #2.
4. ENCOURAGE EVERYONE YOU KNOW TO VOTE
Push people. You don't have to be over-polite at this point. Help them understand the importance of the above 3 points.
Questions like this:
You've known my dog and me for how many years?
And you've seen what we've gone through?
And the other dog owners you know who've experienced similar things?
You've seen how their lives have been changed?
Do you want us to continue to go through this, living in fear for our dogs' lives?
Do you care enough about us and our dogs to vote against the Liberals in this election?
Because I'll pretty well guarantee you that, if they win, we're moving out of this province.
That might wake them up.
I'll be up late tonight with fingers and toes crossed.
Hope it's a good day tomorrow. It's my birthday.
Steve
October 09, 2007
AN "A TO Z" ELECTION TALE
Once upon a time, in a province called Ontario, a man named Dalton McGuinty wanted to become premier so badly that he made many promises. He said he would not raise taxes. He promised to close the dirty coal-burning plants. He would help autistic children, relieve gridlock problems and help immigrants have their qualifications recognized in Canada.
Here is the A to Z story of what happened when this man gained power.
A is for the autistic children.Once elected McGuinty failed to provide the funding he had promised during his election campaign. If that wasn't enough, he then fought the parents in court. Twice. One member of parliament tried to find out how much public money was spent on the court case, but the Attorney General refused to say. He used public funds, but then said the public did not have the right to know how much the legal action cost.
B is for broken promises.Fifty to be precise. Once in power McGuinty abandoned his list of promises, passing the blame off on the previous government. But there was a problem with his claim, because when he found a large surplus just before the next election he didn't use it to make good on any of his previous promises. No. McGuinty used the money to try to buy votes with new promises.
C is for the dirty coal plants that are still open.McGuinty promised he would close coal-fired electricity plants by 2007. They are still burning, still polluting, while McGuinty pounds the campaign trail.
D is for the dogs that have been killed or sent to animal research.The Attorney General said he would listen to the experts, but when every expert at the public hearings opposed the ban the Liberals pushed the law through. McGuinty and his party knew that passing the ban was going to hurt responsible dog owners and that it would result in the needless deaths of thousands of animals. They passed the law anyway.
E is for egotistical.McGuinty broke promises, but expects voters to simply forgive him. He acts like the cat that's caught the canary, pleased with himself for getting away with his unacceptable behaviour.
F is for fear mongering.How do you distract the public away from your long list of broken promises? Why not say you are going to ban things. Ban sushi, t-shirts, smoking in designated smoking rooms, dogs … the list goes on. Then if people are busy being afraid, maybe they won't notice what a bad job you're doing of governing.
G is for giving grants with no openness or accountability.Under McGuinty's leadership the Liberals were sharply criticized by Ontario's Auditor General for the way they doled out over $32 million dollars in grants to multicultural organizations. The catch was that you had to know someone to get a chance to get funded, which left many organizations in the dark. The Ontario Cricket Association did well, however. They asked the province for $150,000 and got a clean $1 million dollar - 666% more than they'd asked for. So the OCA has $500,000 left over in an interest-earning GIC.
H is for the health tax hike.McGuinty promised not to raise taxes, but almost as soon as he was elected he introduced a $2.8 billion dollar tax hike. When McGuinty found a $2.3 billion dollar surplus did he do the right thing and eliminate or at least start to phase out the hated tax? No. It was election time again, so he gave away our tax dollars in the hope that he would be re-elected.
I is for the immigrants who were betrayed.McGuinty promised he would eliminate barriers to foreign trade professionals within one year. He also committed to see that qualified immigrants would be accepted by trades and professions within one year. These are just two more broken promises, with qualified immigrants left in low-paying jobs.
J is for the lack of justice in our province.McGuinty's Attorney General appeared on television when a newspaper boy was bitten by an alleged "pit bull" and needed a few stitches. Yet when a young woman was gunned down, murdered, while shopping on Boxing Day where was the outrage or even just a public appearance from the same Attorney General? The McGuinty Liberals made one thing clear. Public safety was very important to them if it centred around an issue that makes people mad, like letting Karla Homolka free or banning dogs that have a bad rep. Too bad about all those other people who needed their attention, like the citizens who have been shot, stabbed or swarmed.
K is for not keeping his word.McGuinty must have missed the lessons on honest, integrity and keeping your promises that most of us learned in Kindergarten.
L is for the lack of consultation.Instead of working with concerned interest groups, McGuinty's government shut them out and simply pushed through legislation. It was his-way or the highway.
M is for the multicultural grants given to groups with strong Liberal ties.One organization in Richmond Hill was too new to qualify for a grant under normal programs. There is no written record of a grant application, but somehow they got $200,000 to build a community centre. Since they don't have land yet that money now sits in the group's bank account. After getting the grant two board members moved on in their career. One became the local Liberal candidate while the other became the president of the local Liberal riding association.
N is for the 8,000 nurses McGuinty failed to hire, despite his election promise.Just one more way that McGuinty has let our healthcare system down.
O is for Ontario, which has suffered under McGuinty's rule.Once the most prosperous province in Canada, last year Ontario ranked 10th out of 10 for its economic growth and our unemployment rate has moved consistently above the national average.
P is for protecting the innocent.The powers of the justice system have failed to work on one of the most important issues facing our province, the murder of our children on the streets and even in their schools. This issue didn't play well in sound bites, so while the media covered it extensively, action from the McGuinty Liberals was virtually non-existent.
Q is for the questions that were pushed aside during the 2007 election campaign.Like a skilled politician, McGuinty put his career ahead of the issues during the 2007 election campaign. He used the issue of faith based funding to pre-empt important discussions about healthcare, taxes, education, poverty and the environment. For the record McGuinty is totally opposed to faith based funding, which he sees as divisive. Incidentally, McGuinty's children go to a Catholic school, Ontario's only publicly funded faith based school.
R is for not reducing auto insurance as promised.McGuinty said he would reduce auto rates by 10% within 90 days of elected. Did he? Of course not. Chalk it up to yet one more broken promise.
S is for not spending every penny of the new health tax on healthcare.McGuinty said that he would spend every penny of the new health tax on healthcare. What really happened is that health care dollars went into general revenues and McGuinty went on to cut healthcare services, starting with eye exams, chiropractic treatment and physiotherapy.
T is for the tolls on the 407 highway.During the election McGuinty promised to roll back tolls on the 407 highway. This, of course, did not happen.
U is for failing to unclog emergency rooms.McGuinty promised that he would unclog emergency rooms. He failed to deliver and people like Patricia Vepari have died as a result. In February 2005 the 21-year-old engineering student in Kitchener-Waterloo decided to go home after waiting in an emergency room for 8 hours. She then died at home of her infection.
V is for the victims of crime.McGuinty said he would provide legal rights for the victims of crime, but his Attorney General was too busy banning sushi, t-shirts and dogs to pay attention to those truly in need. So another promise bit the dust.
W is for the whipped votes, another broken election promise.McGuinty said he would allow non-cabinet MPPs to criticize and vote against government legislation. As it turns out there was too much to criticize, so votes were whipped and McGuinty broke yet another promise.
X is for excruciating.Which is exactly what another four years of the McGuinty Liberals would be like.
Y is for "yesterday's man".The people of Ontario bought McGuinty's song and dance once. With the issue of faith-based schools now open to a free vote, McGuinty should be none other than yesterday's man in the October 10th election.
Z is for zero.That's exactly how many more chances McGuinty and his Liberals should get when voters go to the poll on October 10, 2007.
Courtesy of Julie King.
October 03, 2007
That's not true. That's not true.
Dalton McGuinty completely ignores a terminally ill cancer patient at a hospital in Ottawa.
Click here if you can't see the video.
How about these instead?
"Dalton, you promised to close the coal plants"
-- That's not true. That's not true.
"Dalton, you promised not to raise taxes"
-- That's not true. That's not true.
"Dalton, you hoodwinked the public into believing they're safe from dog attacks"
-- That's not true. That's not true.
"Dalton, you promised to allow MPP's to criticize and vote against government legislation"
-- That's not true. That's not true.
"Dalton, you promised to hire 1,000 new police officers"
-- That's not true. That's not true.
October 02, 2007
Woo Hoo!
Not much leaves me speechless, but this story at CNN sure did.
Based on the history of cases like this in the U.S., I was not expecting a positive outcome for the dogs.
Most of Vick's dogs will go to families and a 'sanctuary'
Thanks to KC Dog Blog and Donna at Bad Rap for this info. Bad Rap had a lot to do with the evaluation process.
I've only been able to find one other newspaper that has mentioned this story, the Daily Press, a local Newport News newspaper. The town is called Newport News and is in Surry, where Vick was charged.
I'm really hoping that other media organizations besides CNN will cover this, but the story's over a day old, so maybe not. They're so quick to jump on the negative stories, but here's just about the most positive story you could find about the breed and there's virtually nothing out there.
Even the local newspaper's headlines were negative:
Judge orders Vick dog to be euthanized
Aggressive Vick dog may die
Both news organizations have clearly missed the point and it's becoming obvious that the rest don't care.
49 dogs, specifically bred and used for dog-fighting, have been evaluated for temperament with people, kids, and dogs. Only one of the 49 exhibited enough aggression that it was ordered destroyed.
Of the remaining 48, it seems that some were great and some were just OK. Some were probably happy and outgoing. Some, according to court documents, need further work to overcome their fear and lack of social skills.
Hey HSUS! Hey PETA! Hey Michael Bryant and Kory Nelson! Where are you now? Why aren't you in front of the cameras now?
Shouldn't you all be spouting your usual rhetoric?
Ticking timebombs. A breed apart. Inherently dangerous. Unpredictable. Unstable.
VICIOUS.
We tried to tell you. We showed you dogs with Canine Good Neighbour certificates, therapy dogs, obedience champions, search & rescue dogs, family pets. You didn't want to see (or hear).
We told you that an average of 86% of all "pit bulls" temperament-tested by the American Temperament Testing Society passed the tests, better than many "typical" family breeds.
Now, I'm not saying that every one of these 48 are going to turn out great or even survive the next round of tests and rehabilitation, but one thing they are NOT doing is lashing out with serious aggression, despite the abuse that they've suffered.
If you believed everything that Michael Bryant and his ilk tell you, they would be trying to kill everything they see simply because they're genetically programmed to do so.
If you believed everything that PETA and HSUS tell you, they would be reacting with extreme aggression and unpredictability because of the terrible things that have happened to them at the hands of Vick and his cohorts.
And yet, they're not!
Hold on! 48 out of 49. Isn't that 98%? I'm sorry. Did I hear that right?
NINETY-EIGHT PERCENT of these dogs are now being considered as possible candidates for adoption or law enforcement and have not yet shown any aggression significant enough to have them killed.
Yet these same dogs would be confiscated and killed if their new owners dared to step foot inside the province of Ontario.
By the way, you want to know why these dogs weren't destroyed? Because the "Humane" Society of the United States and the People for the "Ethical" Treatment of Animals weren't allowed to get their hands on this one.
God knows, they tried. But the ASPCA and Bad Rap and the U.S. Attorney's office can be thanked for saving these dogs' lives.
We all know, based on past similar events, what would have happened to these dogs had HSUS or PETA been asked for their "expert" opinion.
I also hope that anyone who donated money to either of these two organizations to help house and feed these dogs has asked for their money back. The dogs were housed and fed by the local Animal Shelter.
FYI, here are copies of the court documents, courtesy of the Daily Press.
District attorney's motion, not only for the destruction of the one dog, but more importantly, for the preservation of the other 48.
Judge's order for destruction of one dog
Comments about Lucky the Lab
I posted an earlier article about Lucky the Labrador Retriever, whose destruction was requested by the city of Thornhill after he was identified as a "pit bull".
Well, over at Wag the Dog, where the same article was posted, some nasty comments here and here have been made by someone who says they're not a Liberal supporter and that they don't believe in breed-specific legislation.
They have a funny way of showing it!
They were immediately assured by Wag the Dog authors that, not only is this particular story verifiable, but all of the items posted on that blog have actually happened to real people with real dogs.
The daughter of Lucky's owner also posted her own comments on that same site. You can read them here.
I wonder if the comment-maker just decided to post something controversial so they could sit back and watch everyone freak out.
Probably.
Despite their idiocy, I really hope that Animal Control doesn't come knocking on their door. Now that would really cause a commotion, wouldn't it?
October 01, 2007
If it looks like a "pit bull" . . .
A special story for those who have recently sent in comments questioning the accuracy and truthfulness of our supposed "scare-mongering" tactics about what life is like for many dog owners in Ontario.
This is a true, verifiable story (as have been all of my accounts) that was related to me by a first-hand directly-involved party.
The owner of a pit bull type dog, well known in a local Toronto park, was visiting the park. A buzz was going around the park that day because of a serious dog-on-dog attack that had occurred the day before.
The pit bull owner visited the park a couple of times that day and had at least a dozen people come up and say, "Did you hear about the pit bull attack? Did you hear?".
The pit bull owner happened to know the attacking dog which was (and is) an American Bulldog.
So, to each person who came running up saying "did you hear?", this owner repeated to them, "it was not a pit bull, it was an American Bulldog".
Finally, the owner of a Golden Retriever / Poodle mix turned to the owner and said, "For Ch...t's sake, would you stop defending your breed and admit that it will attack and injure other dogs!".
At which point, the GoldenDoodle owner was confronted by another dog owner who said, "I know which dog you're talking about and it was an American Bulldog".
The GoldenDoodle owner turned, looked at the pit bull owner, spat at that person's feet, and walked away.
This GoldenDoodle owner spewed hatred and venom at this dog owner for an incident that didn't involve that person, didn't involve their dogs, and didn't even involve their breed.
Lovely.
September 26, 2007
Labrador Retriever owner charged with owning a "pit bull"
One of my own biggest frustrations over the past few years has been how difficult it has been to gather dog owners of ALL breeds together. Together, we're one of the largest demographics in the country and, together, politicians would have no choice but to listen.
Many, many of the people who have supported the fight against the Ontario legislation own breeds or mixes that aren't explicitly included in the law and some don't own dogs at all. To those people, I appreciate your time, effort, money and the fact that you "get it".
But there are literally hundreds of thousands of dog owners in Ontario who think it's someone else's problem.
How many times have I heard, "it won't happen to us", "our dog's not a pit bull, why should we worry?", "well, they have to do something about these owners and maybe this is the best way"?
Well folks, like we've been trying to say for a while now, it's NOT just about pit bulls and it CAN happen to you.
Remember the different breeds listed in an earlier article, all of which have been identified by Ontario authorities as "pit bulls". Notice I said "authorities". These were not just average members of the public pointing at a dog and thinking they might know the breed. These were people who have the power to take your dog away and kill it.
Here's a perfect example, this time a Labrador Retriever. Keep in mind, when you're reading this, that six out of every seven dogs in this country do NOT have purebred registration papers. Putting it bluntly, this lady got lucky. Usually, they take your dog and keep it at a shelter, under extremely stressful conditions, while your court case winds it way through six months or a year or two years. So, even if you can prove the breed of your dog, it would normally be confiscated until the court case.
http://wagthedog.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/9/25/3253427.html
And another, this time a Jack Russell Terrier mix.
http://wagthedog.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/9/12/3225120.html
A person writing a comment about an earlier article questioned the accuracy of some of the statements regarding what life is like in Ontario right now. I can assure you that, even though most of these people don't want publicity and don't want their names used, I have talked with the majority of these people personally and, in the rest, one of our directors or lawyers has.
These are real stories happening to real people every day in this province.
Read them again at the link below and ask yourself if you really want to vote Dalton McGuinty, Michael Bryant, David Zimmer, and the rest of the Liberal Party of Ontario back into office.
http://wagthedog.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/8/31/3197428.html
September 24, 2007
Miakoda's dead
I received this letter today from East Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Please read and act.Miakoda's dead. My baby. My pride & joy. Cole's best friend.......is dead. All because of some irresponsible *******.
I'll got into more detail later, but what happened was the temp outside was nice, all the neighbors were out working the yards with their kids out playing, so I decided to load Cole up in the stroller and walk some dogs just up and down the street (it's a deadend street). Mia was the 3rd dog I walked. As we were making out way back to the house, the unimaginable happened: a 100 lb Lab mix came bolting out of his front door. The dog was charging, barking & growling, straight towards me & Cole as Mia was on the other side and she didn't even see him coming. Lord forgive me, I didn't know what else to do but to yank Mia onto the side of the dog in order to let her try and ward the dog off while I got Cole out of the way. I could only imagine what would have happened at that dog hit the stroller at full speed. Thus my nightmare began.
Several neighbors who witnessed what happened, ran over to try and help. My neighbor & friend, Leslie, grabbed Cole and rushed him inside her home. It was then I turned my attention to my 44 lb girl doing her best to protect us from a 100 lb beast. One of the larger men decided, along with myself, to try and get the dogs apart as Mia was fighting with all her heart but that dog had a huge advantage. When he hit her running, she was literally flung over onto her back. Since I trusted Mia, I had the guy try to get a hold of her while I dealt with the lab (yes, I'm stupid, but that was MY dog that dog was trying to kill). Now mind you, the other dog's owner still hadn't come out of his house despite all the yelling & screaming not just by the adults, but by the 7-8 children watching this take place. When we had a good chance, we both went in for the dog's collars to grab hold. That's when the Lab saw me coming & turned his attention onto my leg. He grabbed & shook, but the other guy missed grabbing Mia as she was able to jump up and she then got a firm grip on the dog's upper leg and chest area. She wouldn't let go. At this time, the Lab's owner came running out and he was literally beating the life out of Mia, but she wouldn't let go. I kept trying to get to him & yell at him that he was making her even more mad, but he wouldn't listen. I was desperately trying to get him to just find a way to put a leash on his dog then we could get them apart, but he was ignoring me. Finally some of the other guys were able to pull him away. But before I could even blink, he came out with a shotgun. And that's when he shot my Mia.......he shot my baby girl. He shot MY dog! He shot her in front of children!
I don't remember much after that except hearing her scream and then go limp. I remember the other guy trying to get a hold of his dog when the sheriff deputies pulled up. They then called in the state police and animal control.
They arrested the man for animal cruelty and for discharging a firearm in the close proximity of humans. They were nice & sympathetic and decided to not allow him to bail out tonight, but rather the s.o.b. will have to wait for the judge or whomever to see bail in the morning. The kicker was that when AC finally got the other dog loaded up, I told them bluntly that I wanted that dog dead by tonight & they could check for rabies the old fashioned way. And guess what I was told: That they were going to hold the dog for 10 days and then release it back into its home and that I would have to file a complaint otherwise. So here I am with a dead dog in the middle of the street and I'm hearing that this ******* & his just as crappy family will get their "beloved pet" back. There is absolutely NO justice! NONE!
I talked to a Lt. on the scene and he told me to file suit early in the week against the owner & the dog. He said the issue he could see is that I was bitten trying to break up a dog fight vs. just being bitten outright. (Yet, I had barely even touched the dog when it saw me & turned and grabbed me!)
I just got off the phone with my friend and lawyer, and she will have something worked up by the middle of this week so we can file. Over my dead body will that family get that mongrel back.
But what makes me the angriest and the saddest is that in less than a minute that guy ruined my life, but nothing I can do from here on out will cause him the same pain and anguish and torment and anger and frustration that he has caused me. Nothing.
I don't know what I'm going to do from here. A part of my heart died tonight with my girl. She was my baby. She was Cole's best friend. She was a clown just like her momma. A part of me is ready to just throw in the towel. I've done nothing but love these dogs and fight for them, and yet I've been through too much heartache. I honestly don't even have the desire to go deal with the dogs I've got left.....but I know I have to. I can't give up.....not now......not ever.
God I wish this was all a dream. I wish I could turn back time and decide to call it an evening and not walk the dogs. God....there are so many things I wish could've been done differently. But my baby's gone...........she's gone.........
I've got to go now as I was originally going to bury Mia with a neighbor's help, but my former boss has so graciously offered to open the clinic for me to bring her in for private cremation. One day I will spread her ashes out somewhere she would've loved to have roamed free.......and that day she will be free........never to be harmed through words or actions by the cruel and heartless people in this world. God help me......I don't know how I'm going to get through this.............
After I leave there, I'm headed to the hospital to get my leg looked at. I've got one really deep puncture and a lot of swelling now. My entire quad is throbbing and I have some tingling in my toes. I have included some pictures of my leg after I cleaned it up a bit--they are somewhat graphic, so look at your own risk. And mind you, I was wearing bluejean shorts at the time and the dog bit clear through the pantsleg.
We are trying to help her anyway we can. She has spent her life fighting for our dogs and now we need to help fight in memory of Miakoda. I know everyone here is extremely busy but anything will help.
After what has happened in my life and after numerous discussions with friends, family, and a government official, an idea was presented to have those willing write letters to "To whom it may concern:" or "Dear sir or madam," and send them to a specified email account. Letters will be printed off daily and stored for a certain time frame (let's say 4 weeks) before being bound into a "book" of sorts. The theory behind this is that while it is wonderful to have everyone sending in letters here and there to various news media and gov't officials, the reality is that they delete them faster than they can get the next lie out of their mouths. It's nice to hear numerous voices proclaiming the same message whether it be education about the "pit bull" breeds, outrage against B.S.L., etc., but the idea of putting out a book of letters that will instead be speaking as one loud and noticeable voice is very exciting and intriguing.
We have the large commercial printers and the binding machines and supplies needed for me to do this here in East Baton Rouge Parish and Ascension Parish. My plan is to dispense these "books" into the hands of those who need a wake-up call and the hands of friends in positions that can be beneficial to us. The local news media, both t.v. stations and newspaper, will also receive several copies.
Worst case scenario the books are thrown out. Better scenario is that someone finds the book on their desk, glances through it, reads a few letters, and becomes intrigued that hundreds of people have come together and put forth the effort to speak and be heard. Best scenario is for this book of letters to touch someone's heart and mind and cause them to face the truth behind the dogs, the truth behind the owners, and see what steps we propose as a group to fix the issues (not just with "pit bulls", but with ALL dogs--i.e. mandatory leash laws, high fines for loose dogs, dogs loose a 2nd time get euthanized, whatever............)
The email address for sending letters to is miakodasmemory@yahoo.com .
While I would greatly appreciate letters addressing my situation, I would also love for some to do some informative ones about the dogs, about us as owners, and offer alternatives to B.S.L. This is our chance to truly join together and speak as one!
I do ask that everyone keep their cool (which is why I've waited this long to write letters myself) and to avoid foul language. I will be running spellcheck on every letter before printing them out as well so just do your best at spelling and grammar, but don't stress about it. However, I will ONLY be editing spelling and punctuation and will NOT change any content whatsoever. These are your words not mine and that's what makes it special.....that we each have a voice and we each have the right to use it!
Feel free to crosspost this thread as I would love to see how far this goes.
Also, the book will be updated even after the initial 4 weeks I am giving it. And I also plan on turning it into a .pdf document so that I can send it to anyone who wishes to do their own reproduction as it would be wonderful for everyone to use in their own fights against B.S.L. and the ignorant public.
Again I just want to thank everyone for all the kind words, for all the support, and for all the thoughts and prayers. I know I sound like a broken record here, but I cannot stress how tough the past 2 weeks (almost) have been. It's been such a comfort to know that people beyond my family and circle of local friends are out there fighting for me and my dogs just as much as for themselves and their dogs. And I will say that it goes both ways.
I'm doing this in Miakoda's memory and in her honor, but it's not just for her. I'm doing this for ALL the dogs in the hopes that we can turn things around so that our dogs aren't killed/murdered and we as owners aren't criminals that must prove our innocence.
September 13, 2007
Ontario: There's no place like this!
I'm one of the lucky ones (I guess).
I've already decided that my dogs could be identified as "pit bulls" by Animal Control officers in Ontario, I've been on television, on radio, in the newspapers, and out at public events with them.
I've licensed them with my city as "pit bull terriers" (their words, not mine). In hindsight, I may have been better off licensing them as mutts, but I wasn't thinking about a BAN ON MY DOGS when I licensed them!
I'm less likely than some to be able to argue what my dogs are or aren't, simply because I've fought so hard and so publicly for them.
Unlike the poor lady in this story at Wag the Dog.
Make sure you read the whole story there to understand just how scary this is.
She has a one-and-a-half-year-old Jack Russell terrier mix and a four-month-old hound mix, but according to Animal Control, she has PIT BULLS!!!
She now has to hire a lawyer and go to court to fight provincial charges against her (with the potential of up to $10,000 in fines and up to six months in jail) and to fight SPCA requests for destruction of her dogs!
Her dogs are not at her house right now, just to make sure that they don't get confiscated and killed by the SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS!
The dogs have never threatened anyone, have never bitten anyone, and have been loved and played with by all of the apartment complex children.
This, my friends, is what the McGuinty Ontario Liberals have done to your average dog owner.
Vote for someone else on October 10.
Don't let these guys kill more dogs and destroy more dog owners' lives.
Please.
Important data for Ontario residents
Wag the Dog has published some very important data related to the upcoming Ontario election.
The first tells you how all Members of Provincial Parliament voted on Bill 132 (the Dog Owners' Liability Act), a piece of legislation that has caused the deaths of thousands of dogs and violated the constitutional rights of hundreds of thousands of Canadian citizens.
If your MPP voted in favour of Bill 132 (or failed to vote), feel free to drop in to their constituency office and explain to them why you won't be voting for them on October 10.
The second article shows which of the current 107 Ontario ridings were most closely contested in the 2003 election (usually between the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives). 38 of the 107 ridings had two parties separated by less than 10% of the vote.
For anyone in these ridings (or anyone who wants to travel to them), effective lawn signs and literature in vets' offices and pet stores could make a difference enough to swing the vote away from the Liberals.
Click here to see how your MPP voted on Bill 132.
Click here to see a list of the current 107 ridings and who won them vs who came in second in 2003.
September 10, 2007
How will you shout from your lawn or your car?
Recently, some dog legislation group members were talking about slogans to put on lawn signs, bumper stickers, dog jackets, window decals, etc, against the Ontario Liberal party and in favour of one of the other major parties (PC Progressive Conservatives or NDP New Democratic Party).
Here are just a few of the suggestions.
AT THE END OF EVERY LEASH IS A VOTE
AT THE END OF EVERY LEASH IS A VOTER
AT THE END OF MY LEASH IS A VOTE FOR FAIR DOG LAWS
AT THE END OF MY LEASH IS MY VOTING OWNER
CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES OF BILL 132
DALTON MCGUINTY OR DOG OWNERSHIP - YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH!
DOG LOVER? NOT IF YOU VOTE LIBERAL!
DOG OWNERS BITE BACK ON OCTOBER 10!
DON'T LET THE LIBERALS KILL MORE DOGS!
ELECT POLITICIANS WHO SUPPORT DOG OWNERS
FREE RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS
HATE ME, YOU DON'T WANT OUR VOTE
I CAN'T VOTE BUT MY HUMAN CAN
I DONT VOTE LIBERAL BECAUSE I HAVE A DOG
I DON'T VOTE FOR PUPPY KILLERS!
I VOTE AGAINST BREED BANS
IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY BREED(S), YOU DON'T GET MY VOTE
IF YOU LOVE DOGS, VOTE PC OR NDP
IF YOU OWN A DOG, DON'T VOTE LIBERAL!
I'M VOTING FOR DOG OWNERS' RIGHTS
I'M VOTING TO SAVE MY DOG
LIBERALS MAKE MY DOG FEEL BLUE
MICHAEL BRYANT: RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE DEAD DOGS THAN MICHAEL VICK!
MUZZLE MCGUINTY
MUZZLE ONTARIO'S LIBERALS - VOTE
MY DOG DESERVES EQUALITY
MY DOG GOT MY PROXY FOR VOTING
MY DOG IS BEGGING ME TO VOTE PC OR NDP
MY DOG IS PC/NDP
MY DOG LOVES EVERYBODY BUT DALTON MCGUINTY
MY DOG LOVES PC BLUE
MY DOG VOTES THROUGH ME
MY HUMAN GOT MY PROXY FOR VOTING
MY VOTE GOES FOR RESPONSIBLE LAWS
PAWS TO VOTE AGAINST TYRANNY
PAWS UP FOR PC'S/NDP
PAWS-ITIVELY PC/NDP
PROTECT YOUR DOG - VOTE PC/NDP
PROTECT YOUR DOG. DON'T VOTE LIBERAL.
PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS - REJECT THE MCGUINTY LIBERALS
SAVE A DOG - VOTE PC/NDP
SAVE YOUR DOG - DUMP MCGUINTY ON OCTOBER 10!
THE LIBERALS WANT TO KILL YOUR DOG (AND THOUSANDS LIKE IT)!
THE ONLY THING THE LIBERALS ARE GOOD AT IS KILLING DOGS!
THE ONTARIO LIBERAL PARTY - KILLING MORE DOGS DAILY THAN MICHAEL VICK EVER DID!
THE ONTARIO LIBERAL PARTY - THE ULTIMATE DOG KILLING MACHINE!
THE ONTARIO LIBERALS - MAKING ONTARIO A DOG-FREE ZONE - PLEASE VOTE PC/NDP
VOTE (PC/NDP) AND SAVE THOUSANDS OF DOGS!
VOTE NO TO LIBERAL - YOUR DOG WILL THANK YOU FOR IT
For those of you who aren't in Ontario and may not completely understand some of the comments, here are some pointers:
The Ontario Liberal Party is the current government of the province of Ontario, Canada and is the party that implemented a province-wide breed ban and additional legislation that violates not only dog owners' rights, but human rights in general.
Dalton McGuinty is the leader of this party. Michael Bryant is the Attorney General of the government and was the media face of this legislation.
The Progressive Conservatives (PC) are the conservative alternative and are the most serious challenge to the current Liberal government.
The New Democratic Party (NDP) are the left alternative.
September 07, 2007
MPP's call for police investigation of McGuinty's government
As if we didn't already have enough reasons to vote the Ontario Liberal government out of office, here's another.
ROBERT W. RUNCIMAN, MPP
Leeds-Grenville
PETER KORMOS, MPP
Niagara Centre
For Immediate Release
September 6, 2007
PC AND NDP MPP’s call for police investigation of “slushgate”
(Toronto) - Progressive Conservative and New Democratic MPP’s joined forces today to call for a police investigation into a scandal involving $32 million in grants to multicultural groups by the McGuinty Liberal government.
Bob Runciman (MPP Leeds-Grenville), a former Solicitor General and Peter Kormos (MPP Niagara Centre), a former criminal defence lawyer, released a letter to Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant requesting a police investigation into “financial misconduct” by political officials in the distribution of “highly questionable” grants made at the fiscal year end over the last two years.
In late July, Ontario’s Auditor General released a review of the decision-making process used in the distribution of grants. His findings and scathing criticism detailing the lack of control and transparency as the money was doled out, led to the resignation of Citizenship Minister Mike Colle.
“The Auditor’s report left a basketful of unanswered questions, many beyond the Auditor’s purview to investigate and some raising issues of criminality” asserted Runciman.
“The Auditor’s report was not an investigation of civil or criminal wrongdoing rather it was a quick and narrowly scoped review that confirmed financial misconduct” said Kormos. “We still have no answers for why the misconduct occurred and how these improper benefits were sought or bestowed.”
In calling for the police investigation the veteran MPPs’ argue, citing various sections of the Criminal Code, that criminal misconduct remains a potential explanation for the actions in question and the citizens of Ontario have a right to answers.
“The Auditor General did his job, now it’s time to get to the bottom of this by having the police investigate” said Runciman.
“It’s over to Mr. Bryant to do his job” added Kormos.
-30-
Contact:
Bob Runciman (416) 325-1522
Peter Kormos (416) 325-7106
August 30, 2007
State of the Province
Preferably, you will send them the link to this article, but this is important enough that, if you need to copy/paste the text, feel free.
The direct link to this article is:
http://chicobandido.blogspot.com/2007/08/state-of-province.html
August 29, 2007 was the two-year anniversary of Ontario's Bill 132 (usually known as the "pit bull" ban).
What has happened in Ontario during those two years?
Two people in this province (including a one and a half year old child) have been killed by dogs, none by "pit bull" type dogs.
Almost without exception, the mainstream media organizations, when notified of serious attacks on people and on animals by other types of dogs, have responded with a mind-boggling lack of interest.
Not a "pit bull"? Not interested. Thank you for your call.
Michael Bryant, the Attorney General of Ontario and the political architect of this law, has been on television telling people that attacks by pit bulls have been reduced and that Ontarians are now safer than ever before. Funny that the most expert, most knowledgeable, and most connected people in the province can't find any information to prove the truth of that statement. Even a brief investigation into municipal bite statistics reveals that, in most cases, the specific data required to make that type of statement doesn't exist or is incomplete or inaccurate.
In this province, over the past two years, authorities have targeted, threatened, and confiscated a staggering number of dogs of many breeds and types. Here is just a short list:
Seven-week-old mixed-breed puppies
American Bulldog
Bull Terrier
Chesapeake Bay Retriever
Collie/Jack Russell mix
Dalmatian
Dogue de Bordeaux
Hungarian Vizla
Jack Russell Terrier cross
Labrador Retriever
Neapolitan mastiff
Rhodesian Ridgeback
Rottweiler
A record number of dogs of all shapes and sizes have been confiscated and killed in this province over the past two years, all accused of being "pit bulls". An unknown, unidentifiable, non-existent "breed" has somehow managed to be regularly and frequently identified by unqualified, untrained personnel and, because of the way the law is written, once that unqualified, often biased, person has identified your dog as a "pit bull", the chance of you ever seeing your dog again is pretty well nil.
Many of these confiscations have occurred without proof of wrongdoing, without warrants, through the use of threats and intimidation. Owners have been threatened with arrest, with imprisonment, with inappropriate use-of-force, and with the removal of other pets in the house if they don't surrender the particular dogs in question. Police officers have been encouraged to shoot loose-running dogs on sight, regardless of breed (although short, stocky dogs are definitely more at risk) and regardless of the actions or temperaments of the dogs.
In this province, it's starting to feel like dogs of any breed have become the new targets for police officers' shooting practice. Of course that's an exaggeration, but there is definitely a trend towards a "shoot first, offer cookie later" approach.
Ontario TV shows, radio shows, and newspaper articles have categorized ALL "pit bull" owners in the province as moronic, dangerous, and irresponsible, as gangsters, criminals, and macho thugs. Many have added owners of other breeds to this list as well.
These uninformed and hate-filled opinions have created a "climate of fear", not just toward the dogs, but also toward their owners. They have legitimized and, in some cases, encouraged vigilantism against an identifiable group of law-abiding, responsible citizens.
Dog owners have been assaulted, threatened, spat upon, had bottles thrown at them. Their dogs have been kicked, burned with cigarettes, threatened with death, doused with scalding hot coffee.
Dog owners are being forced, through various cities' extreme and draconian restrictions, to choose between their residence and their pet. Those who can't leave because of family, mortgages, or jobs are forced to give up their dogs. Dogs are being dropped off, often abandoned, at local shelters in record numbers. The "humane" solution that Michael Bryant proposed is causing the deaths of hundreds of dogs each and every day.
People have lost their houses, their jobs, their friends, and even their families because of the shape of their dog's head. Neighbourhood children are no longer allowed to play with the dog owners' children. Neighbours refuse to even say hello and, in many cases, call the police or animal control over minor or even untrue complaints.
The type of dog a person owns is now becoming an issue in child custody battles.
People are being evicted from rental housing, are unable to obtain rental housing, cannot buy condominiums, and cannot get tenant's or homeowner's liability insurance. Falsified complaints of bites, attempted bites, and menacing behaviour are made by groups of tenants who band together to rid their building of dogs that they think might be "pit bulls".
Many dog owners have resorted to walking their dogs in remote areas or late at night to avoid becoming targets. Many more simply use their backyards to exercise their dogs. These attempts to keep themselves and their dogs safe often result in behavioural problems that did not exist previously, due to lack of socialization, training, and simple daily exposure to people, animals, places, and situations.
It is now illegal for hundreds of thousands of Canadian dog owners to vacation with their dogs in Ontario or even to pass through the province when travelling from one part of the country to another. Visitors from the United States and other countries are now advised on travel websites to avoid Ontario if they own a dog, regardless of breed, due to the serious misidentification problems and the reverse-onus provisions of the law (i.e., you have to PROVE the breed of your dog, a scientific impossibility).
Tourism has suffered. Dog shows, flyball and agility competitions, camping trips, and family visits have been cancelled or seriously impacted because of this legislation.
Even municipalities that disagree with this type of breed-specific legislation are now burdened with the additional (and not insignificant) costs of enforcing an unenforceable law. Many of them have seen an increase in the number of calls from uninformed, paranoid residents about neighbouring "pit bulls" with each call requiring an officer to drive out, investigate, identify (or not), report, follow up, and possibly charge and prosecute.
Those municipalities with overzealous, biased animal control personnel now find themselves mired in unparalleled numbers of court cases. All of this is at the expense of taxpayers. Thanks to the parroting of government press releases by the mainstream media and the blind use of sound bites from government press conferences, many members of the public actually think that this McGuinty Liberal government is protecting them and their children.
In Ontario, there are at least 2.3 million dogs, probably more. There are, at last count, about 4.5 million families. So, on average, there is one dog for every two families in the province. Admittedly, some people have more than one dog, but the number of dog owners in Ontario is still hugely significant.
Dog owners are one of the largest demographics in the province. And the vast majority of dog owners do NOT agree with this law.
They do not agree with killing unoffending, well-behaved dogs simply because of the way they look. They do not agree with the confiscation and destruction of newborn puppies. They do not agree with the legislated persecution of law-abiding, responsible citizens who have done nothing except pick the wrong dog to love.
Many, many voters, both dog owners and people without dogs in their families, have recognized this as a purely political move, designed to give the uninformed public the impression of action and protection. With a little common sense and a basic understanding of human rights, they see it as a way for this government to circumvent the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by allowing unreasonable search and seizure, by discriminating against a specific, identifiable group of citizens, and by threatening or actually imposing upon those citizens hefty fines, confiscation of property, and imprisonment because of a vague definition that is arbitrarily enforced.
In a number of court cases in Ontario, the provincial Attorney General's office has intervened in municipal prosecutions of dog owners to make sure they secure convictions in as many "pit bull" cases as possible. Dog owners, unaware of the law, perhaps unable to afford lawyers, unsure as to how to proceed, find themselves in court against the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, against the same government lawyers that defended the government against a constitutional challenge from one of the best civil rights lawyers in the country. What chance can these dog owners possibly have?
This Ontario Liberal government has shown us time and time again that they are more than willing to sacrifice whomever and whatever to appear to increase public safety, without ever bothering to check the facts or listen to the experts.
If this government had been even remotely concerned about public safety, instead of getting in the right sound bite for the evening news, they would have taken the advice of the opposing parties and, even more so, the advice of the experts who testified in front of them and the experts who produced recommendations from two coroners' inquests.
Every single credible expert and animal-related organization, including experts in legislation, dog behaviour, and bite prevention, told the government not to do this. Michael Bryant publicly stated that he would listen to the experts, but when every single expert told him it was a bad idea, not only did the Liberals press ahead with the law, but they actually made amendments to it to make it worse than it was originally, then they forced a "whipped vote" in the legislature, after Dalton McGuinty publicly stated that he would allow his members to vote their conscience in every matter not related to the budget.
In early 2005, prior to the four latest deaths by dogs in Canada (none by "pit bulls"), the Ontario Liberals were asked repeatedly to fund a provincial dog bite prevention and education program.
They refused.
They were asked to implement a provincial responsible dog ownership program.
They refused.
They were asked to create a provincial dog bite registry.
They refused.
They were asked to provide municipalities with appropriate funding to ensure effective animal bylaw enforcement.
They refused.
All of these requests were based on recommendations from the coroner's inquest into the death of eight-year-old Courtney Trempe in 1998. All of these recommendations came from experts in dog breeding, behaviour, and bite prevention.
Instead, the government decided to ban a vague, non-existent shape of dog that barely registers in most dog bite statistics, simply to score political points. Their changes to the Dog Owners' Liability Act had nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with politics.
The way the law is written right now, it is entirely possible and conceivable for the following things to happen:
a) Police can enter my home, seize my dog, kill it, and put me in jail because of the shape of my dog's head or because of the particular type of dog that I choose to live with. This is not about "pit bulls". We have documented many instances where dogs of other breeds have been identified as pit bulls and have been confiscated or the owners have been put through hell trying to save their dogs. There are at least 30 different purebred breeds of dogs that "look like" the dogs that the Liberals are supposedly targeting.
b) Police can enter my home, seize my dog, kill it, and put me in jail if someone feels threatened by my dog or even if they feel that their own animal is threatened by my dog, even if my dog is on my own property. A neighbour who doesn't like me can easily cause my dog to be confiscated. This last section has nothing to do with breed. Every dog owner in this province is affected by this portion of the law.
This law has been used to force therapy dogs and service dogs to be muzzled. It has been used to identify seven-week-old puppies as being a "menace to public safety". Since this law has been enacted, three children and one adult have died in Canada, two in Ontario, all killed by dogs that were not "pit bulls". These past two years have been record years for dogs killing people and not once was a "pit bull" involved. How is public safety being enhanced?
So what is the solution?
Since we have made all possible attempts to negotiate and communicate with the current Liberal government and since we have been rebuffed at every turn, we are left with only two things to do:
1. Take them to court.
2. Vote them out of office.
We have taken them to court. The judge found that various portions of the law violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but left the rest of the law as is.
In order to continue this fight, the Dog Legislation Council of Canada needs funds. Your rights as a dog owner are at risk, regardless of the type of dog you own. The DLCC is fighting for those rights. If you don't want to see the erosion and removal of the rights of all dog owners in this province (including yourself), then you need to help. Don't just say thanks. Don't just say to yourself, "what a great job they're doing" or "at least somebody's fighting this stupid law". Put some money toward this fight. Ten dollars, a hundred dollars, or a thousand. Do something.
Visit http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/ for more details.
Now, to the second option.
Most experts in the fields of dog bites and dog legislation feel that this government, if voted back into office, will target additional breeds or will use the existing law and its vague definitions to go after all sorts of dogs.
Even without further changes, only half of the existing law usually known as the "pit bull ban" actually targets "pit bulls". There are some significant and scary portions of this law that already target all dogs, regardless of breed or type, including public seizure and warrantless entry into homes. The six months in jail and $10,000 fine doesn't just apply to "pit bull" owners. Neither does the ability to seize any dog based on unproven complaints.
This government, along with certain municipalities that seem to have been encouraged and supported by the Attorney General's office, seems to be comprised of either out-and-out dog-haters or of spineless "yes men" (and women) who aren't willing to risk their political career in the Ontario Liberal Party in order to stand up for the province's dog owners.
Experts agree that, in the next two years, we will probably see additional changes to the Dog Owners' Liability Act that will make the current one seem mild.
We CANNOT allow this government to remain in office.
The other two major political parties in Ontario (Progressive Conservative and New Democrats) have said publicly and privately that they disagree with this law and that they would like to see it replaced with strict, no-nonsense legislation that targets the behaviour of irresponsible owners.
Unlike the current legislation introduced by the McGuinty government, the approach suggested by the other parties has been proven to reduce dog bites.
While we wait for further decisions in higher courts, we MUST vote this government out of office on October 10.
If you are a dog owner, get out and vote. I don't care if you've never done it before. I don't care if you even know how to do it.
Call 1-888-668-8683, tell them where you live, and ask them to explain everything to you.
If you're not on the voters list, go to the Ontario Elections website to see what ID you need to just show up and vote. The link is:
http://www.elections.on.ca/en-CA/FAQs/IDRequirements.htm
It's not hard, really.
If you really want to make a difference, vote strategically.
Find out who is your current Member of Provincial Parliament.
Use the Ontario Elections website to type in your postal code and find your electoral district. The link is:
http://www2.elections.on.ca/fyed/en/form_page_en.jsp
Then go to the Ontario Legislature website and find your district in the list on the right. The link is:
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/members/members_current.do?locale=en&ord=Riding&dir=ASC&list_type=all_mpps
Then click the member's name on the left to find out if they're Liberal, Conservative, or NDP.
If your current MPP is not Liberal, then vote for that same party again. The party previously elected in your riding is the most likely one to win again there.
If your current MPP is Liberal, then you can view the previous election at the Ontario Elections website. The link is:
http://www.elections.on.ca/en-CA/Tools/PastResults.htm
If your riding was in a by-election since 2003, then check out the by-election results. Otherwise, look at the 2003 General Election results (Summary of Valid Ballots Cast for Each Candidate).
See which party was closest in votes below the winner and vote for that party.
Of course, you have to vote your conscience. If your political beliefs don't allow you to vote for Conservative, then vote NDP. Or vice versa.
Just don't vote Liberal.
Not if you love your dog and you care about your rights as a dog owner and as a Canadian citizen.
Because it's glaringly obvious that they sure as hell don't.
Read the rest of this article
July 18, 2007
The SPCA's view on the Lockport dog-child "sexual assault"
There is an update on Stinky Journalism regarding the original story of a dog sexually assaulting a boy in Lockport NY.
The update includes the full text of the interview by Art Science Research Laboratory with the director of the SPCA.
Most politicians don't know why dogs bite
I recognize that some people encourage human aggression in their dogs, including training them to intimidate or attack people.
I recognize that some people encourage dog aggression in their dogs, including training them to fight each other.
I recognize that some people allow their dogs to run loose or escape and thus create fear in their neighbourhoods.
I recognize that some dogs are owned by drug dealers, thugs, and gangsters and are used for protection or intimidation.
I recognize that, in some parts of North America, there may be a dog overpopulation problem, although I'm not convinced that it is the epidemic that it's often made out to be.
Each of these is a problem and needs to be solved.
It is important to remember, however, that NONE of the above issues are the primary cause of dog bites and, as such, solutions to the above problems should not be touted as being implemented in order to reduce dog bites. They have nothing at all to do with dog bites.
Yes, we need to prevent people from overbreeding their pets, fighting them, using them as weapons, allowing them to run loose, etc. And we should have programs that target those specific problems.
But don't list the above reasons when you're trying to reduce dog bites.
Look instead at the statistics from the Center for Disease Control, from the Canadian CHIRPP program, and from the Canada Safety Council. They all clearly show that the vast majority of dog bites (including those that cause death or serious injury) are perpetrated by the family dog to the family child in the family home or a neighbour's home or a relative's home.
These were generally NORMAL dogs in NORMAL families, placed into stressful situations. These situations may have included children pressuring the dogs (such as riding, hugging, pulling tails or ears), resource guarding, pack hunting or defence behaviour (in a very few cases), territorial defence, and other behaviours that the dogs may have seen as entirely appropriate and normal.
I am certainly not defending the dogs in every situation, because a well-bred and/or well-socialized dog shouldn't fall into a default behaviour of all-out aggression when pressured. But many of these incidents were, and are, the result of normal dog behaviour.
The failure in almost every situation resulted from the lack of awareness of dog-child interaction by the dog owner, the parent, or both. Lack of knowledge, lack of experience, lack of supervision, lack of training (of both child and dog), lack of common sense.
Unfortunately, because 99 (or more) out of 100 times, a dog will endure such stresses without biting, many families become complacent. "Rover is used to Johnny" or "Rover knows that Johnny is just playing" become mantras, until the day that Rover decides to teach Johnny a lesson.
My own dogs have permanent marks on them from one getting tired of the other being a pest or from one trying to take the other's bone or from any one of myriad other possible "argument causers".
With dogs, that's part of life. However, those same teeth, when used on a human child's skin, may sometimes cause permanent, disfiguring injury.
Parents and dog owners need to be more aware of this, primarily through education.
But legislating things like breed banning and mandatory spay/neuter are not going to reduce dog bites. They may reduce the number of dogs of a popular breed or, in the case of mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs, they will reduce the population of all dogs. But they don't target the reasons why bites occur.
Some of the people who implement these programs may have their hearts in the right place, but they're not using their heads.
Even laudable programs that target animal abuse, dogfighting, and loose-running dogs are still not going to reduce dog bites because they're not looking at the real issue, which is dogs and kids not being managed properly together.
All the laws that try to micro-manage every dog owner (or, even worse, only owners of certain types of dogs) sound good to the average voter, but they don't accomplish the STATED OBJECTIVE, which is to reduce dog bites. Instead, they end up simply hurting responsible dog owners and discriminating against people with certain types of dogs (or against all dog owners in general), without taking a single step in the direction of harm reduction.
As I have said in numerous other articles, there is a simple two-part solution to encourage responsible dog ownership:
1. Educate. Similar to the campaigns against drunk driving, speeding, etc, you must get your message to the general public. It must be simple, possibly harsh, and definitely to the point.
2. Punish. When someone is stupid with their dog, either through deliberate misuse of a dog's capabilities or through negligent inattention, then the punishment should be big. It should be harsh enough that it makes the rest of the dog-owning world sit up and take notice.
As long as dogs and people live together, we will never eliminate dog bites. It is my personal opinion that, in most urban centres, the number of serious, injuring dog bites is about as low as it's going to get without getting rid of all dogs.
I think there's some work to do in some of the rural and northern areas of the country, but the cities who have dog legislation in place are basically managing the public actions of dog owners, not what happens inside the home.
Since it's really difficult (and, in some cases, perhaps even unconstitutional) to legislate the actions inside the home, you will eventually reach a plateau where the only way left to improve the bite ratio is through education.
The number of bites is probably as low as it's going to get because there will always be be people out there who ignore common sense and screw up what they have out of laziness, ignorance, or malice. This doesn't just apply to dogs, but dogs are one of those possessions, just like children, that some people shouldn't have, but are allowed to so that the rest of us can.
If someone is determined to be an idiot, you generally can't prevent it through legislation. All you can do is let people know the right way to act, let them know the consequences of those actions, and then bring down that hammer when they ignore you and something bad happens.
Finally Ontario's Attorney General is forced to come clean
Ontario's Attorney General, Michael Bryant, finally revealed the costs to taxpayers of fighting parents of autistic children for the past seven years, but only after an Ontario Superior Court decision forced him to open the books.
Read the full CBC story
The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario has requested a similar accounting of the legal costs associated with Ontario's ill-advised and ultimately doomed dog legislation.
The Attorney General has refused. Click here to read the response to the PC Party from Michael Bryant's henchman, Stephen Patterson.
This same ministry, headed by the Honourable Michael Bryant, was recently awarded the Code of Silence Award by the Canadian Association of Journalists in recognition of "the most secretive government body in Canada".
Read more about that award here
Michael, please, it's time to own up to your responsibilities as a public servant, step out from your hiding place behind "lawyer-client privilege", and let the taxpayers of Ontario know just how much money has been wasted on creating, enforcing, and defending Bill 132, a law that every expert denounced before its inception, a law that you MUST have been aware was unconstitutional long before you pushed blindly ahead with kangaroo committee hearings and a whipped vote in the Ontario Legislature.
Please, Michael, let us know the costs to each and every Ontario taxpayer for the following things:
1. Press releases and conferences announcing the intent to ban 'pit bulls' in Ontario
2. Expenses and honoraria for affidavits and other information solicited from extramural experts in 2004/2005 such as Alan Beck, any private law firms and others in Canada and the US whom the government may have consulted prior to holding Committee Hearings in winter 2005.
3. Public hearings conducted by the Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly on January 24, January 27, February 2, February 3, 2005 including:
a) Research costs
b) Supplies including photocopying, paper, postage
c) Travel Expenses for Committee members
d) Any payments made to witnesses at the hearings
d) Venues, audiovisual, computer and other equipment costs
e) All other costs associated with the hearings.
4. Costs associated with preparation of the Report by Committee.
5. Training costs for Animal Control officers in Ontario.
6. Dissemination of notices and other information to the public, educating them about the provisions in the law.
7. Legal Fees:
a) Expert testimony including travel expenses and honoraria for Alan Beck, Tom Skeldon, and any other witness expenses associated with pre-trial examinations
b) Legal fees associated with preparation of the defence, including hourly rate, number of hours spent
c) Research costs relative to the defence including time and materials
d) Legal fees for barristers to present arguments in Ontario Superior Court on May 15, 16 and 18, 2006 and to argue three motions
e) Costs specifically associated with the motion filed in summer 2006 and argued in Superior Court on December 21, 2006 including costs for reports, witness testimony, travel expenses, research costs, lawyer fees (internal and external), courts costs, material costs and any other pertinent expenditures.
f) Any other expenses related to defending the constitutional challenge to the amended Dog Owners' Liability Act, 2005
g) Fees paid to the Court
8. Any other costs not listed above relative to the matter described.
July 16, 2007
Ontario "slush fund" report due soon
Ontarians could finally learn the truth about the so-called Liberal "slush fund" controversy when Auditor General Jim McCarter releases his probe as early as today.
Read the entire Toronto Star article.
Is Dalton doing a good job? Have your say.
Angus Reid is conducting an online poll regarding the effectiveness of Dalton McGuinty as current (and soon to be ex) premier of Ontario.
Vote here:
IS DALTON McGUINTY DOING A GOOD JOB AS PREMIER OF ONTARIO?
http://rm.angusreidforum.com/?cid=1869&rs=POEnGGt
At the time I'm writing this note, 62% had voted No.
I'm really not sure in which province the 38% who voted Yes are living, but I'm stunned that anyone with the capacity for reason and logic could possibly vote anything other than No.
Gotta use that word "pit bull"
Came across this story while reading KC Dog Blog's weekly roundup. It's a perfect example of the media's desperate need to somehow, somewhere, include the word "pit bull" in any story about dog bites.
Two separate incidents in Lubbock TX. Both appear to have involved German Shepherds, including one that caused serious injury to the face of a mail carrier.
In this story about two separate German Shepherd attacks, the newspaper reporter (Eric Finley), for some unknown reason, felt the need to single one incident out of the 19 previous incidents in the city. Which one? The one, and only one, of 21 dangerous dog complaints that involved a "pit bull".
This had nothing to do with the current story, unless the reporter was willing to take all 19 prior incidents and discuss them all, equally.
In fact, since this report is about a type of dog that typically does not fall under the "pit bull" moniker, and since there is no valid reason to mention the prior story, it appears that this reporter may have an agenda to keep the supposed dangerousness of "pit bulls" in the readers' minds.
You will notice that there is no further mention of the German Shepherds in this story after the reporter brings up the prior "pit bull" incident.
The last thing the readers are left with, the lingering memory in their minds, is "that pit bull that attacked those two children in Lubbock", not "that German Shephered that attacked the mail carrier and that other German Shepherd that attacked its neighbour" nor the other 18 incidents that had nothing to do with "pit bulls" and probably nothing to do with German Shepherds.
And for those who may wish to quibble with me about breeds, no, I don't believe that German Shepherds are more dangerous or should be singled out. Breed is the least important factor in a list of reasons why dogs bite.
I'm just making a point.
Titillation vs. evidence
On July 9, a story broke throughout various news organizations about a two year old boy being sexually assaulted by the family "pit bull" in Lockport NY, near Niagara Falls. I didn't discuss it here because, frankly, I had serious issues with the story and I wanted to find out more.
My first thought was, "is this even possible?". Then, even if possible, how can this happen with parents in the house? No screaming from the boy?
Thanks to KC Dog Blog for pointing me to Stinky Journalism, who did their own investigation, talked to their own sources, and debunked a number of the claims made by the mainstream media who, apparently, severely misquoted some sources.
This site, at first glance, seems to be doing a wonderful job of pointing out various media outlets' misrepresentations, errors, omissions, and outright lies.
Another example is the reporting of the rape and murder of a five year old girl, with at least one media outlet going so far as to insinuate that the family was involved. The final determination was that the girl had accidentally strangled herself on a jump rope in her closet and that there was no rape, at all, whatsoever. Read Stinky Journalism's own investigation of this story.
Read these two Stinky Journalism articles and you will be amazed at the audacity, desperation, and downright dishonesty of some of the media organizations.
Moral of the story? Don't believe everything (or even most) of what you read in the newspaper or see on TV. It is getting to the point where even the simplest stories are not even remotely related to the reality of what happened.
July 13, 2007
Ssshhh, careful what you say
Couldn't resist reprinting this report from CityNews Toronto.
Apparently, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority has issued a "clarification" to airport screening officers because they were taking their job way too seriously and, it appears, arresting passengers who were simply being a little mouthy.
The CATSA has now provided two sample lists of potential statements by passengers to security personnel. The first is a list of those statements that are considered "illegal" and for which you may be arrested, charged, and face jail time. The second is a newer list of statements for which you will be given only a warning.
Some of them are interesting.
Illegal comments:The person over there is carrying a bomb.
I have a bomb in my bag.
There's a bomb in the washroom.
The bag I checked in upstairs contains an IED (improvised explosive device).
I am going to set fire to this airplane with this blowtorch.
I've got plastic explosives that can blow up this airport.
I'm going to blow up this airplane over the Atlantic.
You better look through my suitcase carefully, because there's a bomb in there.
Screener: What's in that bottle? Passenger: Liquid explosives.
The man in seat 32F has a machine gun.
Comments prompting warnings only:Do you think I have a bomb in my suitcase?
There's no bomb in my shoe.
What do you think I look like, a terrorist?
Hi Jack!
My gun misfired when I was hunting this weekend.
This security does nothing to stop hijacking.
Your hockey team is going to get bombed tonight!
You don't need to frisk me, I'm not carrying a weapon.
I wonder into which category I would fall if I yelled, "Stand back! I have a pit bull!"
Screener: "Sir, is that a pit bull in your carry-on? Could you step over here please? SIR, PLEASE STEP AWAY FROM THE PIT BULL, NOW!"
Subscribing to chicobandido
To subscribe to the chicobandido blog, copy/paste one of the following addresses into your news reader:
Atom: http://chicobandido.blogspot.com/atom.xml
RSS: http://chicobandido.blogspot.com/atom.xml?alt=rss
Subscribing is a term for using a news reader (also called an RSS/Atom reader or a feed reader) that will regularly and frequently check blogs, news websites, etc, and show you their most recent articles, all in one place, so you don't have to go to each site individually, every day.
Internet Explorer 7 (Windows XP/Vista only) already has a feedreader built into it. A number of online websites such as Google and Yahoo will give you a "home page" on which you can put your most important feeds.
If you want to have a program installed on your computer that collects feeds from all over the Internet and puts them in one spot, one example is FeedReader from www.feedreader.com. I like it and used it a lot in the past, but now I'm using a Google home page with a number of blog and news sites feeding into it.
Once you have determined (and perhaps installed) your preferred news reader, you must set up the various feeds that you want to read.
Each blog or news site in which you're interested should have an Atom or RSS address (URL) that you simply copy/paste into your news reader setup.
So, on each blog or news site, look for any of the following terminologies:
Atom Feed
News Feed
RDF Feed
RSS Feed
Subscribe
XML Feed
Whatever the address/shortcut/URL is for that phrase, that's what you're going to copy/paste into your news reader.
The address will usually end in the letters "xml", but not always. Better to depend on the terminology used to describe it, such as RSS.
For example, as mentioned at the beginning of this page, to subscribe to the chicobandido blog, copy/paste one of the following addresses into your news reader:
Atom: http://chicobandido.blogspot.com/atom.xml
RSS: http://chicobandido.blogspot.com/atom.xml?alt=rss
Note that, if you simply click on the link, without right-clicking and copying the shortcut or without copy/pasting the shortcut, you may end up with what looks like a lot of garbage. These pages are not designed to be readable in your average web browser and, even if you can read them (as in Windows XP), they won't send you new information each and every day unless you actually set them up in your news reader.
July 11, 2007
Letter to all Ontario voters
The following is a message written by Jamie MacDonald on Facebook's "Help Elect Chris Savard" Discussion Board.
Chris Savard is the Progressive Conservative candidate for Stormont, Dundas & South Glengarry in the 2007 Ontario election.
For more interesting and insightful comments by Jamie, please visit Mac's website at http://jmacd.bravehost.com/
Here's Jamie's message, reprinted with permission from the author.I would be interested in knowing if there are people in the riding that have been impacted by the implementation of Bill 132 (DOLA) or as it's known by the public at large (the "pit bull" ban).
This Bill deprived a select group of Ontario citizens of their Charter Rights.
We were subject to jail time, fines, unwarranted search and seizure and all of this without due process of law which is accorded to every other Canadian citizen.
A recent Superior Court Decision - "Cochrane v. Ontario" (You can google this if you're interested) has given us back most of our rights.
The Judge ruled that the Ontario Liberals violated Section 7 and 11d of the Charter, she struck down "reverse onus" and declared "Pitbull includes" and the term "Pitbull" terrier as vague and Unconsitutional, as there is no such breed of dog as a "Pitbull".
She did uphold the constitutionality of the language of naming a purebred dog (or a dog that is substantially similar - Crown must prove this) as it can readily be identified.
So watch out Chow, Doberman, Akita, German Shepherd, Rottweiler, etc owners. (And the list could get longer.)
A remedy hearing was held on June 28 in the Superior Court of Ontario for the judge to decide the remedy. (What do we do, now that the Bill is in shambles and they've wasted all this money)
You can read the summary of the hearing here (This is a summary by a very involved party who was present). We are hoping to have a ruling prior to the election.
If you're a farmer or a Senior or someone else in the riding, you may be reading this post and saying to yourselves - Who cares? Nothing to do with me, I hate this imaginary "breed", good riddance!
Well here's just a couple of reasons why you should care.
First of all there is the cost to taxpayers of all the time spent in the legislature debating this Bill and talking about a non-existent breed of dog, then there was the cost to taxpayers of the committee hearings. I believe it was 4 days!
Experts testified for the dogs, told the Liberals don't do it. Here is how you deal with dangerous dogs of any and all breeds and imaginary breeds. Liberals wouldn't listen (surprise, surprise) and proceeded with their agenda (some of us would call it a smokescreen to divert your attention away from some of their other little messes.)
So it was implemented.
We (Bannedaid) and supporters took them to court and won the majority of the case.
Now here is the interesting part for all taxpayers in Ontario!
Our legal fees have topped 1/2 million.
So we (Bannedaid) and supporters thought the public (You) might like to know how much you donated?? to this case and the defense of Bill 132 in court.
So the PC caucus filed a request for costs under the freedom of Information Act.
Well guess what?
Dalton McGuinty doesn't wish to tell you how much you donated?? and he doesn't think you have a right to know.
You can read the refusal letter here.
So to all farmers, to all Seniors, to all those who have loved ones in Nursing homes in the riding (who are probably getting 1 bath/week), if you want to know why Mr McGuinty has no money to help you,look no further than here
He and Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant have just spent millions???? (Who knows?) protecting you from this dog and others just like him.
And by the way, if you see me walking him, honk to show your support or stop and say hi, he hasn't eaten anyone lately, loves everyone, Liberals (not so sure anymore).
I don't know about you, but I'm ticked off!
I want to know how much they spent and I want them to spend my money on Dog education programs in schools, Dog Education ads on TV and implement other ideas that were given to them at the hearings by the real experts on dogs. Michael Bryant couldn't even pick out a purebred American Pit Bull Terrier from a gallery of 24 other purebred dogs. One of the dogs was a Jack Russell Terrier!
Do you want this guy dealing with gun toting felons, pedophiles, street racers etc in this province?
Forget about the FLICKING TV Ads Mr McGuinty.
I know how to shut my damn lights off!!
My dog and I will be telling you to FLICK OFF on October 10. I hope other dog owners will join me! Our dogs vote!!!! Remember that Dalton! (If you're reading this and I'm sure you are)
Mr Tory, if you're reading this, you have to make this an issue, tell the public about the refusal and tell dog owners in this province that you oppose Bill 132, you oppose Breed Specific Legislation and you will get rid of it when elected.
Please tell taxpayers that you will bring in GENERIC WELL WRITTEN DANGEROUS DOG LEGISLATION THAT HAS NO REFERENCE TO BREED AND PUTS THE ONUS ON THE OWNER!
Mr Tory, I'm waiting.
I support Chris Savard.
Can I support you and this party?
I promise my next post will be a lot shorter.
Please visit Mac and show your support for all Ontario citizens (even the owners of "Pit bulls").
Vote for Jasmine and show support for Ontario's banned dogs
Jasmine is a Staffordshire Bull Terrier owned by a member of the Dog Legislation Council of Canada. Her breed is banned in Ontario. Her owner has entered her in the Canadian "Pet Idol" contest and she has consistently been in the lead since the beginning!
If Jasmine wins this contest, not only will this be good PR for dogs unfairly targeted by discriminatory legislation, but her owner will donate half the money prize to Bullies in Need Rescue and the other half to Banned Aid to help with the Ontario legal challenge.
Please show your support for Jasmine by voting at http://www.petidol.ca/vote_756.pet
Each unique e-mail address can vote once in a 24-hour period. As soon as you have voted with an e-mail address, you will receive a message in your Inbox. You must click on the link in that message to confirm your vote, otherwise it will not be counted.
The rules specifically state that you can use more than one e-mail address, so if you have work, personal, Hotmail, Yahoo, Gmail, and other addresses, feel free to use them all to boost the voting.
Voting ends on July 19 at 11:59:59 PM.
Please vote every 24 hours to keep Jasmine in the lead. Some of the other dogs are catching up to her, so every vote counts!
Eulogy on the dog
One of the best quotations I've ever read regarding dog's devotion to its owner.
Courtesy of bartleby.com
QUOTATION:
Gentlemen of the jury, the best friend a man has in this world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son or daughter whom he has reared with loving care may prove ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us — those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name — may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has he may lose. It flies away from him, perhaps when he needs it most. A man’s reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill-considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees to do us honor when success is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its cloud upon our heads. The one absolute, unselfish friend that man can have in this selfish world — the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous — is his dog.
Gentlemen of the jury, a man’s dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he can be near his master’s side. He will kiss the hand that had no food to offer, he will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounter with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings and reputation falls to pieces he is as constant in his love as the sun in its journey through the heavens. If fortune drives the master forth an outcast in the world, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him to guard against danger, to fight against his enemies. And when the last scene of all comes, and death takes the master in its embrace, and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws, his eyes sad but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even to death.
ATTRIBUTION:
GEORGE GRAHAM VEST, “Eulogy on the Dog,” speech during lawsuit, 1870. — Congressional Record, October 16, 1914, vol. 51, Appendix, pp. 1235–36.
A foxhound named Drum “was known far and near as one of the fastest and least uncertain of hunting dogs.” He was shot and his owner sued for damages, $150 being the maximum allowed. The case started before a Justice of the Peace, was appealed to another court and transferred to another. It was in the final trial, in the State Circuit Court at Warrensburg, Missouri, that Vest made his speech, the peroration of which is above.
According to the recollection of Thomas T. Crittenden, counsel for the defendant and later governor of Missouri, Vest made no reference to the evidence but confined himself to a tribute to canine affection and fidelity. “He seemed to recall from history all the instances where dogs had displayed intelligence and fidelity to man. He quoted more lines of history and poetry about them than I had supposed had been written … It was as perfect a piece of oratory as ever was heard from pulpit or bar. Court, jury, lawyers, and audience were entranced. I looked at the jury and saw all were in tears.” — Gustav Kobbe, A Tribute to the Dog, pp. 9–18 (1911).
According to John F. Phillips, former law partner of Vest and a member of the House of Representatives, whose comments appear in the Congressional Record with the eulogy on the dog, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $500, far more than the sum sued for. The excess was remitted. Vest was elected to the Senate eight years later and served 1879–1904.
July 10, 2007
Welsh Corgi mix identified as "pit bull" and destroyed
My apologies in advance to the Peterborough Examiner. I'm copying the full text of this article from their online newspaper. Unfortunately, these stories have a habit of disappearing into the "archives" and this is one I don't want us to forget.
The original story can be found here, at least for as long as they keep it on their website.
This article was written by Lynn Reynolds, a dog breeder and trainer who has been directly involved with the case.Printed from www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com web site Tuesday, July 10, 2007 - © 2007 Peterborough Examiner
Great dog, ugly label
LYNN REYNOLDS
Monday, July 09, 2007 - 00:00
Editorial - Re "First pit bull euthanized under new provincial law" (June 29) -
Ziggy was a friendly, happy, tail-wagging, glad-to-be-hugged little dog with a very ugly label attached to her - "pit-bull cross." This label was given to her by a system which cannot prove that that is what she was. It took only one or two individuals to attach that label to her. She could, however, be proven to be a Welsh corgi cross. DNA testing could have eliminated the doubt about her lineage, but that was not allowed to be done.
This little dog had harmed no one. Her only offense: she accidentally got out of the home where she was loved and cherished, and she supposedly "looked like a pit-bull" (which according to a ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal, is "unconstitutionally vague as there is no such breed").
The "breed specific legislation" was rushed into being with little thought to its consequences, and with a great deal of protest from the dog-related community and concerned individuals, which is ongoing as I write this. Where are the people who enacted this law? They certainly weren't there to witness the killing of this innocent creature and the agony of those who had to do it. Nor were they here to witness the tears of the many people who have been involved with this dear dog over the many months of her incarceration.
Where are these lawmakers as the young women who owned the dog faces huge costs incurred for the incarceration and court proceedings? If this dog had been correctly labeled the "corgi-cross" that she definitely was, her owner would have faced a fine and the dog would have gone home, probably the same day she was picked up. As it is, her body lies waiting to be buried, not even able to be claimed until all costs are paid.
This young women, and her dog, and those forced into upholding this law are all victims: victims of a system which refuses to listen to the many protests against this unfair and uncompromising law. How many other dogs have already been unjustly sentenced to death and killed under this law? Many are sitting on "death row" right now! How many more people are going to be devastated emotionally and financially by this ill-designed law?
This is not a protest about "biters" and aggressive dogs being destroyed. It's for the dogs who are being mislabeled and destroyed for no valid reason. Why are these unfortunate dogs not even allowed to be assessed and temperament-tested by a panel of knowledgeable professional trainers?
Which breed of dog will be harassed and/or banned next? Could it be mine?
To label an entire breed as dangerous because a few poorly-bred, untrained, improperly socialized dogs cause problems is like labeling all human individuals within a specific ethnic group as lazy or violent.
Caring, responsible dog owners must continue to speak out against this unjust "breed specific legislation" to the members of our provincial government. Justice was certainly not done for those involved in this travesty. We couldn't save Ziggy. Let's pray we might be able to help the next ones in line awaiting the same fate.
Lynn Reynolds has been showing, breeding and training dogs since 1979. She became involved in Ziggy's case when she was asked to pray for those devastated by the event.
ID-603838
June 29, 2007
Judge does not rule on the remedy for Ontario's Dog Owners' Liability Act
On June 28, 2007, Justice Herman listened to arguments regarding the remedy for the Dog Owners' Liability Act. The purpose of the remedy is to determine what to do with the law, now that three portions of it were found to be unconstitutional.
This is my interpretation of what occurred in the courtroom.
I apologize for the late report. This is the first chance I've had to get to a computer.
There were approximately 50 people in a courtroom designed to hold perhaps 20, so a lot of chairs had to be grabbed from offices and other courtrooms.
Present for the Applicant's side (us) were Clayton Ruby and Carolyn Wawzonek. Clayton Ruby did all the talking for us.
Present for the Respondent's side (them) were Robert Charney, Michael Doi, and Zachary Green (the usual three), along with another gentleman who I did not recognize. Robert Charney did all the talking for them.
Mr. Ruby went first at about 10:20 and talked for about an hour and fifteen minutes. We took a break, then Mr. Charney talked for just over an hour. Then Mr. Ruby responded, they had some further discussions about costs, and we were done around 1:30.
To get the bad news out of the way first, the judge did NOT make any decision today. There were a number of written submissions, as well as the verbal arguments presented today, and based on the amount of notes and highlighting she was doing, she's got some reading to do before she can make a judgment.
So for now, the law stands as is. It is important to note that, even though she has found parts of the law unconstitutional, until she rules on the remedy (which I'll explain in a minute), the law has not changed from its original form.
I personally am choosing to continue to act now in the same way that I have done since the law was enacted, until I know for sure what is going to be taken out and what is going to be left in.
Both sides presented their submissions regarding costs (i.e., who pays for the lawyers and court costs and how much of the costs is each party responsible for). This was done in writing and the judge will consider these while she is making her decision about the whole thing.
This remedy, as it's called, is necessary because of section 52 of the Constitution Act of Canada, 1982. Section 52 states:
"The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect."
Therefore, it is clear that the following three sections of the Dog Owners' Liability Act are of no force or effect, since the judge found them unconstitutional:
a) Section 1(1) - The phrase "pit bull includes:";
b) Section 1(1) - The phrase "pit bull terrier";
c) Section 19(1) - The requirement that the court accept that a dog is a "pit bull" based on a document from a veterinarian.
The first two were found unconstitutional because the judge felt they were vague. The last was found unconstitutional because it placed a significant evidentiary burden on the defence for the sole purpose of being convenient for the prosecution. This, if I understand it, was a violation of the principles of fundamental justice.
This is all just preamble from me to explain some of Mr. Ruby's arguments.
CLAYTON RUBY
Mr. Ruby proceeded to list the three questions that the judge has to answer regarding this now partially constitutional law:
1. Is the law, with the unconstitutional parts removed, consistent with the original objective of the legislature?
2. Can the law stand alone with the unconstitutional parts removed (i.e., is it still understandable and enforceable)?
3. Should it be suspended while the remedy is being determined?
It seemed that both sides agreed on question 3, presumably that it did not need to be suspended.
Mr. Ruby's primary argument, and the area where he spent the most time, was the removal of the phrase "pit bull terrier". His argument is that "pit bull terrier" was one of five clauses designed by the legislature, confirmed by the committee, and accepted by the legislature and that it was an essential element of the law. Now that it is no longer there, the very substance, the core, of the legislation has changed dramatically. This entire legislation, at least the breed-specific portion, depends on the definition of "pit bull" and, if the judge is choosing to throw out a piece of that definition, then she cannot just take the rest and say, "well, the legislature would have been okay with this new definition". It is not her job to read the legislature's mind.
Also, Mr. Ruby argued that, because the initial intent of the legislature was to go after all "pit bulls" (as Peter Kormos put it during the committee hearings, the "small p" pit bulls, the mixed breed, backyard bred mutts), the legislature never intended to go after ONLY the purebreds.
The legislature had determined that there was a reasoned apprehension of harm from "pit bulls", yet they did not specify percentages or proportions regarding how many attacks could be attributed to dogs within each of the five clauses individually. So they didn't say how many American Staffordshire Terriers had been responsible for attacks vs. how many "pit bull terriers" had been responsible.
Because they didn't do this (and they couldn't), it is entirely conceivable that the vast majority of those attacks (as perceived by the legislature) could have been from the dogs in the group "pit bull terrier". So, by removing that phrase, the judge could possibly be removing from the law most of the dogs that were the problem, leaving only the purebreds who, by all accounts, could only have been responsible for a "vanishingly small" number of incidents, if any.
Mr. Ruby argued that it is not the judge's place to so drastically change the scope of the law's targets. It is the legislature's responsibility and, as such, the law should be handed back to the legislature to redefine their targets. In other words, the whole law should be thrown out.
In addition, when given the opportunity, the legislature chose not to remove the phrase "pit bull terrier" from the definition. So, if the judge is now removing that phrase, how can she know what the legislature's preference would have been if they had known ahead of time that "pit bull terrier" couldn't be used? Again, neither she nor the government lawyers can pretend to represent the will of the legislature.
Mr. Ruby's main argument is that the Dog Owners' Liability Act is a single comprehensive scheme with a shared definition (i.e., a definition with multiple components that is needed throughout the rest of the law) and shared goals. You cannot simply change the definition with affecting the rest of the law. There is no evidence as to what the legislature would have written into the law had it been forced to not use (or forced to redefine) "pit bull terrier".
Regarding section 19, which is now invalid, this means that, in order to prove their case that a dog is a "pit bull", the government must now bring in an expert witness (likely, but not absolutely, a veterinarian). Due to the expert witness fees charged, this will substantially increase the cost of each and every prosecution, of which there may be thousands. This violates another principle stated by the court in one of the precedent cases, that the changes made by the judge in order to keep a law constitutional must not have a significant budgetary impact on the government.
A good quote from Clayton Ruby: "It is not for this court to pick apart this scheme and put it back together".
There was a lot of talk about "reading in", "striking out", and "reading down", so I think I'll quickly explain these:
"Reading in" is the practice whereby a constitutional judge will add words to the law to make it constitutional. The net effect of these new words may be to include something that was not included before or to exclude something that was included before.
"Striking out" or "striking down" is the practice of removing the unconstitutional words from the law. Again, the net effect could be to include something that was not previously covered by the law or to exclude something that was previously covered by the law.
"Reading down" is to change the wording or to more narrowly interpret the existing wording in order to make the law less broad (i.e., make it constitutional).
Based on prior comments from other Superior and Supreme Court decisions, Mr. Ruby argued that you should only "read in" in areas where the law is SUBSTANTIALLY constitutional and PERIPHERALLY problematic. In other words, if the law is basically sound, but has a few minor technical problems that don't fit with the constitution, you may be able to "read in" additional words to better define those minor areas without substantially changing the effect or purpose of the law.
Mr. Ruby argued that, because the law depends so heavily on the definition of "pit bull", including "pit bull terrier", that it is not substantially constitutional, but on the contrary, because it is a single scheme with a shared definition, any problem with the definition creates a problem throughout the rest of the law.
The other major issue was the phrase "pit bull includes:". Note that the judge did not find the word "includes" vague in and of itself, but rather the entire phrase "pit bull includes:", because, she said, there is no generally accepted definition of "pit bull", so the word "includes" becomes very important.
The government says that the word "includes" is exhaustive (i.e., the list of things that follow are the ONLY things that can be pit bulls). Mr. Ruby says that it is inclusive (i.e., yes, the things listed are pit bulls, but maybe other things could be too, and nobody knows for sure). This may seem like semantics, but it is very important because, if the interpretation is that the list is "closed" (can't possibly include anything else), then the phrase "pit bull includes" could remain constitutional, but if the interpretation is that the list is "open ended" (may possible include something else), then the phrase "pit bull includes" could be unconstitutional and, therefore, would have a huge impact on the rest of the law.
There have been extremely few cases that allowed the word "includes" to refer to a closed (exhaustive) list, so history tends to be on our side in this.
The question of whether or not the list is "closed" is a case of "reading down". Within two possible interpretations, the judge is more narrowly interpreting the phrase in order to keep it constitutional.
Previous courts have held that, in the cases where Parliament (in this case the Ontario legislature) chose "unequivocal means" of accomplishing their objective, "reading in" or "reading down" in those cases would be a judicial rewriting of the law, which is not allowed. When the choice of means (i.e., how did the legislature choose to go about reducing dangerous dog bites) is unequivocal, then changing the law to use a different means is effectively frustrating the original intent of the legislation.
Since documents such as those from the Canadian Hospital Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (CHIRPP) do not include any of the three purebred breeds AT ALL in any of the bite incident reports, then it is inconceivable that the legislature intended to go after only the three purebred breeds. Rather, it intended to go after "pit bull terriers", which the court has already found don't exist (i.e., are unconstitutionally vague).
The definition of "pit bull" is the CORE of this legislation and it cannot be changed by the judge. It must be thrown out.
ROBERT CHARNEY
Mr. Charney, on behalf of the government, requested that clause 1(1)(a) and the entire section 19 be "severed" (removed) from the legislation. His argument is that the law will operate just fine without these.
Severance is an example of "reading down" (removal of parts by the judge to make the law constitutional).
According to prior courts' rulings, the court should interfere with the original legislation as little as possible. Severance (the removal of offending parts) is an ordinary part of constitutional adjudication and should be considered as interfering less that throwing out the whole law.
The court should not invalidate portions of the law that it has already found to be valid, i.e., clauses (b) through (e).
The purpose of the court is to keep as much of the law as possible in order to maintain the objective of the legislature that created the law.
The judge has already found that there was a reasoned apprehension of harm from the dogs in clauses (b) through (e), because the judge found that those clauses were constitutional. Therefore, Mr. Ruby can't come back now and argue that these clauses refer to a miniscule number of dogs and should not be kept. That was argued during the main case, the judge made a decision on that already (deciding to keep four of the five clauses), and that overbreadth argument should not be re-argued now, during the remedy phase.
When the committee voted to keep clause (a), even though it had been pointed out to them very clearly that there was no such thing as a "pit bull terrier", that there was no breed standard, and that nobody knew what it was, Mr. Ruby argued that they must have felt that "pit bull terrier" was an essential element of the definition. Mr. Charney states that the committee never voted to keep clause (a) specifically. They did, however, vote specifically to keep clauses (b), (c), and (d). The vote that included (a) was actually a vote on the entire definition of "pit bull", not just clause (a). Therefore, Mr. Ruby's argument that removing clause (a) was frustrating the intent of the legislature is not valid.
A somewhat humourous moment occurred when Mr. Ruby had used statements during the committee by a Mr. Lewis, a lawyer from the government's policy division. Mr. Charney argued that Mr. Lewis' comments could not be considered because he did not represent the government (such as a minister would), but was rather simply a civil servant in the employ of the government. Not much later, Mr. Charney claimed to be representing the government's point of view and the judge responded by suggesting that he too did not represent the government, but was rather only a civil servant in the employ of the government. So that part of Mr. Charney's argument kind of went out the window there.
Mr. Charney stated that the court has to consider two major questions:
1. Is the part that remains so inextricably bound up with the part that was removed that the remaining portion cannot stand on its own?
2. Would the legislature have passed the constitutional portion alone without the unconstitutional part?
He stated that the judge had already determined in her section 1 analysis that the law could achieve the objective of the legislature using only clauses (b) through (e). Section 1 of the Charter deals with the principles of fundamental justice, part of which considers whether or not a law is overkill considering the harmfulness (or lack thereof) of its targets. The judge had already found that, after removing "pit bull terrier" and leaving only the purebreds and "any dog that is substantially similar", the law was still reasonable (and therefore constitutional).
A fair bit of discussion now started regarding the phrase "pit bull includes:".
Mr. Charney stated that the judge has three options regarding this phrase:
1. Leave the phrase as is and interpret the word "includes" narrowly (i.e., that the list following it is exhaustive, complete, and closed). This was Mr. Charney's preference.
2. Change the word "includes" to the word "means". This would require "striking out" the word "include" and "reading in" the word "means", to produce an effect of "reading down" the law by making it less broad.
3. Add the word "only" after the word "includes" so that the phrase would read "pit bull includes only:". This is also "reading down" by "reading in" an additional word, in order to make the law less broad.
Mr. Charney argued that this is all simply a matter of style and that the most important thing to consider is the effect of the change. Look at the original intent of the law and then whatever choice the judge makes in order to make it constitutional would be perfectly acceptable to maintain the original objective of the law.
"Reading in" or "severance" are important tools to avoid intruding on the legislature. Avoiding interfering with the original legislative objective must be the prime consideration of the court. Courts have held that the techniques of "striking down" and "reading in" do not unduly intrude on the legislature. Mr. Charney argued that the law, as it stands after removal of the unconstitutional parts, is substantially constitutional and only peripherally problematic (the opposite of what Mr. Ruby said it is).
"Reading in" (e.g., adding the word "only") is only appropriate when the objective of the legislature is obvious and where it would further the objective of the legislation or minimally intrude of the legislative objective.
Striking down the entire legislation would interfere with the legislative objective and would cause the intended targets to be left untargeted until such time as new legislation could be drafted. This is more intrusive than simply adding or changing a single word in order to accomplish the original objective.
The judge really pushed Mr. Charney with Mr. Ruby's argument that the court cannot know if the legislature would have targeted only the three purebreds and similar dogs, if it had known that it would not have been able to use the phrase "pit bull terrier".
Mr. Ruby stood back up, responded to a couple of arguments by Mr. Charney, and then reiterated his request for the entire legislation to be struck down because the removal of the unconstitutional parts has dramatically changed the scope and impact of the legislation and has increased the cost of enforcing and prosecuting it.
The judge thanked everyone and left.
MY COMMENTS
Nobody seems to be too worried about section 19 (the veterinary document). The government is quite happy for it to be severed. We probably are too, but we did argue that section 19 was inextricably linked to the definition of pit bull and therefore couldn't just be struck down on its own.
The key seems to be the other two vagueness issues.
The judge is going to have to decide two things here:
1. Does the removal of the phrase "pit bull terrier" so substantially change the definition that the legislature needs to go back to the drawing board and figure it out again, rather than simply having the judge remove an offending phrase?
2. Can the judge reword the phrase "includes" to "means" or "includes only" without substantially altering the legislature's original objective?
Both sides did well. I really liked some of Clayton Ruby's arguments that I had not thought of before, particularly the idea that throwing out "pit bull terrier" might be throwing out 99% of the dogs responsible for bites.
I recognize, as does he, that pit bull bites are not significant in this province when placed in context with other breeds or types of dogs, but that was not what was at issue here today. Mr. Ruby had to act within the findings of the judge in her original decision. So, even though he may not personally believe that all generic "pit bulls" are dangerous, he had to work within the judge's findings that pit bull bites were significant enough that the government appeared to have reason to target them. So rather than repeating his original argument from the main case that generic "pit bulls" weren't dangerous, he argued instead that removing "pit bull terrier" from the list may indeed be removing a substantial number of dogs that may have originally the main objective of the legislation.
Basically, he said, you can't tell exactly what dogs the legislature was talking about when they talked about "pit bulls", so you can't just remove one piece and say, "well, they weren't really talking about that clause, only the other four". You have to go back to the legislature and get them to rewrite it if you really want to know what they intended.
So, that's about it.
If the law gets sent back to the legislature, we have won, pending an appeal by the government.
If the law gets changed to "pit bull means" or "pit bull includes only", or if the judge narrowly interprets the word "includes" to be exhaustive, then the law will still target the three purebred breeds and dogs that are substantially similar, so we will appeal.
In the middle of all of this comes the election. We may have a decision before then (I would certainly hope), but it will be just before the election and I don't think the legislature will be doing any more work before the campaigning starts.
So, if we win, it is likely that any action by the government would be postponed until after the election. Then the government, assuming that it's still the Liberals in power, can decide whether they want to appeal, rewrite the law to target pit bulls again, rewrite the law to target truly dangerous dogs, or shrug their shoulders and let the law die a natural death, leaving in place the original Dog Owners' Liability Act.
Hope this helps.
Steve Barker
June 27, 2007
Ontario Ombudsman: Government “puffery” undermines public trust
A huge thank you to Ontario Ombudsman André Marin for saying publicly (and for getting the media to publish) what I and others have been trying to say for years.
This Ontario government simply does not appear to believe that it has any responsibility, whatsoever, to its taxpayers.
Marin, in his second annual report, describes the Ontario Liberal government as being rife with "puffery".
I could not have described it better.
Read the Globe and Mail story for more details or visit the Ombudsman's website to read the entire report.
I will be reviewing it and reporting back to you.
June 25, 2007
Court Protocol
Please read Caveat's post regarding court protocol, written for the original court case in May 2006, but still applicable.
Courtesy of Marsha Boulton, author of Wally's World available at Amazon Canada.
COURT INFORMATION FOR THURSDAY JUNE 28 AT 10:00 AM - PLEASE ATTEND
393 University Avenue in downtown Toronto.
Courtroom 904 - June 28 10:00 AM
Between Queen and Dundas on University Avenue.
If you're taking the TTC, it's on the University/Spadina subway line between Osgoode (Queen) and St. Patrick (Dundas) stations.
We want as many people as possible to be there, please. Get there early to ensure that you get in. I'm aiming for 8:00 AM, which may be overkill, but I'd rather be too early than too late.
As I understand it, the arguments will be about how to implement the judge's decision on the challenge of DOLA. The judge must decide the best course of action now that the law has been substantially eroded.
The decision of the judge, as far as I understand it, is that the following parts of the law are unconstitutional:
- The phrase "pit bull includes";
- The phrase "pit bull terrier" as a definition of a restricted dog;
- The use of only a document from a veterinarian as proof of breed, thus placing onto the defendant the burden of the costs of cross-examination and calling of experts to refute the document.
Here is a plain English interpretation of what could happen, courtesy of the Fundamental Freedoms Project:
The Charter is a part of Canada's Constitution, and is included in the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 gives courts the power to say that a law that violates the Charter is not valid. You can ask a court to make such a declaration. When applying section 52, a court might:Be there. Let the Ontario Liberals know that you will not accept the erosion of Canadian charter rights, the legislated second-class citizenship of law-abiding people, and the extermination of unoffending dogs.
- strike out the part of the law that violates the Charter
- interpret a law narrowly so that it fits Charter rights
- 'read in' features to the law so that it meets Charter requirements
- declare that you are not covered by the law that violates your Charter rights (a 'constitutional exemption')
Please read Caveat's post regarding court protocol, written for the original court case in May 2006, but still applicable.
Courtesy of Marsha Boulton, author of Wally's World available at Amazon Canada. Read the rest of this article
Save lives - ban murder, alcohol, cars, suicide, and tobacco!
Today, I was outside having a cigarette (nasty habit, by the way) and reading my cigarette pack.
According to the statistics on the package (from Health Canada), tobacco kills almost five times as many people each year in Canada as murders, alcohol, car accidents, and suicides combined!
Murders - 510
Alcohol - 1,900
Car accidents - 2,900
Suicides - 3,900
Tobacco - 45,000
Now, I'm a little suspicious of these numbers, particularly the alcohol and tobacco.
Murders, car accidents, and suicides are clearly specific, identifiable, and trackable incidents.
Alcohol might be, depending if they're talking about alcohol-related injuries causing death or if they're trying to lump in things like alcohol-related liver disease. I'm also not sure if both the car accidents and the alcohol-related deaths include deaths caused by drunk drivers.
Tobacco, on the other hand, may be a cause in a huge number of deaths, but it may be a little too easy to chalk up some of these deaths to the evil weed when they may have occurred anyway because of genetics or because of other aspects of a person's lifestyle.
That said, let's assume for the moment that these numbers are reasonably accurate.
Do you know how many people are killed each year in Canada by dogs?
ONE!
That's right. One person per year, sometimes a child but not always, loses their life because of a dog bite or attack.
Horrifying and traumatizing for the family of this person, no doubt. But no less so than for the families of those people shot or knifed to death, launched through a windshield, put to sleep by an overdose of pills, or killed by a drunk driver.
How many people do you think have been killed in Canada by "pit bull" type dogs? As always, I must add the corollary that we can never truly identify the type of dog beyond a basic generic appearance.
So how many?
ONE in the last TWENTY-FIVE years!
Now, I have no idea how many people all those other things have killed over the past twenty-five years, but if we assumed that the number of deaths has doubled between 1982 and now (a generous assumption), that's over a MILLION people, dead from these various causes. The reality is probably more than that.
Still, we are allowed to smoke.
Still, we are allowed to drink.
Still, we are allowed to drive.
Still, we are allowed to own things with which we could kill ourselves.
Still, we are allowed to own things with which we could kill others.
Yet, we are not allowed to own "pit bulls". The government is allowed to track me, photograph my dog, share my personal information, enter my house unannounced, confiscate my property, and publicly vilify me, making me and others like me afraid to step outside our front doors.
ONE person in TWENTY-FIVE years!
Do you really think the Ontario law was even remotely about public safety?
Or was it about looking good on TV, about getting re-elected, about personal ambition and power?
Or was it about getting around that pesky clause in the constitution prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure?
Or that other clause that keeps getting in the way, the one about being presumed innocent?
Logically, looking at all these other causes of death, any reasonable person would have to conclude that it sure as hell wasn't about protecting lives.
Not "pit bulls"? Not interested!
Since I've been involved in dog legislation issues, I have seen many newspaper articles and TV stories about "pit bulls". They range from ridiculous to horrifying and everything in between.
I have seen instances of articles being passed from newspaper to newspaper throughout the world, cases of multiple local and national newspapers and TV stations carrying stories of the most minor nature, simply because they involved the phrase "pit bull" (even if the dog's breed was not identifiable or was later identified as something else).
I still regularly meet people who refer to "those dogs who killed the lady in San Francisco" or the dogs who attacked the young girl in Vancouver as "pit bulls", thanks to news reports at the time.
Without a doubt, there have been some horrifying attacks by dogs that might be classified, somewhere, as "pit bull" type dogs (whatever that is).
Clearly, however, there have also been some reports that only existed because of the sensational nature of what the people involved believed the breed to be.
Some examples:
I'm not suggesting that any of these incidents were not serious, especially to the people victimized. Any time there is serious injury to a person or another animal, we need to find out why and take steps to prevent similar occurrences, and the owners should be held accountable.
My point is simply that each of these stories appeared in multiple newspapers and on multiple TV stations, even at the national level, because they involved the word "pit bull".
Contrast those stories with this incident that occurred in Sarnia last Thursday. The only newspaper to pick this up was the local Observer. I've included the entire story at the end of this article because I don't want to lose track of it if the Observer removes it later.
Note that, according to the article, the owners have not been charged and the dogs have not been confiscated.
Now, take this same story, with the same number of dogs, with the same end result of 12 cats dead, but instead of "hounds", put the word "pit bulls".
Can you imagine the press coverage? This would not only go nationwide. It would probably be read around the world.
If it weren't so scary, it would be almost humorous to point out that this occurred in Sarnia, the same city that designated three seven-week old mixed breed puppies as "posing a menace to the public safety of persons and domestic animals".
The comparison between those three puppies and these "hounds" (whatever they are) is laughable. The "hounds", although doing what comes naturally to a pack of dogs running loose, were ALLOWED to do this by their owners by not being properly supervised and restrained. Contrast this with the puppies, who were capable of nothing more than drinking their mother's milk.
Has common sense gone out the window regarding dogs, not only in Sarnia, but in the whole province?
Maybe Michael Bryant should follow his own lead and ban hounds as well. Wouldn't we all be safer?
Sorry, does that sound stupid, far-fetched, hysterical?
Why, because they're not "pit bulls"?
Here's the whole story from the Sarnia Observer:
From the www.theobserver.ca web site
Monday, June 25, 2007
© 2007 The Sarnia Observer
Pack of hound dogs kill 12 cats; 'They just kept attacking,' says Carol Reynolds
JACK POIRIER
Saturday, June 23, 2007 - 16:00
Local News - A local couple is reeling after a pack of hunting dogs slaughtered 12 of their cats Thursday.
Carol Reynolds said she woke to the baying of a hound dog around 5:15 a.m. outside her Waubuno Road home, about five minutes from Brigden.
By the time she peered out her window, four hounds were circling the yard and within seconds two more joined the group.
"I looked out and I saw dead cats on the lawn," she said. "I began screaming. The dogs were killing the cats."
Carol and her husband Greg provide care to stray cats and had about 32 of the animals. They lost 12 cats in the attack, including four kittens.
Carol Reynolds said she called police who advised her not to go outside. All she could do was watch in horror, she said.
"There was nothing I could do," she said. "They just kept attacking, one cat after another."
The dogs circled their prey one at a time and attacked. The cats were trampled, bitten and disemboweled.
Some other kittens managed to climb the stairs of the front porch and Carol reached out and pulled a handful to safety. Several adult cats sought shelter under a car and didn't resurface until hours later.
"I started throwing stuff at the dogs, anything I could find. I even threw some china at them but it only caused them to pause for a second, then continue," Carol Reynolds said. "It was just horrible. It was a slaughter."
Her husband arrived home from shift work about the same time as police, some 30 minutes after the attack began.
Officers located the dogs later that morning, along with their owner.
They were collared with tracking devices, Greg Reynolds said. "We want (the owner) charged."
He said the dogs were left outside by the owner to hone their hunting skills.
The owner told police he would not be contacting the Reynolds family.
"My main concern is that people should be aware that this is a practice, that dogs are being allowed to roam free in order to train," Carol Reynolds said.
"Maybe if charges are laid, people will be less likely to allow their dogs to run loose."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007 , Osprey Media. All Rights Reserved.
June 22, 2007
I knew these guys were bad, but this is ridiculous!
I became a reluctant political activist, specifically targeting the ruling Ontario Liberal party, because of their arrogance, because of their insolence, because of their false and misleading public statements, and because they showed an incredible lack of willingness to listen and learn from people who know what they're talking about.
Considering the amount of time and effort I and my colleagues have spent over the past almost three years trying to educate and eventually being forced to fight the Liberal government, you'd think I'd have better insight as to how terribly this party has governed our province, but even with my inside knowledge, I really had no idea.
That is, until Social Mange published this article, writing it all down in one, easy-to-understand document.
I am truly stunned at the audacity of these men and women who have clearly forgotten (if they ever cared) that they have been hired by us, at our expense, to do what's best for us, not what's best for themselves.
Please, please, please make sure these guys do NOT get back into power in October of this year.
I don't think my heart nor my brain could take it.
Air Canada replies but doesn't say much
Here is Air Canada's reply to my recent letter. Another example of "economics" trumping customer service. What about MY customer service?
Response (Debbie Mcammond) - 06/22/2007 01:19 PM
Dear Mr. Barker,
Thank you for your email outlining your concerns regarding our recent decision to no longer accept pets as checked baggage.
We review all our policies, procedures and services on a regular basis to ensure that our product offering responds to customer demand while keeping pace with industry standards and economic realities.
As you are aware, effective July 15, 2007, we will no longer accept pets as checked baggage. We will honour bookings which have already been made.
Our reasoning behind this decision is to effectively handle the high volume of baggage loads and meet the needs of the vast majority of our passengers. With the record load factors we have been experiencing, and with current security measures in place, we have more checked bags than ever.
Animals carried as checked baggage restrict us as to the amount of baggage we are ultimately able to carry on any given flight, thereby inconveniencing other passengers as we have to offload baggage to accommodate the oxygen circulation requirements for the pets.
While we recognize we have disappointed you, we do hope the above will allow you to better understand our decision.
Sincerely,
Customer Relations
Air Canada - fly a whole new way (petless)
Further to my previous story about Air Canada, here's my letter to them.
Interestingly, after I sent them the letter, I received an automated response stating that I should receive a detailed reply within 15 days (I think they actually said "business days").
Now that's customer service!
Anyway, here's the letter.
Dear Sir/Madam:
Please be advised that, as a long time customer of Air Canada (approximately 25 years) and one who has consistently chosen Air Canada over its competitors, I will no longer fly Air Canada for any trip, anywhere. In fact, I will now be willing to pay for a more expensive flight on another airline in order to make sure I don't fly Air Canada.
As a pet owner, for me this is simply a matter of principle, regardless of whether my pet is coming with me on a particular trip.
I refuse to support any organization that treats pet owners as second class citizens and that is exactly what you have done with this decision.
Apparently, if I am to believe your advertisements, I can fly a whole new way on Air Canada - my way. Unless, of course, I own a pet.
Sincerely,
Steve Barker
(address)
(phone)
(e-mail)
Guess who I'm not flying with any more?
Air Canada will no longer carry pets on passenger flights as of July 15, 2007.
According to their spokesperson, it's about "customer service" - giving non-pet-owning passengers more room for personal baggage.
What Air Canada fails to realize is that pet-owning passengers will choose not to fly their airline, whether or not their pet is flying with them, simply as a matter of principle.
With the exception of one existing prebooked flight, I will definitely be choosing a different airline in the future.
If you choose to do the same, make sure you tell Air Canada why.
Online comments
In Canada or U.S.
Air Canada - Customer Relations
PO Box 64239,
5512 4th Street, NW
Calgary, AB, Canada
T2K 6J0
Tel: 1-888-247-2262
Fax: 1-866-584-0380
Read all the news articles below.
CBC
City News
Globe and Mail
Canada.com
CANOE
Toronto Star
June 15, 2007
Killing puppies because they can
Further to my earlier story regarding the confiscated mother and puppies in Sarnia.
The following letter was issued today by the president of the Dog Legislation Council of Canada. Permission was given to distribute widely.
ALERT: CROSS POST PLEASE TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!
June 15, 2007 1:30 PM EDT
On June 6, 2007 animal control officers in Sarnia, Ontario seized a mother dog and her three 7-week old puppies from the home of Brian Edwards Jr. and Cassie Bates.
The dogs’ offence? Solely that an animal control officer identified them as "pit bulls" under the Ontario Dog Owners’ Liability Act (“DOLA”). This breed identification has subsequently and conveniently been changed by the authorities; the puppies and mother are now claimed to be Staffordshire bull terriers or have the appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar.
According to the owners, the dogs in question are neither.
On March 23, 2007 Madam Justice Thea Herman, a judge of the Ontario Superior Court, issued a decision that we understand renders the DOLA classifications "pit bull" and "pit bull terrier" unconstitutionally vague. If our understanding is correct, the seizure of the mother and her pups on the basis that they are “pit bulls” would have been unconstitutional.
As for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier identification, there is no proof of that breed identification. It is merely the word of an animal control officer, not a breed expert. The mother dog is not a registered Staffordshire Bull Terrier; she does not have registration papers, a microchip or an identifying tattoo.
At the time of the dogs’ removal from their home, the owners stated they were given two options: hand the mom and her puppies over, or be charged because the dogs were not licensed and the female is not spayed.
This is a scare tactic frequently used by animal control officers to intimidate those who do not know the law into giving up their property – their dogs - without the municipality having to deal with the inconvenience and expense of a court case. This scare tactic unfortunately often works. Of course, threats of pepper spray and arrest work just as well. That's what happened when Brian approached the animal control van to calm the mother dog.
On June 13th, the media reported that these dogs were given a stay of execution.
On that same day, however, the City of Sarnia issued a letter stating that "the pound operator will exercise certain options set out in Section 20(7.4) of the Animals for Research Act,R.S.O. 1990 ( the “ARA")." Four options were cited. Only one allows the dogs to live.
The ARA specifically states that the puppies and their mom can be safely transferred to a person who is resident outside Ontario.
Knowing of this option, Advocates for the Underdog, a well known and respected rescue, has offered at their own cost to take this task upon themselves.
The Advocates offer was declined by Sarnia pound officials.
The City Solicitor for Sarnia has filed documents claiming that the seven-week old puppies and their mother pose “a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals”.
Therefore, under the provisions cited, the City of Sarnia has decided that the mother dog and her puppies will be killed.
Not only does Sarnia animal control apparently not understand the law that they are supposed to be enforcing, but the Sarnia legal department also apparently does not have a clear understanding of the law.
Or perhaps they understand it too well. Could it be that the Ontario Attorney General’s office is once again wielding the same bloody pen used to write Ontario’s breed-specific legislation? One has to wonder why the Ontario government’s highly paid constitutional lawyers, who presented during the recent Superior Court case, sat in on less well-known municipal cases pertaining to "pit bulls". One also has to wonder why the City of Sarnia has recently announced that it will be performing door-to-door checks on all homes for the presence of dogs.
The constitutional challenge to DOLA is back in court for the remedy hearing at the end of this month. Until that time, it is our understanding that this law is in limbo and subject to misinterpretation and mistakes.
Without judicial clarification, it is hard to see how the City of Sarnia can justify the killing of innocent puppies. One would think that prudence would cause the City to put a moratorium on further actions until the courts clarify whether the law is enforceable.
One would also believe that any municipality or agent of the municipality that destroys the property of a citizen under DOLA before the final ruling is made, may well find themselves legally liable for those actions.
The back-door legal tactic used by the City of Sarnia to kill unoffending puppies and their mother should be seen by all dog owners as a purely vindictive measure. The classification of "substantially similar physical characteristics" could easily be applied to tens of thousands of Ontario dogs.
The City of Sarnia, of which animal control is an agency, is not (as claimed by one city councillor) just "acting on provincial law". The City of Sarnia, of which animal control is an agency, has made its own decision to kill these dogs.
There is a huge gray area of options, some of which are within DOLA and others that do not require the use of that particular law. Killing these dogs is not required or mandated.
The DLCC asks that you take five minutes from your day and write, call or fax the members of Sarnia City Council. You don’t have to live in Sarnia, or even in Canada, to write the mayor and councillors.
Ask that they allow these dogs to live and be placed in the competent, caring hands of the Advocates for the Underdog. If you wish to see the correspondence from the City of Sarnia to the lawyers for Brian Edwards Jr., please visit the DLCC website:
www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org
The next meeting of Sarnia City Council is scheduled for Monday, June 25th, 2007
Mayor: MIKE BRADLEY
City Hall
255 N. Christina Street
Sarnia, ON N7T 7N2
Phone: 519 332-0330 ext.312
TTY#: 519 332-2664
Fax: 519 332-3995
Home:
155 N. Front Street, Apt. #705
Sarnia ON N7V 7V5
519 336-8092
Email: mayor@city.sarnia.on.ca
City and County Councillor: DAVE BOUSHY
Home:
1413 Lakeshore Road
Sarnia ON N7S 2M3
Home: 519 542-3109
Fax: 519 542-0868
Email: d.boushy@cogeco.ca
City and County Councillor: JIM FOUBISTER
Home:
1937 Buena Ventura
Brights Grove ON N0N 1C0
Home: 519 869-4701
Fax: 519 869-8625
Email: jimfoubister@city.sarnia.on.ca
City and County Councillor: BEV MACDOUGALL
Home:
228 Maria Street
Sarnia ON N7T 4T1
Home: 519 344-0768
Business: 519 344-5543
Fax: 519 332-0916
Email: bevmacdougall@city.sarnia.on.ca
City and County Councillor: ANNE MARIE GILLIS
Home:
65 Ashby Crescent
Sarnia ON N7S 4L5
Home: 519 542-9728
Business: 519 542-0554
Fax: 519 542-0554
Email: annemariegillis@city.sarnia.on.ca
City Councillor: ANDY BRUZIEWICZ
Home:
665 Stonecrest Avenue
Sarnia ON N7V 2K3
Business:
P.O. Box 2373
Sarnia ON N7T 7S6
Business: 519 332-2639
Fax: 519 337-7855
Email: andybruziewicz@hotmail.com
City Councillor: JON MCEACHRAN
Home:
978 London Road
Sarnia ON N7S 1N7
Home: 519 337-7200
Business: 519 383-7200
Fax: 519 383-7800
Email: jonmceachran@hotmail.com
City Councillor: MIKE KELCH
Home:
324 Tawny Road
Sarnia ON N7S 5J6
Home: 519 542-5682
Business: 519 339-4003
Fax: 519 542-8827
Email: mike@mikekelch.com
City Councillor: TERRY BURRELL
Home:
954 Champlain Road
Brights Grove ON N7V 2G2
Home: 519 542-8826
Business: 519 336-5545
Fax: 519 336-2130
Email: terry@terryburrell.ca
Please copy your correspondence to the Sarnia City Solicitor:
City Solicitor/Clerk - Brian W. Knott
City Hall
255 N. Christina Street
Sarnia ON N7T 7N2
Phone: 519-332-0330 ext 262
General Inquiries
Phone: 519-332-0330 ext 263
Fax: 519-332-3995
TTY#: 519 332-2664
Newspaper headlines: how to lie and get away with it
Note to the media: If you fail to tell the whole truth, then you're still lying!!
That's why the courts ask witnesses to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Omitting a crucial fact when reporting a story can change the entire perception of the event.
Additional note to the media: Headlines are part of your story! They should be subject to the same conditions as the rest of the article.
The code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists states:
"Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context."
Thanks to KC Dog Blog for the following info. I would normally just link to KC's post, but I wanted to expand a bit on this.
In Washington State, on June 13, an Appeals Court judge ruled that a man's dog, which he used to attack a police officer, could be considered a deadly weapon.
The short version of the story is from the Tacoma Olympian and the longer version from the Clark County Columbian.
Here are the two headlines (emphasis mine):
Olympian: "Court says pit bull dog is deadly weapon"
Columbian: "Judge says pit bulls are deadly weapons"
Now, here's the text from the stories (emphasis mine). In the Columbian, this text is quite far down in the article.
OIympian: "The court says a dog is a deadly weapon because it can be used to cause death or substantial bodily harm."
Columbian: " 'A dog is an instrument that can be used to cause death or substantial bodily harm,' wrote (Judge David) Armstrong. The decision didn't specify a legal difference between pit bulls or any other breed."
So, the judge never actually singled out "pit bulls" as dangerous weapons. According to both reports, he said that dogs may cause death or substantial bodily harm.
Agreed, it is partially the truth that this particularly "pit bull" has now been classified by the judge as a dangerous weapon. But that is not the whole truth.
The dog was not ruled as a dangerous weapon because of what type of dog it was. The judge clearly identified the entire species (dog) as having the potential to cause harm or death. This man was charged and convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon simply because he allowed his dog (regardless of breed) to attack a police officer.
This story reminds me of the newspaper reports about the Hoskins family in Hillsboro, Oregon, in August 2004. The couple were eventually sentenced to three years in jail for using their dog to discipline their children by allowing it to attack them.
There were a number of inflammatory headlines at the time, most of which I can't find now. But this one from the Corvallis Gazette is a good example (emphasis mine).
Headline: "Couple face jail for letting dog attack kids"
Introduction: "A Hillsboro couple face at least three years in prison after pleading guilty to felony assault for letting their part-pit bull dog attack their children as discipline."
Text: "The dog, Nigel, a mix of pit bull, Doberman pinscher, German shepherd and Labrador, has been euthanized."
Wow, must have been the "pit bull" part that attacked the kids! Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the dog had been trained and encouraged to use its teeth on seven and eight year old children!
So, looking further, I find a newswire blurb in the Washington Post (one of the most read newspapers in the world):
"HILLSBORO, Ore. -- A couple faces at least three years in prison for disciplining their children by letting their part-pit bull dog attack them."
Nothing about the true mix of the dog.
So now, this story gets to go around the world, courtesy of one of the planet's most popular news organizations, with only the word "pit bull" anywhere, even in the text. Thousands of people will have read that little Washington Post note and the only thing they will have noticed is "PIT BULL"!
So, as the title of this post says, headlines are a way to lie and get away with it.
Read the rest of this articleJune 14, 2007
The power of parroting
Over the years, a number of well-meaning people, who have tried to do their own research about "pit bulls", have said to me, "But I go on the Internet, search for 'pit bull attack', and there are thousands of web pages. If there are that many attacks, there must be something wrong with these dogs."
This reminds me a little of the SARS "epidemic" that happened in Ontario in 2003. Without a doubt, there was a bad outbreak of a communicable virus that nobody had seen before and nobody understood.
What amazed me, however, was the impression outside Ontario, particularly in the United States, of a locked-down, mass-hysteria situation. One American tourist who I helped after a car accident begged me not to call an ambulance because she didn't want to get SARS!
The international media reports had a devastating effect on tourism in this province and, even four years later, we're still recovering from that. Meanwhile, in Toronto, the epicentre of the virus, we were all walking around, going to work, living our lives without any serious concerns. Yes, if we went to a hospital emergency ward, we had to wear masks. But, for most of us, that was the extent of the effect.
To those who were exposed to the virus, it had a huge impact on their lives and I am not minimizing that whatsoever, in the same way that being bitten or attacked by a dog has a permanent and traumatic effect on the individual victim and families. But the general population was still able to realize that the chances of contracting SARS, even at its height, were miniscule.
The difference between our daily reality and the media portrayal, however, was huge.
I was reading the Globe and Mail this week and saw a tiny article about Bjorn Borg having to drop out of the Liverpool International tennis tournament on Monday because of a dog bite he received on the weekend.
Here's the text of the article from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070612.DIGE12-1/TPStory
Liverpool, England -- A severe dog bite led Bjorn Borg to pull out of his first grass-court match in 26 years. The five-time Wimbledon champion was bitten on his right leg by a German shepherd when he tried to pull it away from his golden retriever at his home in Sweden over the weekend. Borg, who was treated at a Stockholm hospital, was told not to put any weight on the leg for at least six weeks. He had been scheduled to play 1987 Wimbledon champion Pat Cash at the Liverpool International tournament this week.
So, I did a Google search for "Bjorn Borg dog bite Liverpool". 870 hits over a period of two days (June 11 and 12). The vast majority of these hits were from mainstream media newspapers in every corner of the world.
My impression, if I were to trust only the search results, is that this was a major event, about which dozens, if not hundreds, of reporters had written articles.
As I looked more closely at the search results, however, I realized that there were only, as far as I could tell, three unique articles. The remainder of the results were exact, word-for-word, repetitions of those three original articles. So, from those three reports, came hundreds (and I'm sure eventually thousands) of Internet search hits.
That is the danger of just depending on numbers and statistics, without carefully considering the source and the duplication.
Each of the editors of these hundreds of newspapers throughout the world looked at this story and made a personal, individual determination whether that particular story, with those particular details, would be of interest to their particular readers, in their particular part of the world. Will my readers be interested in this and (for many editors) will it sell newspapers?
Regardless of whether you are researching "pit bull" attacks, dog bites in general, SARS, global warming, or underwater basket weaving, I think it's a good idea to keep this in mind.
Read the rest of this articleJune 13, 2007
Sarnia and "pit bulls": city on shaky legal ground
There's a little thing going on in Sarnia, Ontario, this week that illustrates some serious problems with cities being far too eager to apply the vague, unenforceable, and unconstitutional Dog Owners' Liability Act.
The Sarnia Observer has four related stories:Dog census underway in city
The following is a letter I wrote in the past week to the Sarnia Observer that summarizes my feelings on this issue.
Seized dogs face execution
Dogs gain stay of execution
Local rallies to protest pit bull law
After reading about this incident, I feel more than ever that no dog owner is truly safe in this province.
June 7, 2007
To the editor of the Sarnia Observer:
Re "Seized dogs face execution" (June 7), regardless of whether or not these people broke the law (and keep in mind that they are fighting these charges, saying that the dogs are not "pit bulls"), here are my issues with this:
a) Killing seven-week-old puppies, regardless of breed, temperament, ownership, or anything else, is an evil and despicable act that has no basis in reason or conscience. Since when did our government turn into puppy-killers? We've got Animal Rights groups going ballistic over keeping animals in captivity or over the hunting of this type of animal or over the possible extinction of this one, and yet, right in front of our noses, we could not have a better example of government-sponsored extinction.
b) It is not possible, at seven weeks old, to tell the breed of a dog, especially when that identification determines the life or death of that dog. It is impossible (and illegal) to identify a purebred dog if it doesn't have kennel club registration papers.
c) Failure to keep these pups (or any dog) alive during a court case is an abuse of the protection afforded poundkeepers when they choose to destroy a dog. It is simply wrong to try to kill the dog as quickly as possible before the owners can win their court case.
d) According to the judge's recent decision, the onus is no longer solely on the owner to prove the breed of their dog (or lack of).
So, ultimately, the Sarnia authorities are saying, "we think it might, possibly, look like something that we think might, possibly, be illegal, so we're going to kill these living, breathing animals, even if you prove us wrong later".
This reminds of one of the white supremacists' favourite sayings: "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out".
Sincerely,
Steve Barker
June 07, 2007
The death of the mixed breed dog
There was a time when, if asked, I would have said that only licensed, ethical breeders of registered, purebred dogs should be allowed to breed, in order to eliminate backyard breeding and puppy milling. As with most absolutes, I have gradually been forced to re-examine that attitude, for a variety of reasons.
I guess, first of all, mandatory spay/neuter, just by its very nature, must end up descending into the insanity that is California's Bill AB1634, recently (and narrowly) passed by the State Assembly. I'm sure this bill is primarily intended to allow authorities to easily shut down puppy millers, but how the heck do they really think this is going to help anybody?
Forced sterilization of all non-purebred dogs by four months of age? Can any reasonable, logical person step back, look at that statement, and truthfully say, "Yep, that'll work"?
Like the Ontario pit bull ban, engineered by the governing Liberal Party purely to look good on TV, the only people who will obey this law are the ones that weren't the problem in the first place.
I was just commenting to a friend of mine today how many bully breed dogs are walking around Toronto unmuzzled, yet I'm afraid to sit on my front porch without muzzling mine. I love my dogs and I've seen too many dogs die because of neighbour complaints or overzealous officers.
Same in California.
The already illegal and badly bred Mexican imports will not only continue, but will grow to meet increased demand.
The backyard breeders will continue to breed, illegaly, as they have in Ontario. They just won't advertise in the newspapers anymore.
The good hobby breeders, who can't afford the new licensing provisions, will simply give up producing their quality product.
The puppy millers will move out of state and then ship their physically sick, temperamentally challenged, overpriced, and unguaranteed designer dogs back to California, which apparently is NOT illegal.
There can only be one result from this law:
No more mixed breed dogs.
In five years, there'll be half as many as today.
In ten, there'll be almost none.
In fifteen, absolutely none.
Except, of course, for the ones from Mexico, the backyard breeders, and the out-of-state puppy millers.
Wonderful. Thanks.
Yes, there'll be purebreds, but the number won't even be close to enough to go around. Not if the breeders are good breeders who won't overbreed their females, won't own or breed a ton of dogs, and won't hand the dogs out to just anyone.
So I started thinking about the dogs I grew up with and the dogs I've owned, none of which were purebred:
All of these dogs were rescues of some sort or another and none were provable purebred dogs.
They would not have existed in the new California.
The Beagle/Collie mix and the Husky/Samoyed mix were the best dogs I've ever had (sorry, Brooklynn and Star, but it's true).
What would my life be like now if these dogs had never entered my life?
The Beagle/Collie (Trixie) and one of the hound mixes (Dusty) who both taught me, as a child, what it feels like to watch your dog get hit by a car. Trixie got away. Dusty didn't. Valuable lesson, never forgotten.
The Collie (Piper) who taught me, through a bite, that many dogs don't like being grabbed by a 12 year old when there are twenty kids in the house at a birthday party.
The Lab who taught me, through a bite, that older dogs feel pain more than younger ones.
The Border Collie who taught me, through a bite, that dogs like to chase moving objects, including children.
The Husky/Samoyed (Panda) whose incredible strength and desire to pull encouraged me to pick up my first dog training book.
The Lab/Shepherd (Zeus) who is probably my biggest regret and heartache and who didn't deserve the crappy life he had, both before and after me.
The "pit bulls" (Brooklynn & Star) who changed my life forever and gave me my first real taste of discrimination and hatred, as well as cementing lifetime friendships with other dog owners.
None of these would have existed under California's new law.
There are approximately 80 million dogs in North America. Very few end up in shelters compared to the massive number that stay in their original homes. There may be overpopulation in some areas, but if this type of law spreads throughout the rest of the continent, I fail to see how sterilizing 70 million out of the 80 million dogs is a reasonable solution.
Frankly, I think it's one step above the Chinese solution of handing over all existing dogs (no exceptions) because of three cases of rabies. It's rooted in the same overreactive thought process.
A study of shelters in the late 1990's by the National Council on Pet Population identified the top ten reasons for dogs being relinquished to shelters (Note: this does not include strays picked by rescuers or animal control). They are:
If you look at this list carefully, the only real overpopulation one is #10 (no homes for littermates). #6 might be considered a similar problem, but we can assume that any dog included in #6 is NOT from a recent litter, so that could be bad owner decision-making (in terms of how many dogs were brought into the home) or simply a case of multiple dogs not getting along.
If we break these ten reasons down into major categories, some in multiple categories, we get:
So the issue may not, indeed, be as simple as overpopulation when we're talking about trying to reduce the number of dogs in shelters. But, like breed banning, it's an easy thing to legislate (although difficult, if not impossible, to enforce). You can't easily legislate anything else on that list, with perhaps the exception of forcing landlords to allow pets.
So, just like breed banning, legislators try to force a "one size fits all" law down everyone's throats, even though the vast majority of mixed breed dogs in the state of California and in Canada and the U.S. will be kept by the parents' owners or given to a reasonably good home or sold in the newspaper to somebody who'll love them for the rest of their lives.
Do I agree with these choices by these people? Not particularly. I think there are better ways to acquire dogs and, probably, most people could look after their dogs better than they do, feed them better, give them more exercise, train them more diligently. But most people get a dog, love it and look after it reasonably well until it dies, and then get another. That's generally the way dog ownership in our countries works.
We have ideals such as mandatory owner testing, mandatory dog training classes, responsible breeding legislation, severe animal cruelty penalties, etc. These ideals are good and I, along with many others, will continue to push for these things. But the chances of legislating these in the near future are slim. With the exception of the animal cruelty laws, these types of laws won't go over well with the general public and especially with anyone who doesn't want the government interfering with Joe Public's everyday life (I include myself in that group).
So education is a huge component, particularly in those areas that are very difficult to legislate. Only with public education will these types of legislation eventually be allowed and accepted.
California's approach is doomed to fail. Unfortunately, until such a time as this law is repealed, the rights of millions of law-abiding, dog-loving citizens will have been ignored and an entire generation of lovable, funny-looking, unidentifiable "mutts" will not be there to grow up with kids, love their families, and teach children how to behave around animals.
I don't have all the answers. I don't even have suggestions half the time. But I do know a bad law when I see it and this is one of those.
This is a hastily and badly thought-out piece of legislation, heavily promoted by Animal Rights groups who have publicly stated that they want to see the end of all pet ownership. Given those public statements, they could not have asked for anything better than to see the largest state in the country start firmly and unwaveringly on the path to the extinction of an entire species of domestic animal?
And far too many dog owners, sick of puppy millers, mind-boggling animal cruelty, dog fighting, thugs, and gangsters, jump on to the mandatory spay/neuter, mandatory microchipping, and breed banning bandwagons, without any real thought as to the future implications of these laws.
Microchip a dog.
Microchip a car.
Microchip a child.
Microchip a person.
Is there a difference?
Ban a breed and there will be no more dogs of that breed, the majority of which are great dogs owned by good owners. But there will be plenty of other breeds and many, many mixed-breed dogs to replace them, with no reduction in danger to the public.
Sterilize a species and there will be no more of that species. It's that simple.
Dog owners, WAKE UP! It's not just paranoia anymore. They really are out to get you!
June 05, 2007
May I list more Liberal arrogance?
Articles from various news organizations regarding Dalton McGuinty's abrupt ending of the Ontario Legislature session three weeks early.
The Globe and Mail: Ontario legislature proroguedOntario Premier Dalton McGuinty abruptly ended the legislature's spring session Tuesday, more than three weeks earlier than initially planned and one day before Citizenship and Immigration Minister Mike Colle was set to appear before a committee to face questions about grants given to groups with ties to the Liberal Party.
The Toronto Star: Legislature on holidays earlyNo more question periods, no more briefing books, no more Speaker's dirty looks. After a stormy spring session fuelled by "slush fund" and lottery scandals, Premier Dalton McGuinty and MPPs are heading off 3 weeks earlier than scheduled for their summer holidays leading into the Oct. 10 election.
CityNews: Liberals End Session 3 Wks. Early To Concentrate On Getting Your VoteHow would you like to get out of work three weeks early, take the whole summer off and still not have to report back to work until October?
The Toronto Sun: Premier calls it a sessionThe Liberals have their work cut out for them if they’re going to shed the label of promise breakers before the fall vote, Premier Dalton McGuinty conceded Tuesday as he adjourned the legislature early
More Liberal arrogance
We already have plenty of examples of arrogance from the ruling Liberal Party of Ontario, but here's another.
Liberals End Session 3 Wks. Early To Concentrate On Getting Your Vote
They can "concentrate" all they like, but dog owners in this province will not be fooled again.
June 01, 2007
Ontario residents: Bill 232 - not bad, needs some work
Bob (Robert) Runciman, the House Leader for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, has introduced Bill 232 in the Ontario legislature. It contains amendments to the Ontario SPCA Act regarding cruelty to dogs and cats to allow the courts to impose jail terms up to two years less a day, fines up to $60,000 and up to a lifetime ban on pet ownership.
UPDATE: The text of the Bill is now available here. After reading it, I have some concerns that I would like to see addressed, namely the following:
I think, to truly support this bill, I'm going to have to get some answers to these questions.
Violence, although shunned by much of the dog training community, is still an accepted method of training. Any type of training collar, be it a slip collar, martingale, pinch, or e-collar, could be construed as violent, even if mild. What is the definition of excessive violence? Could grabbing a puppy by its scruff be considered violent? How about beating a dog senseless?
Fear is another accepted method of training, although again, a large number of trainers dismiss it in favour of more positive methods. But, if my dog starts digging in the yard and I run at him, yelling, I am using fear as a training method. The terminology used in this Bill does not prohibit "excessive or abusive fear", it prohibits "fear", period.
My concern regarding this section is that good, solid dog trainers who are doing a good job, especially if working with extreme problem dogs, could end up on the wrong side of the law. Even the police canine units use corrections and "violence" in their training.
Here is the remainder of my original post, but I am now officially ON THE FENCE.
At the time of writing this post, the text of the Bill is unavailable, so I'm depending on the press release from the PC Party to determine the intention and content of the amendments. Here is the text of that release:NEWS RELEASE
At first glance, I support this Bill and I encourage others to write or call their Member of Provincial Parliament to ask them to vote for this Bill, particularly if their representative is from the Liberal Party of Ontario. This party has shown an extreme unwillingness to do anything substantial if the suggestion comes from another party. They need to be told to wake up and vote properly on this one, especially since they so clearly voted party line on the Dog Owners' Liability Act.
ROBERT W. RUNCIMAN, MPP
HOUSE LEADER OF
THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION
*****************************
Pet abusers should face stiff penalties and ownership bans - Runciman
TORONTO, ON - Ontarians who abuse their pet cat or dog could face much tougher penalties and a ban on pet ownership if legislation tabled yesterday becomes law.
Progressive Conservative MPP Bob Runciman (Leeds-Grenville) introduced a Private Member's bill that will allow the courts to impose jail terms up to two years less a day, fines up to $60,000 and up to a lifetime ban on pet ownership.
Runciman's legislation comes in the wake of a series of publicized incidents of pet abuse including the removal of a dog's ears in order to make the animal look "scarier".
"People who do serious physical harm to a pet should lose their right to have pets and should face penalties that are proportionate to the extent of the injuries the pet suffered," asserted Runciman.
Runciman is hopeful that the Liberal government will consider speedy passage of his bill prior to the legislature adjourning for the summer.
If this Bill contains everything described, I would hate to see it die because of misplaced party pride or an "us versus them" attitude from the Liberals.
While writing your letter to your Member of Provincial Parliament, you may want to consider contacting your federal MP to discuss Bills S-213 and C-373 related to federal animal cruelty laws. You may first want to read the detailed discussion of these Bills from an earlier article.
May 25, 2007
Michael's other awards
Considering Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant's recent award from the Canadian Association of Journalists (the Code of Silence Award) for heading up "the most secretive government body in Canada", I thought I'd point you to one of my favourite past articles suggesting other possible awards for Ontario's most hated politician.
Click here to read my suggestions
PLEASE ATTEND COURT - JUNE 28 10:00 AM
PLEASE ATTEND COURT - THURSDAY JUNE 28 AT 10:00 AM
Either 361 or 393 University Avenue in downtown Toronto.
When I confirm the address and room number, I'll post it here.
We want as many people as possible to be there, please.
As I understand it, the arguments will be about how to implement the judge's decision on the challenge of DOLA. The judge must decide the best course of action now that the law has been substantially eroded.
Be there. Let the Ontario Liberals know that you will not accept the erosion of Canadian charter rights, the legislated second-class citizenship of law-abiding people, and the extermination of unoffending dogs.
Click here for an earlier article on this subject
May 24, 2007
No pets please, we're PETA(ish)!!
I know some readers are having trouble wrapping their minds around the possibility that various animal rights organizations are not only anti-breeding, but can also be anti-<place breed name here>, anti-dog, and anti-pet.
So, I'm going to try again.
Many are truly concerned about the welfare of animals, but may be not aware of some of the behind-the-scenes (and sometimes not so subtle) activities within their own organization or within organizations after which they have modeled their own group.
If you want your eyes opened quickly and harshly about their agenda, see this article.
Here is an article by Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA, in support of "pit bull" bans.
Here's an example of HSUS's support for this method.
It sounds good to the average member of the public, even dog owners, because there is a perception (sometimes accurate, often not) of massive overpopulation with strays running loose in droves.
Spay/neuter is the solution to this overpopulation, so it supported by politicians, by the media, and by Joe Public, without careful thought as to what our pet situation will be in ten or twenty years if nobody's breeding!
Thus, their only criteria for promoting this option must have been the breed of the dog (in this case, "pit bull" types).
This directly contradicts their organization's policy on dangerous dog legislation: "The HSUS opposes legislation aimed at eradicating or strictly regulating dogs based solely on their breed...While breed is one factor that contributes to a dog's temperament, it alone cannot be used to predict whether a dog may pose a danger to his or her community."
Once this information has been obtained, there are little or no guarantees of privacy. This information can easily become available for enforcement of future bans or spay/neuter laws.
Read this article to understand the ramifications of mandatory microchipping.
The argument is that, if pets are no longer property, then the government has more power to prosecute and prevent animal abuse.
Read here and here to see how this can affect your ability to make decisions regarding your own pet's health, training, and welfare.
First, Attorney General Michael Bryant's ONLY statistics during his "banned, banned" press conference came from Animal People News, an extremist anti-"pit bull", anti-Rottweiler, animal rights magazine.
Second, read this article for an analysis of his "Where's the humanity in that?" presentation to the Legislative Committee. It is clearly driven by an animal rights agenda.
Attorney General of Ontario wins Code of Silence award
I may be wrong, but I think this is the first time I've seen a newspaper article about the Ontario Liberal government's "code of silence". It's about time.
You can visit the Toronto Star article, but this is such an important issue, I've included the full text of the article below. My apologies to the Star, but I don't want this one to disappear into the archives.
Also see a similar response from the Attorney General's office to the Ontario PC Party regarding the costs of implementing and defending the province's "pit bull" ban.
These guys have clearly forgotten that they are public servants, accountable to the people. On October 10, I, for one, will be making sure they remember.
Arrogance of this magnitude should not be rewarded with success at the polls.
Original Toronto Star article May 24 2007:
Attorney General wins Code of Silence award
May 24, 2007
Tracey Tyler
LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER
His government charges fees for the right to look at a public court file.
It also has a policy that blocks access to important documents filed during trials.
And today, for keeping up a wall between the public and the justice system, Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant will be presented with the Code of Silence Award, which recognizes "the most secretive government body in Canada."
Bryant will be handed the brass padlock by the Canadian Association of Journalists at its global investigative journalism conference at the downtown Hilton.
He was singled out for imposing the highest fees in Canada for public access to court records – $32 to simply view a file.
Bryant's ministry also charges $2 a page for photocopying documents – fees that can easily add up to hundreds of dollars, a sum beyond the reach of many members of the public and journalists reporting on the courts.
Association president Paul Schneidereit calls it "a public issue, not a media issue."
"The bottom line is, do we want to have a democracy, or do we want to have a chequebook democracy – where democracy and what it stands for is only available if you can write a big enough cheque?" he asked.
Court files contain "some of the most fundamental public records" and should not be hidden behind "outrageous" fees, Schneidereit said.
Bryant was named the recipient of the award last year. He agreed to collect it in person today at the conference – the first recipient to ever do so.
"He is pleased to be invited," said Greg Crone, his chief of staff. Ironically, Bryant created a Justice and the Media Committee last year for the purpose of increasing openness and access in the justice system.
At the CAJ conference, Bryant plans to update journalists on the Justice and the Media Committee's work and make an announcement, Crone said.
Schneidereit said Bryant has also agreed to answer questions during a "town hall" session.
Nominees for the 2007 award include the foreign affairs department for denying the existence of documents related to the treatment of Afghan detainees and Transport Canada for fighting to keep aviation safety data under wraps.
The Ontario government is also in the running, once again – this time for refusing to give the provincial Ombudsman the power to investigate hospitals. Ontario is the only Canadian province where hospitals are not open to such scrutiny.
May 22, 2007
Property
In a previous article, I mentioned the concept of dogs just being property, so Clinton Portis and Chris Samuels seem to think it's okay to do what you want with them.
I want to make sure that readers are perfectly clear where I stand on the issue of property, so that I don't get lumped in with animal rights groups that think nobody should own pets.
As far as I'm concerned, it should be legal to:
It should be (and sometimes already is) illegal to:
In Canada, we don't even have property rights in our constitution, but in the United States, the right to own property does not equal the right to do what you want, when you want, with whatever you want, regardless of the pain suffered by others or the consequences caused.
We have the right to own cars. We don't have the right to race them.
We have the right to own land. We don't have the right to build whatever we want on that land without respect for the environment around it.
We have the right to raise our children and make decisions for them. We don't have the right to put their health and welfare in jeopardy while making those decisions.
In other words, in many areas of law and life, we have the right to do something, within the boundaries of reasonableness.
Animal ownership is reasonable. Animal abuse is not.
Definitely all brawn and no brains
It's not enough that Michael Vick is being investigated for dogfighting. Now two of his NFL co-Neanderthals are defending him.
Now, considering the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", I could understand comments like "I don't believe that Vick would do that" or "He didn't know what was going on", etc.
But, no, in an MSN article and video, Clinton Portis, the Washington Redskins' version of the missing link, says, "It's his property. It's his dog. If that's what he wants to do, do it."
In other words, feel free to break the law and torture animals. No problem. That's your right.
And a teammate of Vick's, Chris Samuels, is right there in the video defending Vick as well. I'm not sure why the newspapers are focusing only on Portis, because it's clear that Samuels also thinks it's just fine.
What strikes me the most about the video is how funny these jokers think this is, to take two animals, stick them in a pit, and watch them tear the crap out of each other. But hey, who cares, they're just property, right? Do whatever you want with them. Illegal? Oh, well, dogfighting doesn't really count, according to Portis and Samuels.
Kevin Hench has written a great response to this video. Thanks for saying what I'm sure a lot of us feel, Kevin.
New date for Ontario legal remedy: June 28, 2007
Lawyers for both sides will be back in front of the judge on June 28, 2007.
When I find out time and location, I will post it here.
The basic decision of the judge, as far as I understand it, is that the following parts of the law are unconstitutional:
- The phrase "pit bull includes";
- The phrase "pit bull terrier" as a definition of a restricted dog;
- The use of only a document from a veterinarian as proof of breed, thus placing onto the defendant the burden of the costs of cross-examination and calling of experts to refute the document.
Here is a plain English interpretation of what could happen, courtesy of the Fundamental Freedoms Project:
The Charter is a part of Canada's Constitution, and is included in the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 gives courts the power to say that a law that violates the Charter is not valid. You can ask a court to make such a declaration. When applying section 52, a court might:Read the rest of this article
- strike out the part of the law that violates the Charter
- interpret a law narrowly so that it fits Charter rights
- 'read in' features to the law so that it meets Charter requirements
- declare that you are not covered by the law that violates your Charter rights (a 'constitutional exemption')
May 10, 2007
When do we start asking why?
At Yahoo news, there was a small story about a dog that severed a child's ear in Surrey, British Columbia, near Vancouver, last Tuesday. These are just a few of many possible reasons for this bite, none of which have to do with breed. Statistics show that the vast majority of bites (and deaths) happen to a child under 12 in their own residence, a relative's residence, or a friend's residence and by every breed on the planet. Often, the child and dog are unsupervised. A little common sense. A little reading on the Internet or at the local book store. A little recognition that a dog is an animal, not a human with fur. A little bit of admitting that your child doesn't know how to act around dogs or that your dog doesn't know how to act around children. A little brain usage, please! One more scarred child. One more dead dog. Not because of the type of dog, but because human parents and human dog owners didn't use their brains.
The breed of the dog (Rottweiler) was mentioned five times in the tiny 160 word article.
Neighbours were reported as being "shocked" that a Rottweiler was living on their street, as if the dog were a convicted sex offender or mass murderer. One neighbour was quoted as saying, "If they've got Rotties here, we'd like to know since we live across the street".
When are people going to start asking why an attack happened, instead of just chalking it up to the type of dog? When are newspapers going to start including dog bite prevention tips, as recommended by the jury in the Courtney Trempe inquest and by the American Veterinary Medical Association, instead of just reporting the attack?
As someone involved in dog training and in dog bite prevention, it pains me to see comments like those above. This dog did NOT tear off a child's ear because it was a Rottweiler. A very small dog could do the same thing just as easily. Have you ever seen some of these small guys catch a squirrel or a rabbit? Not pretty.
This dog bit for any number of the following reasons:
Get your own government grant!
Tired of watching all these Liberal cronies, both federal and in Ontario, raking in OUR cash with impunity?
Want to get your hands on some of that dough?
Click here to apply for your own Ontario government grant.
Legal note: This is tongue-in-cheek, of course.
Thanks to caveat.
May 09, 2007
Animal rights? Sorry, you've got the wrong guy!
If I see one more newspaper article about impending anti-dog legislation describing opponents as "animals rights activists", I think I'll be throwing red paint on that reporter!
To reiterate:
Most animal rights organizations, such as PETA, have, as one of their ultimate objectives, the end of all pet ownership, regardless of the species or breed of animal. They see breed bans and mandatory spay/neuter as a means to that end.
Accordingly, they fully support the implementation of breed-specific legislation. Not only don't they fight it, but they often provide behind-the-scenes advice to those legislators to include as many restrictions as possible on owning and breeding dogs of many different types.
Publicly, they will not come right out and support the killing of existing dogs, although that is a natural consequence of breed banning. In reality, however, they are more than willing to get their hands dirty "euthanizing" dogs of any breed, as shown in the following articles:PETA kills animals
Animal welfare organizations are concerned with the proper treatment of owned animals, whether they are pets, working animals, farm animals, or animals ultimately destined to become food. They are also heavily involved in rehoming lost, abandoned, and surrendered pets.
PETA cruelty trial
Animal rights groups are a danger
Dog legislation activists tend to focus on the rights of people rather than the rights of animals. They are often active in animal welfare roles as well, but the focus of their legislation activism is the right of a citizen to be treated the same as any other citizen, regardless of the dog that they own.
This includes the right to own property, the right to be safe from arbitrary and discriminatory search and seizure, the right to live where they want to live, the right to walk down a street without fear of vigilantism and harassment, and the right to be unmolested by authorities because of their dog's appearance.
Media people, please get it right!
I am not an "animal rights activist". In fact, that's getting pretty close to libel, because I do not ever want to be associated with organizations like PETA and I believe that my own reputation, and that of my colleagues, is damaged each time a reporter gets it wrong.
Don't misunderstand me. I am absolutely against any form of animal cruelty, regardless of species or breed. Throughout my life, I have fought to save numerous pets and I believe strongly in effective anti-cruelty legislation.
But, please, don't lump me in with PETA, or the badly named Humane Society of the United States, or Animal People News, or Animal Advocates of British Columbia. We are NOT the same animal!
May 05, 2007
Attacks on letter carriers in Winnipeg: not a "pit bull"
A pet owner in Winnipeg now has to pick up his mail four kilometres away from his house because of the animal's aggressive behaviour towards letter carriers. "aggressive and threatening the letter carrier" "unsafe for the letter carrier to deliver the mail" "we have quite a history with this [animal]" "it has attacked letter carriers three times" "letter carriers have been growled at [and] stalked" "because of its aggressive behaviour, we're not sure if it has rabies" "when a CBC camera operator returned to get more pictures, the [animal]...bared his fangs" Actually, it looks like someone may have simply recycled on old "pit bull" story.
Here are some of the descriptions from the news story:
Click here to read the whole CBC story
May 02, 2007
The worst Canadian
The Beaver, the online magazine of Canada's National History Society, is asking Canadians to suggest the worst Canadian.
I chose Michael Bryant, Attorney General of Ontario, for the following reasons.
Please visit the Beaver website and let's send this man to the top of the list of really, really bad people.
NOTE: The website says that you can vote three times, so please do.
April 30, 2007
Date for remedy has changed - stay tuned
UPDATE April 30
June 14 will NOT be the date for the remedy. Waiting for new date from lawyer.
Click here for original post
April 23, 2007
Date for remedy re Ontario constitutional challenge
UPDATE April 30
June 14 will NOT be the date. Waiting for new date from lawyer.
Lawyers for both sides will be back in front of the judge on June 14, 2007.
When I find out time and location, I will post it here.
The basic decision of the judge, as far as I understand it, is that the following parts of the law are unconstitutional:
- The phrase "pit bull includes";
- The phrase "pit bull terrier" as a definition of a restricted dog;
- The use of only a document from a veterinarian as proof of breed, thus placing onto the defendant the burden of the costs of cross-examination and calling of experts to refute the document.
Here is a plain English interpretation of what could happen, courtesy of the Fundamental Freedoms Project:
The Charter is a part of Canada's Constitution, and is included in the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 gives courts the power to say that a law that violates the Charter is not valid. You can ask a court to make such a declaration. When applying section 52, a court might:Read the rest of this article
- strike out the part of the law that violates the Charter
- interpret a law narrowly so that it fits Charter rights
- 'read in' features to the law so that it meets Charter requirements
- declare that you are not covered by the law that violates your Charter rights (a 'constitutional exemption')
We can spend your money and you can't find out where or how much!
The Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario recently asked the province's Attorney General (of the Liberal Party) to give them some information about how much it has cost Ontario taxpayers to ban a non-existent dog.
Below is the response, printed with the permission of the PC party.
Do you really want to vote for Dalton McGuinty's and Michael Bryant's Liberal Party when they clearly use privacy protection laws to deliberately prevent taxpayers from identifying an incredible waste of money and they cannot (or will not) track how much time their own lawyers have spent on this issue?
Ministry of the Attorney General
Freedom of information and Protection of Privacy
720 Bay Street
5th Floor
Toronto ON M5G 2K1
Telephone: (416) 326-4300
Facsimile: (416) 326-4307
March 23, 2007
Private & Confidential
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Policy Advisor
PC Research and Services
Rm. 200 North Wing
Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto, ON M7A 1A8
Re: Our File Number MAG-A-2007-00195 / hk
This is in response to your request for access to information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for the legal costs associated with all aspects of defending the constitutional challenge against Bill 132, Dog Owners’ Liability Act.
The respondent was represented in the Cochrane v. Ontario application by counsel of the Ministry of the Attorney General. No accurate cost can be assigned to the work of counsel and support staff at the Ministry because they are all salaried employees.
Records containing information relating to legal expenditures have been identified. Please be advised that access to the records at issue in this request is denied under s. 19 of the Act, which protects material subject to solicitor-client privilege and records prepared by or for Crown counsel for use in giving legal advice or in contemplation of or for use in litigation.
In addition, for some records, access is denied under s. 21 of the Act, as disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy, and under s. 18(1)(c)-(e) of the Act, as the records contain information where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the economic interests of an institution, information where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the financial interests of the Government of Ontario, and positions, plans, procedures, criteria or instructions to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of an institution or the Government of Ontario.
A copy of the relevant sections of the Act is enclosed for your reference.
The person responsible for making this decision is Stephen Patterson, Acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Legal Services Division.
You may, within thirty days from the date of receipt of this letter, appeal the Ministry’s decision, to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, 2 Bloor Street East, Suite 1400, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 1A8, telephone (416) 326-3333 or 1-800-387-0073. An Appeal fee of $25.00 is required by cheque or money order, made payable to the Minister of Finance.
In the event of an appeal, please provide the Information and Privacy Commissioner with a copy of this decision letter and the original request for information you sent to this office.
Yours truly,
Ruth Maillard
Coordinator
Encl.
March 30, 2007
How much public money has been wasted on the Ontario dog ownership ban?
How much public money has been wasted on the Ontario dog ownership ban?
We are asking EVERY ONTARIO RESIDENT to contact their MPP and ask them how to file a Freedom of Information request with the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of Finance (if necessary) in order to obtain the following information.
You can find your MPP by riding at:
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/members/members_current.do?locale=en&ord=Riding&dir=ASC&list_type=all_mpps
or by your postal code at:
http://www.electionsontario.on.ca/fyed/en/form_page_en.jsp
The Ontario Legislature website is likely to be the most accurate, so if you use the Elections Ontario site, make sure you double-check the MPP for your riding using the Legislature site.
Please clip and paste the following and email it to your MPP.
Dear
I am asking you to tell me how to file a Freedom of Information request with the Provincial Ministry of the Attorney General and if necessary, the Ministry of Finance, regarding expenditures associated with Bill 132/Amendments to the Dog Owners' Liability Act of Ontario, 2005. I would like to know how much public money was spent on the following items.
I would also appreciate your raising this question in the House.
1. Press releases and conferences announcing the intent to ban 'pit bulls' in Ontario
2. Expenses and honoraria for affidavits and other information solicited from extramural experts in 2004/2005 such as Alan Beck, any private law firms and others in Canada and the US whom the government may have consulted prior to holding Committee Hearings in winter 2005.
3. Public hearings conducted by the Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly on January 24, January 27, February 2, February 3, 2005 including:
a) Research costs
b) Supplies including photocopying, paper, postage
c) Travel Expenses for Committee members
d) Any payments made to witnesses at the hearings
d) Venues, audiovisual, computer and other equipment costs
e) All other costs associated with the hearings.
4. Costs associated with preparation of the Report by Committee.
5. Training costs for Animal Control officers in Ontario.
6. Dissemination of notices and other information to the public, educating them about the provisions in the law.
7. Legal Fees:
a) Expert testimony including travel expenses and honoraria for Alan Beck, Tom Skeldon, and any other witness expenses associated with pre-trial examinations
b) Legal fees associated with preparation of the defence, including hourly rate, number of hours spent
c) Research costs relative to the defence including time and materials
d) Legal fees for barristers to present arguments in Ontario Superior Court on May 15, 16 and 18, 2006 and to argue three motions
e) Costs specifically associated with the motion filed in summer 2006 and argued in Superior Court on December 21, 2006 including costs for reports, witness testimony, travel expenses, research costs, lawyer fees (internal and external), courts costs, material costs and any other pertinent expenditures.
f) Any other expenses related to defending the constitutional challenge to the amended Dog Owners' Liability Act, 2005
g) Fees paid to the Court
8. Any other costs not listed above relative to the matter described.
Please let me know when you have filed the request and when I can expect to receive the information.
Thank you very much for your time and effort.
Sincerely,
Name
Address
Telephone/Fax
Voting without knowledge or understanding
Don't know how I missed this before.
The Ontario committee hearings on the Dog Owners' Liability Act were a constant flow of politicians (members of provincial parliament), with no one day containing the same nine members of the committee. I really don't know how they managed to vote intelligently without personally hearing (or reading) all of the evidence.
I also happen to know that the answers to all the committee's requests for more information arrived at the desks of the individual committee members THE NIGHT BEFORE they were to vote on the Bill. Two large boxes of presentations, CD's, research papers, and summaries were deposited at each of the members' offices.
It would not have been possible for them to read the answers to their own questions before being required to vote the next day!
That's not even the worst part.
Two Liberal MPP's (Kuldip Kular and John Wilkinson) did not attend ANY of the committee hearings, yet were two of the five Liberal members to vote on the amendments, pretending that they even had a clue what was going on without having heard a single word of any of the presentations.
Kuldip Kular is the MPP for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale and can be contacted here.
John Wilkinson is the MPP for Perth-Middlesex and can be contacted here.
Feel free to let them know how you feel.
If you want to find out for yourself who attended the hearings each day and who voted later, you can visit the following links:
Committee (Toronto) - January 24 2006
Committee (Barrie) - January 27 2006
Committee (Brantford) - February 2 2006
Committee (Toronto) - February 3 2006
Committee (Voting) - February 10 2006
Pit bull owner acquitted of felony charges
Hewitt A. Grant, subject of the St. Petersburg Times story "Kennel Trash", has been convicted of 80 counts of misdemeanor animal cruelty and has been sentenced to 364 days in jail, 5 years of probation and 500 hours of community service at the animal shelter that cared for his abused dogs.
Below are two articles from the Times regarding Grant's conviction and sentence.
Read my original article Killing Dogs in Florida about the "Kennel Trash" story.
Oh, and a special (sarcastic) thank you to the Humane Society of the United States, who stuck their Animal Rights nose into the fray and insisted that all 139 dogs had to be killed because they were "bred for fighting". Although this man was clearly neglectful, irresponsible, and way out of his depth, resulting in obvious animal abuse, the court did NOT believe that he was using the dogs for fighting.
Guess that's just too bad for those "fighting dogs". They're still dead.
Pit bull owner acquitted of felony charges
By TIMES WIRES
Published January 11, 2007
The pit bull owner featured in a Times story called "Kennel Trash" in July was convicted Tuesday of 80 counts of misdemeanor animal cruelty. Polk County jurors, however, acquitted Hewitt A. Grant II of Nichols of 43 counts of felony animal cruelty and one count of possessing equipment for baiting or fighting. Grant's sentencing is scheduled for later this month. Many of the 139 dogs confiscated from his property last January had to be euthanized. "The jury didn't think he was into the dogfighting, and they didn't think he intentionally hurt the dogs," said Julia Williamson, Grant's attorney. "I'm very satisfied with the verdict. Hewitt is very disappointed." To read the "Kennel Trash" story and an interview with Grant, visit links.tampabay.com.
Source: http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/11/State/Pittbull_owner_aquitt.shtml
Jail, shelter time in dog cruelty case
By Kelley Benham
Published January 26, 2007
Hewitt A. Grant II, convicted of 80 counts of animal cruelty, will serve time in the place he is most hated - Polk County Animal Control.
A judge on Thursday sentenced the former pit bull owner to 364 days in jail, 5 years of probation and 500 hours of community service at the animal shelter that cared for his abused dogs. Grant's case was profiled in last year's Floridian story "Kennel Trash."
A year ago today, officers from Polk County Animal Control and the Sheriff's Office raided Grant's property in Mulberry. At the sentencing Thursday, officer Mary Kirkland described that scene to the judge: "An ocean of frail bodies covered the property. Pitiful little eyes gazed on with curiosity at the activity surrounding them."
She described heavy chains, battle scars, and puppies that ate "like piranhas" when the officers fed them. Many of Grant's dogs were sick and starving and had to be euthanized immediately.
The jury that found him guilty of the 80 misdemeanors this month acquitted Grant on 43 felony cruelty charges and on a charge of owning equipment for baiting or fighting.
All of his pit bulls, deemed unsuitable for adoption because of their breed and ownership history, were eventually euthanized at animal control.
Source: http://www.sptimes.com/2007/01/26/Tampabay/Jail__shelter_time_in.shtml
March 29, 2007
Full text of Ontario decision
Full text of Ontario decision now available on the Superior Court website.
Decision regarding December 2006 motion
Decision regarding Dog Owners' Liability Act
The lawyers from both sides will be going back in front of the judge for further interpretation and explanation, as well as to obtain a decision regarding the entire law and whether it is to be rewritten, thrown out, or chopped into pieces.
March 21, 2007
Those Born 1930-1979!
TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED the 1930's 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's !!
First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant. They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.
Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright coloured lead-based paints.
We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking. As infants & children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, booster seats, seat belts or air bags.
Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.
We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle. We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.
We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank Kool-Aid made with sugar, but we weren't overweight because WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING !
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on. No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K.
We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.
We did not have Playstations, Nintendos, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVDs, no surround-sound or CDs, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet or chat rooms....... WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!
We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.
We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.
We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.
We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!
Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!
These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever! The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!
If YOU are one of them . . . CONGRATULATIONS!
You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated so much of our lives for our own good.
And while you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how brave (and lucky) their parents were.
Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't it?!
March 09, 2007
Ontario Legislature website changes
The Ontario Legislature has redesigned its website, making many old links invalid. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of websites (mostly opposed to their legislation) that often link directly to documents on the Legislature site. I'm enough of a conspiracy nut to consider the possibility that the government did this to deliberately break all the links from those sites. Makes it much harder for people to find out the truth if they can't find the info, no?
Anyway, courtesy of Caveat, here are the new links to information about Bill 132 and the Dog Owners' Liability Act:
Bill 132 Main Page
Status of the Bill
Read the Debates (including the Committee Hearings)
What the Bill is About
Acts Affected
I am working on updating all posts that contain links to the Legislature site, as well as links on this blog's sidebar.
February 28, 2007
Guilty by association
Discrimination
Intimidation
Isolation
Vilification
These are but a few of the many experiences that some, if not most, owners of certain types of dogs must endure on a regular and frequent basis.
As a direct result of the disinformation spouted by mainstream media organizations and by publicity-seeking politicians, many average citizens seem to feel that it's perfectly acceptable, perhaps even necessary, to harass, threaten, and assault other law-abiding citizens.
From the Dog Politics blog, here are some examples of these types of actions:
- People crossing the street, or screaming and cursing at a dog owner;
- Denial of accomodations at a hotel or campground, or access to a park;
- Disabled persons with service dogs being asked to leave a store or restaurant;
- Physical assaults including spitting, kicking, throwing of rocks, cans, bottles.
If you think these are exaggerations or unusual occurrences, I can tell you from personal experience that they're not! All of the above have occurred to either myself or close friends - not just once, but multiple times - in some cases with very serious physical consequences.
I have also received many reports of similar experiences from other dog owners, particularly those in Ontario, Canada.
Dog Politics, My Dog Votes, Love Does Not Discriminate, along with average dog owners throughout the world, have had enough!
Everyone now has the opportunity to fight back by helping to create a database of every act of discrimination and harassment against dogs and their owners, worldwide.
You can now report media bias against specific dog breeds or types, insurance discrimination against dog owners, and assault or harassment of dogs and their owners.
To report MEDIA BIAS, click here.
To report INSURANCE DISCRIMINATION, click here.
To report ASSAULT OR HARASSMENT, click here.
Read the full Dog Politics story here.
Read the rest of this article
January 19, 2007
Fantino on irresponsible driving
Julian Fantino, current Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner (chief), former Toronto Police chief, former Ontario Commissioner of Emergency Management, and key supporter of Ontario's pit bull ban during that law's committee hearings, has decided to focus his police force, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on an all-out effort to end senseless highway tragedies.
I have no problem with his new approach (with the exception of cancelling the always charming Sergeant Cam Woolley's reports). The problem I have is that, in two very similar scenarios, his choices are alarmingly different.
During the committee hearings into Ontario's proposed (and eventually passed) changes to the Dog Owners' Liability Act, it appeared that the former Toronto Police Chief's testimony regarding the dangers police officers faced from "pit bulls" was one of the primary persuading arguments in favour of the new legislation. Purporting to represent the entire force, despite my own conversations with individual officers who thought the law was silly, Fantino presented a strong authority figure whose arguments could not be disputed without appearing to be anti-police.
Here are some quotes from his testimony:"Many people consider these dogs to be wonderful house pets. But I can tell you from our experiences that these dogs are used as weapons."
Fantino's full presentation before the committee can be found here.
"These are not cases where pit bulls have been in the home as the family dog; rather, as I've already mentioned, these are cases where pit bulls have been trained to guard the home and attack intruders, including the police. In reality, they have been trained to attack and are being actively used as weapons. In these cases, our tactical officers on the emergency task force have had to retrain in order to deal with these dogs, and they do so on a regular basis."
"Our emergency task force officers say that, on average, one in four of the warrants they execute is at a place where there is a pit bull."
Even though he stated multiple times that he was specifically referring to dogs owned and trained by criminals, he seemed more than happy to support a law that targeted hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Ontario dog owners.
Now compare his comments above to his quoted comments from a Toronto Star story about the OPP's new approach to road safety:"Every one of these collisions was preventable, every one the tragic consequence of inappropriate driving behaviour. I found we were focusing in certain areas when we should be looking at all the areas that contribute to diminished traffic safety. And that's what we're trying to do here."
I would like to point out to Mr. Fantino that, if he simply changed all the words "collisions", "driving", "traffic", and "motor vehicle" to "dog bite incidents", "dog ownership", and "dog", he would find himself arguing in favour of strict responsible dog ownership laws and higher penalties for infractions. He would not be able to blame the dogs, as he did in the past.
"I believe that in the hands of an irresponsible person, a motor vehicle is no less dangerous than a loaded firearm in the hands of an equally irresponsible individual. In reality, the potential trauma is tragically similar and the consequences equally unacceptable."
He would be forced, by his own words here, to lay the blame solely at the feet of irresponsible owners.
The full Toronto Star story can be found here.
December 29, 2006
Advice from an expert
Every morning, a quotation pops up on my computer. I was particularly struck by today's.
"What luck for rulers that men do not think."The speaker was Adolf Hitler.
As 2006 ends, I and many others have spent the last two years fighting Ontario's pit bull ban. An online conversation this morning discussed people's blind acceptance of blatantly false and disproved statements from politicians and "authorities".
My morning quotation fit in perfectly with that conversation.
I did a quick search for other quotes by Hitler and found a few, mostly from The Quotations Page, Brainy Quote, and Nazism Exposed.
I have not been able to confirm the sources of these quotations. I have no idea if Hitler really said them. They're just food for thought.
All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.Read the rest of this article
Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized.
It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.
The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.
The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.
The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.
What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.
When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."
December 27, 2006
Gotta love partisan politics
On Thursday, December 21, 2006, the last day before the Ontario Legislature's winter break, members of Provincial Parliament voted on two bills. I find the voting on these two bills disappointing and disturbing.
The first bill was Bill 178 - The Truth and Transparency in the Justice System Act.
This is a private member's bill introduced by John Tory. Its stated purpose is to provide more detailed reporting about the way in which various types of offences are handled by judges throughout Ontario.
The bill was shot down upon its second reading by a vote of 26 to 17. Although this seems close, my knowledge of the way things work in the Legislature is that the majority party was well aware of how many votes it would take to defeat the bill and only that many members voted. This view is supported by the voting on the second bill.
The second bill was Bill 173 - The Legislative Assembly Statute Law Amendment Act.
This sounds innocent enough until you realize that this is the bill that raises MPP's salaries by 25% and increases their pension from 5% to 10%, resulting in an effective salary increase of 31%.
I cannot say how disappointed I was that the Conservatives chose to vote for this increase.
The vote was 77 to 7 in favour of the bill. Only the NDP voted against it. Interesting how a lot more Liberal members showed up for this vote.
Thomas Walkom of the Toronto Star has some good comments about this bill.
In a following article, I will be providing a list of who voted on each bill, which way they voted, and to which political party they belong.
In the meantime, this information is available on the Ontario Legislature website. See for yourself how your MPP voted on these two bills.
Note the second-to-last sentence by the Speaker of the House: "This House stands adjourned until ... Monday, March 19, 2007."
That's three months away. Nice work, if you can get it.
To find out who the MPP is for your riding, click here.
December 19, 2006
Petitions to the Ontario Government
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation website, a number of petitions to the Government of Ontario, in particular to Premier Dalton McGuinty.
Premier McGuinty honour your pledge
On the 11th of September 2003 you signed a pledge to uphold the Taxpayers’ Protection and Balanced Budget Act if your party formed the next government of Ontario.
Property Tax Reform
Property tax reform in Ontario
No New Municipal Taxes
We call on the government of Ontario to repeal the taxing powers given to the City of Toronto under the “Stronger City of Toronto Act” and that these powers not be extend to any other municipality in the province.
Conduct a full forensic audit of Hydro One and fire President and CEO with cause
We, the undersigned taxpayers, call on the government of Ontario to conduct a full forensic audit into Hydro One. Any individual found to have falsified expense claims should be forced through legal means to repay amounts owing.
Ask Taxpayers if MPP's deserve a pay raise
The 25% proposed pay raise for MPP’s is outrageous. You have justified the raise by comparing your salary and MPP salaries to those of MP’s in Ottawa. Unfortunately, while Ottawa continually balances the books your government has yet to deliver on your pledge to not raise taxes and maintain balanced budgets. Even more troubling, your government is trying to fast-track this legislated pay raise without consulting taxpayers.
And, last but not least, from the Dog Legislation Council of Canada:
Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario
December 18, 2006
This is why we are where we are!
I received the following comment today regarding my "Ontario Bans Pit Bulls" article. This text is copied and pasted from the original comment, including all spelling and grammatical errors."Guest what? I'm breeding pittbulls because i have a male and a female pitt bull and they are having puppies. You can't do nothing about it Ha Ha."
Clearly, this person must not have read much else on this blog or they'd have no doubts that I'm AGAINST the legislation and I'm certainly not running around trying to find secret breeders.
To clarify:
I am against mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs. I am most definitely against mandatory spay/neuter for specific breeds. I am in favour of public education regarding unnecessary breeding, unhealthy breeding, and puppy mills. I am somewhat in favour of financial incentives to spay/neuter, but I'm still not sure about that one.
I actually end up fighting unwillingly for this owner's right to breed dogs because of the need to fight for the right of responsible people to breed dogs.
I hope this person realizes the potential consequences of their actions if they get caught:
I hope it's worth the risk to you and your dogs, buddy.
MPP's "mad as hell" at Kormos
Over the past two years, I have truly come to appreciate Peter Kormos, Ontario MPP for Niagara Centre.
As a senior member of the New Democratic Party of Ontario, Peter holds the posts of Justic Critic, Labour Critic, Consumer Protection Critic, and Community Safety Critic.
During the House debates and Committee hearings on the Ontario Liberal Party's Bill 132 amendments to the Dog Owners' Liability Act, Peter was one of the most vocal critics of the legislation.
Outspoken and direct, he outlined clearly the absurdities, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the law, as well as its constitutional problems.
Don't get me wrong. I recognize that it's the duty and responsibility of the Third Party critic to do everything within his power to hold the government accountable and to test the mettle of every new bill. I did feel, however, that Peter truly believed that Bill 132 was bad law.
Now, he's at it again over the government's recent introduction of a 31% salary increase for MPP's. From being kicked out of the legislature last week for refusing to back down, to making a promise that his own salary increase will be donated to charity, to insisting on house debate and committee hearings about the pay hike, Peter is not making a lot of friends in that House.
Note in the following Toronto Star article that Liberal House Leader Jim Bradley is expected to make a motion limiting debate on the subject. This tactic has been used multiple times by the current government in order to ram through controversial legislation.
Ironically, Jim Bradley is Minister of Tourism. As such, he is one of the most frequent recipients of angry letters from potential visitors to Ontario who now refuse to enter the province because of this government's discriminatory dog legislation. If anyone is aware of public sentiment against laws that are hastily contrived and speedily passed, it should be Mr. Bradley.
The MPP's are "mad as hell" that they have to work this week and possibly the next. Hmmm, I'll be working then. So will everyone I know, and not for as much money as these guys. I also don't get writeoffs and perks, nor do I work for only six months of the year. Unlike the MPP's, I'm also expected to show up for work every day.
Read the rest of the story here.
December 17, 2006
Ontario government accused of misleading the public
A ruling from Advertising Standards Canada has found newspaper