My Photo

Petition to Repeal the Ontario Breed Ban


Oct 24, 2008


I hear ya, but youre preaching to the converted here. Unfortunately, most people are uniformed yet still opinionated. Heres a sampling:
Of course, it saddens me that three judges would base a law on media anecdotes. I had always assumed that judges were paid to think. How disappointing to find that they too are merely members of the uninformed yet opinionated group.

Thanks for the lead. about the (Liberal-owned) G&M story, Anon. For some reason, I felt obligated to leave a few comments on that trog thread.
Just doin my civic duty.

The courts have just opened the floodgates to legislated second-class citizenship, and Nazi-like seizure of property.

When I was a very young girl, I saw all the injustices committed against females and wondered what country could I move to, where I wouldnt face this kind of condescension, dismissiveness, and mysogyny. Considering the various countries, I realized there werent any, really, that could claim women arent discriminated against by men (assaults, rapes, murders, "honour killings/maimings," less pay, less opportunity, just general "sweetie" platitudes, etc.). I remember coming to the conclusion that Id have to find another planet, if I wanted to find a place where I wouldnt face gender-related discrimination of one kind or another. I was, maybe, 10.
Reading this ruling reminds me of that experience. When there isnt a single, reputable expert who supports breed banning, you have to wonder who the complete assholes are who fancy themselves so knowledgeable, they can disregard every reputable expert?
The decision makes it clear the author(s) doesnt have a clue about the issues being argued. You cant define a pit bull so how can there be any verifiable claims related to bite statistics, propensity, behaviour, enforcement, compliance, etc., etc. What about something as simple as muzzling? I would kick my dogs teeth out before I would arbitrarily muzzle it. Its abhorrent! A cage around the face of an innocent animal?!? Anyone who thinks thats an okay way to keep an innocent, harmless animal should be barred from animal ownership, in my books. If your dog is aggressive, youre to blame (either for making it that way, or not correcting it). As someone who has corrected aggressive behaivour in countless dogs over several decades, including dogs called "pit bulls", I know it can always be done. Aggression is a learned behaviour, therefore it can be un-learned or never acquired in the first place!
How about the continued acknowledgement that pit bulls havent been involved in very many serious biting incidents in Canada, yet the repeated use of incredibly flawed (and now virtually discounted) U.S. reports, as though they hold more weight than Canadian data. WTF?
Reading it, as an experienced dog trainer, I thought it was comical. It was absolutely no different than me writing a decision about a legal case (having very little legal knowledge), and having judges review it. What theyd be thinking (and the way theyd be chuckling at my ignorance) is exactly how I feel, reading this ruling. Idiots. No. Wait. Arrogant idiots. As far as Im concerned, this proves I have the authority to dictate laws on any subject known to man. I dont need to have any specific knowledge or expertise. I dont even have to listen to actual subject matter experts. Ill do what I want, for my own selfish reasons (career, laziness, stupidity, whatever), and be damned with reality.
I thoroughly agree that the arguments made in the ruling more correctly suggest that all dogs should be banned, since they didnt understand that everything they wrote was scientifically-baseless in reference specifically to pit bulls. If a tiny percentage of (dogs) might, maybe, one day, attack (and god forbid the victim might be an adorable child...never mind that such attacks are most likely CAUSED by that adorable childs parents, who put him/her in jeopardy to begin with, either by not properly supervising the child, or improperly raising/supervising the dog), then all (dogs) should be banned. If one kind of car can be driven irresponsibly, then every car of that make should be banned, and then every car should be banned. If we cant prevent every single car crash, then we must ban all cars.
Just this morning, some clown and his vicious German Shepherd almost took a chunk out of my dog, on a walk. He knows his dog is aggressive, but he cant seem to control it. My dog, perfectly trained, just ignores louts like that. And, for the record, the GSDs owner is probably twice my size, and my dog is easily 30% larger than his. It just goes to show that irresponsible owners of any sized dog are the problem (and should be the ones penalized), while responsible owners of any kind of dog, are the solution.
Chin up. Its always darkest before the dawn.

Its rather pathetic that during the federal election campaign, the federal Lberals were yipping about Harper and the Conservatives, while the provincial McGuinty Liberals are the worst threat to citizens freedoms in this country.

No guff, Soche (<--trying to keep the swearing down).
Fascist wankers, the lot of them.

I cant bear to read the opinion, but from your description, it sounds very much like what the Colorado Supreme Court and Ohio SC ruled.
The high courts give TREMENDOUS latitude to local jurisdictions, even to be unjust and stupid.
It doesnt matter what WE know or think.. that such laws should not be permitted, that they are unConstitutional. The Courts seem not to agree with us.
The only solution: throw the bastards out! Elect new officials and get new laws.

I vote for Selma to represent us for the next round in Superior Court.
As much as I have admired Ruby, I think he could have nailed some of our points a little harder.

Being in the court room I agree with this statement. I dont understand why much of what the Crown said was not objected to and I believe that Ruby missed on bringing up many important and pertinant points. It was all I could not not to scream out "Are you Kidding Me". When the woman judge said "the law does not have to be wise" I nearly dropped my pants and she has now proved that it doesnt have to be. I think however I knew then that the case was in serious trouble.

2nd that....Ruby didnt seem passionate about this.

Wrong, of course. He is very disturbed by this law. But I guess when your name is Anonymous you can say pretty much anything.

The comments on the Grope and Frail link actually brought me to tears. I cannot believe that so many can be fooled by so few but when the few are media personal and politicans looking to promote themselves through a gullible public, maybe I should not be so shocked? Sadly however, I am. I am shocked, ashamed and angry yet I grieve for those they "bite" into the "Bull". They have opinions that ALL pit bull owners are criminals, thugs, gang members and the list goes on. I have even heard Michael Coran, who attends my church, spewed this same prejudicial garbage. Meanwhile all of I have met over the past 3 three years fighting the battle against BSL have been wonderful upstanding responsible citizens of Ontario. I now see how McCarthyism and the Red Scare happened, how Natzi Germany happened. I am truly amazed that we are still living with this kind of mentality today. Ontario needs to hold its head in SHAME and I truly believe there are tears in heaven.

This isnt LA Law. Most of the behavior you see on US lawyer tv shows would get you thrown out of a Canadian court.

Thank you, Soche. I was going to say the same thing. Also, this is a constitutional case, not a criminal case which is what they usually cover on TV. Additionally, we are in a much higher court where protocol is more restrained.
I wish there were more Canadian law shows on TV because our system is quite different, although both systems are based on British Common Law. One cant help but wonder, though, if the Fiberals are trying to install the Napoleonic Code instead.
Anybody badmouths my man Clay Ruby, theyll hear from me.

I was at a party last night with a bunch of other dog owners and we started talking about the decision to uphold the BSL. The sentiment was that all the dog owners there were wary of pit bulls. All of them admitted that they had negative reactions to pit bulls even when dealing with pit bulls that displayed absolutely no signs of aggression. I suggested that pit bulls were like any other dog and that each had to be judged on its merit and while that made logical sense to almost everyone, emotionally, they could not be swayed. The next time they go to a dog park and meet up with a pit bull, I am sure they will react in exactly the same they have reacted in the past, with cautious anxiety.
While I may have managed to sway some peoples opinion on pit bulls on a logical level, one person at the party said he had no problems with the stereotype and no problems with the law. I explained to him the usual anti-BSL argument: that its a slippery slope, that it kills innocent dogs, that it puts families in great distress, etc. but he would not budge except to say that if innocent dogs were being killed then he wouldnt support that but he still didnt have a problem with the law - almost as if he didnt believe that dogs actually were dying and that it wasnt just a bunch of pit bull activists whining about no big deal.
These werent bad people. If anything, Id say that with respect to dogs anyway, they are much more supportive and educated than the average person. But, despite all that, they had little to no emotional sympathy for pit bulls. And they are the majority and unfortunately, in a democracy, the majority wins. I know that in an ideal society, minorities are protected but we live in a far from ideal society. The majority seem more and more to be driven by fear, hate and anger. You can get a sense of that just from reading the Globe and Mail comments - and Im talking about any of the comments, not just the ones pertaining to pit bulls. On any controversial topic, whether it be about immigrants or global warming or abortion, there is almost always a nasty undertone to the majority of the comments. As a society, we pick on the minorities and we pick on the weak. As supporters of fair treatment for pit bulls, we are the minority and we are the weak.
Dogs are an afterthought for the average person. On the scale of importance, dogs probably lie somewhere between the living room sofa and the car and thats amongst those that dont just hate dogs altogether. They dont understand that for many, losing a dog is the same as losing a family member - a close family member - so they dont see it as being a big deal that some social reject, because in their eyes, only rejects own pit bulls, will lose their dogs. The majority doesnt care that by creating a law that tries to make extinct a whole "breed" in their desire to weed out a few bad apples, they are killing thousands of good creatures, ripping families apart and perpetuating ignorance and hatred.
The majority wants cheap gas. The majority wants reality TV. The majority wants unlimited growth. The majority wants BSL. In a democracy, the majority gets what the majority wants (until its too late) even if its wrongheaded and unjust. I think the only way well get rid of BSL is to become the majority - or rather, make the majority become us - and that means the long hard slog of educating the public and changing public opinion.
Im not suggesting that the present law shouldnt be challenged. Challenging it is part of the fight. But that law, as repugnant as it is, represents majority will and right now majority will is still against us.

Hey Fred, I hear you. The reason people fear pit bulls, even though they dont exist, is because of a very successful long-running propaganda campaign pushed by our friends in the AR camp, such as the HSUS..
The fear-mongering by media outlets is so obvious to me that I find myself laughing out loud at the Fear O the Day as they valiantly try to spin interviews to get experts to agree that we should all be in a state of panic over anything from baby shampoo to rainy weather.
What the majority thinks at this stage is actually irrelevant; however, I agree that the public needs to be educated. I find the opposite, by the way. Maybe its the circles I travel in but most of the people I know and meet, even non pet owners, fully understand why this law is wrong. At booths people stop by and once we explain it, Id say at least 75% seem to get it.
Of course the law isnt actually about pit bulls, or even dogs - thats just a red herring. A lot of people fail to get that, even people who are onside to have it overturned.
Its about eroding peoples civil rights, using the property they own as an excuse to do so, setting a precedent in this case with so-called pit bulls and then applying it to something else. Read Bill 232, the racing car bill. I think it will sound familiar.
In Ontario today, as Ive written so many times here my regulars must be sick of it, non-offending citizens are open to presumption of guilt, reverse onus, restrictions on mobility, search and seizure without due process, unequal protection under the law and more strictly because they own a dog which an uneducated animal control officer believes is a pit bull that is too young, is unmuzzled or has escaped the backyard.
Incidentally, ALL dog owners are open to search and seizure without due process including warrantless entry on a pretext, as well as being convicted if their dog exhibits menacing behavrious, which is undefined in the regulations.
Thousands of dogs have been killed because of their looks, quite a few have been shipped to other provinces.
Tell that to your friends, it might give them something to think about.

In re the guy at the party that listened to your argument re the dogs? That will be the belief of most people, even if they think they understand dogs. Basically I think it shows a fear of dogs in general. Misapprehension of being mauled. That type of thing. Very unlikely we can convince people otherwise, but occasionally you will be able to do so. Those of us who keep fighting for the dogs understand tenacity all too well.

The only way that laws can be upheld, where there is actually no viable rationale for the decision, is called politics. Believe me, they probably understand it is wrong.
All you can do is all you can do, and pretty much thats it. If you can carry a big enough stick and have lots of $$$, you can probably do more. And I am wary of what the Ob might do--if WP and Ingrid give him the giant welcome. I think pet owners may have a problem. Im with J. Yates on that one... Wish us luck in aurora. maybe well get lucky. *wink *wink*

BO needs to be educated, and soon, about what animal rights organizations really stand for - hes a smart guy, hell get it.
Good luck in Aurora, we will be watching. Unfortunately, weve spent so much on this case that most of us arent in a position to contribute to your effort. Lets just say I could have renovated my kitchen completely and put up a sunroom for the money I personally have contributed to this case.

WOW. I wish I could say the same. Instead I have kitchen cabinets decorated with many years of saved pictures of all types of canines, but they need revamping. Dogs like to chew them. LOL We will do the best that we can, and that is all that can really be expected. Its still more than most people do, and even with some success now and then. Prepare and pray is my motto. If it doesnt work we must move on to something that will work. Perhaps a suit in another state against MSN or related commerce issue. I just know there is a right-minded Judge out there. somewhere.

My kitchen was last remodelled probably around 1940, painted around 1964 based on the colours and decor. I just painted it all, including the counter. That melamine paint is fantastic, its held up for over four years, painted off white over a horrible deep blue. I recommend it.
So, when I say it needs renovation, Im not kidding :>)
Maybe next year.

Affiliate promotion This is nothing but revenue sharing by an affiliate for promoting a companys product. An internet affiliate free program is a boon to a company looking to expand its online business.

The comments to this entry are closed.