Caveat

HEY DALTON!

Dash Chewing A Tree Branch
Just like the scary 'pit bull' in this bit of
Committee Testimony

Chew on this.

ONTARIO: THERE ' S NO PLACE LIKE THIS

Update:  Great editorial in the Mississauga News today.

---

[...]

Oddly enough, Bowser’s master, 21-year-old Danny Truong, finds himself trying to prove the impossible – that his dog is not something that, technically, doesn’t exist.

Confused? So are many residents when asked about the law that prohibits ownership of pitbulls, a slang term for a number of cross-bred animals that carry some of the traits and genetic lineage of dogs such as those of the Molosser canine family.

The legistlation refers to bull terrier breeds and dogs that have “an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar” to those breeds.

Both the legislation and its definitions are vague, about as clear as mud, leaving residents and law enforcers alike to wrestle with its application and to prove the unprovable.
[...]

---

Update: Danny's got a Facebook Page:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=7406&post=26375&uid=61941358224#/group.php?gid=61941358224


Remember I said I was in court last Friday?

The Mississauga News came down to cover the story.  I was a bit crabby about that (sorry Julia) because I hoped that the City would see the light before the screaming started.  Oh well, it's their party and they can cry if they want to.

Another innocent dog owner has been tagged by the Mississauga Christmas 'Pit Bull' Program. 

This time, a bargain-basement neutering-only clinic took it upon themselves to:

a)  Try to determine the ancestry of a mutt;
b)  Call Mississauga Animal Control to rat out the owner because of an alleged  illegal 'pit bull'.

Seriously, does the term 'prohibited dog' bother anybody else, or is it just me?

It is of some concern that almost every person charged in Ontario has belonged to an ethnic minority or has lived with a member of an ethnic minority.

Danny never thought his dog was a 'pit bull'.  None of his friends at the dog park, where he's been a regular since Bowser was little, ever said they thought he looked like a banned dog.  They're all furious and are writing testimonials for him.  His regular vet never mentioned it.  He's been all over the place, his dog is trained, socialized to play with other dogs, and is friendly with people.  He walks him every day.  Most of all, he loves him.  Bowser is the first dog Danny's ever owned.

People have a right to know whether or not they are breaking a law, in other words, to understand a law.  I defy anyone to accomplish that to any degree of certainty with DOLA. This law is not based on behaviour, it's based on appearance alone.  It's all guesswork and vagueness and the subjective opinions of unaccredited people based on unmeasurable qualities - which is why this law is completely rigged against a dog owner right out of the gate.  The government could never, ever win any other way.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  The only owners of short-haired dogs who are safe in Ontario are the owners of the extremely rare banned purebreds.  They are the only ones who know exactly where they stand.  The rest are easy meat for any wannabe gunslinger or ignoramus on the street who thinks he knows his stuff.

Welcome to the Formerly Democratic Republic of Ontaristan, where we say one thing and do the opposite.  Of course, bilge trickles down and it doesn't get much more rancid than the effluent that oozes from Queen's Park these days.

Public safety, my ass.  What about our safety?  Danny's safety?  Oh, I forgot, dog owners are second-class citizens in this place now, especially if their dogs are mutts - like 90% of the dogs in Ontario.

They still have time to come to their senses in Mississippi Mississauga and face the fact that Bowser is not a 'pit bull' within the meaning of the law - enforcement of which is entirely optional, anyway.

If not, this case will go to court to prove that.  I guess Mississippi Mississauga will blow, oh I don't know, fifty grand or so of the taxpayers' hard-earned money trying to take a good dog away from a good owner who loves him because he might vaguely resemble another mutt in another part of the province that had an irresponsible owner many years ago. 

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

I didn't vote for McGuilty the first time, let alone the second time he ran for office, even though I am extremely liberal in outlook.  In case nobody's noticed, these guys are not liberal in any sense of the word, despite their name.  I didn't trust McGuinty.  If I were still in St Paul's I would not have voted for Bryant - didn't trust him either.  Yet both were elected and worse, re-elected.  Now everybody is whining about the nannying and the secrecy and the fiscal mismanagement and the overall failure.

Hey, where have you been?  They started at pathetic and have descended into abysmal.

Unless you're a fan of discrimination - then they're world-class.

ONTARIO PARLIAMENT NOW ONLINE

The Ontario Legislative Proceedings are now available online.

So, if you aren't cranky enough or are losing your edge, just tune in!

I've added the link to my Useful Links group on the left sidebar.

McGuinty changed the schedule so Question Period, etc, takes place in the morning now.  People suspect that was to foil media, ie, it pretty much guarantees that a lot of the bad stuff won't hit the news.  It also keeps things a bit outdated, since preparation must now take place the day before, or very early in the morning.

Gotta love that McGuinty - he's absolutely shameless.

TRICK OR TRICK!

DALTON McGUINTY: A PRUDENT FISCAL MANAGER?

Jim Wilson, MPP Queen's Park Report

Dalton McGuinty's "Prudent" Leadership   Prudent is described in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary as meaning "careful to provide for the future" and "discreet or cautious; circumspect" or "having or exercising good judgement."  It is also what Premier Dalton McGuinty promises to practice during this time of economic uncertainty. Some of Mr. McGuinty's prudent spending includes the following: $6 million to remove the 'C' from the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation's logo; $2.3 million for the opening gala of Caesars Windsor casino - that's an addition to the $400 million for casino renovations; $2 million for an incomplete report on youth violence in Ontario; $219,000 to redesign the Ontario trillium logo so it looks closer to the trillium used in the Liberal Party logo; $200,000 in court costs to try to gag lottery fraud victim Bob Edmonds; and, $600,000 to fight the parents of autistic children in court. Mr. McGuinty's idea of prudent spending is to also increase overall provincial spending from $68 billion when he came to office to $96 billion today.  Now think about that.  It took 136 years for Ontario to achieve an annual budget of $68 billion.  It took Dalton McGuinty only five years to hike that annual budget by $28 billion - a 41% increase. Not unlike the budget, the public service has also seen a nice increase under Mr. McGuinty's leadership.    When he took office he inherited from the previous PC government a public service that had 48,163 employees.  In 2007 that number had increased by 17,837 or a 37% increase giving it just over 66,000 employees by the end of last year. In fact, he's hired so many people that he's increased the public service in Ontario more than all other provinces put together over the same time period. No joke. And the number of these people making over $100,000 has gone up by 27% -- all of this at a time when over 300,000 people received a 100% pay cut - they lost their jobs. Keep in mind that those figures do not include our valuable and needed teachers, nurses, firefighters, doctors and others who work in the broader public sector. Sounding prudent yet? Don't worry, by Mr. McGuinty's definition it's about to get even more prudent.  Have a peek at government advertising.  It went from just under $98 million in fiscal year 2004-05 to just over $153 million 2006-07.  That just includes the actual cost to place the ads in the newspaper, television, radio or magazines.  What it doesn't include is the agency fees (money that goes to fancy PR firms to create the ads), third party production, talent, distribution or other costs.  Imagine how high those costs went. Mr. McGuinty's "prudent" record is beginning to resemble David Peterson's tax and spend legacy and is in stark contract to the previous PC government's legacy.  That is when we went from a real $11.7 billion deficit left over from the NDP to five consecutive balanced budgets, including achieving our target to reduce provincial debt by $5 billion from the 1998-99 level. Under Premier Harris we went from worst to first in terms of economic growth and new jobs.  Now Mr. McGuinty has taken us back from first to worst.  Dead last in all of Confederation.  That's what Dalton McGuinty says is "prudent."

HOW THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT REALLY WORKS

Via Caledonia Wake-Up Call:

With the ongoing problems in Caledonia one has to asked whether there are any leaders elected to Queen's Park. In our view there are lots of MPP who say and do nothing until the party tells them but few, if any, are leaders.

Conservative MPP Randy Hillier appears to be one of the few leaders around - http://dustmybroom.com/content/view/5823/1/

Quote from Mr. Hillier:

"I think probably my greatest moment (of realisation as working MPP) is finding out that government really is as bad as most people think it is. The politicians in government have abdicated their (democratic) responsibility (to constituents) to such a large degree, that many of them have become just figure heads. So often you see in the house (Ont. legislature) that members have been reduced to spitting out party lines, created by the party, handed to them on a piece of paper and told, “this is what you’re going to say today”.  There’s one other thing I should mention here about  “low-lifes”. Just that the amount of influence by special interest groups in government policy is absolutely atrocious. It’s even gotten so far as government funding these special interest groups to then lobby government back to hire its lobbyists back to change government policies in advance of the interest groups.

As people have vacated their participation in democracy,… it’s been filled by special interest groups…so it’s gotten to the point where to politicians, unless you’re a special interest group, your point of view is unimportant. We especially see this on the environmental side,… but others as well."

OTTAWA NOT ENFORCING PROVINCIAL ' PIT BULL ' BAN

There's a good article in the Ottawa Citizen today (thanks to Lori for sending it along).

It explains why the City of Ottawa, our nation's capital, is ignoring the provincial ban on the much-mythologized but nonexistent 'pit bull' type of dog.

Provincially banned canines common in Ottawa

Officials will act against dangerous animals, but lack resources to enforce law

Patrick Dare, The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Friday, October 24, 2008

OTTAWA - The Ontario government was on a mission a few years ago to rid the province of pit bull-type dogs and passed a law to ban them. But, in Ottawa, the animals are commonplace and city officials are opting to let them alone, as long as they behave.

The City of Ottawa says it will act when a dog of any breed presents a threat to public safety, but the city is not trying to crack down on pit bull-type dogs because it doesn't have the resources to do so, and the law pertaining to the dogs is difficult to enforce.

Susan Jones, director of bylaw enforcement for Ottawa, says that Ontario municipalities told the provincial government in 2005 that they would need some help from the province if it wanted a crackdown on the dogs. No assistance was sent.

According to this report, 300 calls have been received about purported 'pit bulls' since January, 2006, which averages to about 10 per month.  This sounds like a lot of calls until we discover that Ottawa averages 7,000 calls a year for animal-related issues, about 200 for dog bites.  The author points out that many of these calls are from 'pit bull' type owners seeking some clarification of the vague legislation enacted by Chicken Little Bryant in 2005.  So, out of 17,500 calls since January 2006, 300, or 1.7%, related to 'pit bull' inquiries.  Per the norm, we see that 98.3% of all calls to animal control do not involve 'pit bull' types.

The article goes on to explain that the law is unenforceable and that the costs involved in court battles make enforcement fiscally irresponsible.  The average case against a dog owner in Ontario is putting between $75 - 100,000 on the taxpayers' tab.

Speaking of court battles, I wonder how much the Attorney General has wasted in defending the law in court for the past two-and-a-half years?  It's a deep, dark secret since they are not responding to information requests, even from other MPPs.  I'll ballpark it at about $10 million.  If the MAG would like to prove me wrong, feel free, but I know how much money governments waste, since they don't have to worry about keeping costs under control.

The piece points out that a lot of complaints are from people who are afraid of 'pit bulls'.  Well, duh.  The intensity of the 20-year propaganda campaign has to be having some effect, even on people who know how media play their little games.

Add to that the fact that what media hysterics have been doing is actually advertising 'pit bull' type dogs as being the baddest asses on the canine block, and the result is that a certain type of person will go out of their way to get one of these slavering beasts to parade in front of their fearful (and sadly, ignorant) neighbours.  Bummer that they rarely, if ever, live up to their penny-dreadful reputation, eh?

It's a classic chicken-and-egg scenario.

We can see that Bryant's replacement, Chris Bentley, is still serving the Kool Aid to his base of fearful ninnies (and obviously imbibing himself):

Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley replied in a letter that the existing Ontario law banning the dogs had reduced the population, and that allowing set fines may have the effect of minimizing the seriousness of the offences. He said in his letter to the councillor that the government won't allow the change to the law.

Bentley seems almost proud of the fact that thousands of innocent domestic dogs have been killed by the McGuinty government solely because his histrionic gasbag of a predecessor reacted to a situation he knew jack about, plunging innocent citizens who love dogs into a waking nightmare.

I guess he doesn't realize that the lead counsel for the MAG defending the ban in court in May, 2006, said at the end that they would 'take out the jail time, your Honour, and make it so that the vets have to come in to testify'.  Too late, Charney, we don't make deals with those who blithely install terror in the province of Ontario for no reason other than to grab a few headlines and bask in teh unrelenting stupid that ensues.  I wonder if Bentley also knows that the same lawyer stated emphatically at the Remedy hearing that 'there is no such thing as a pit bull', that the 'purpose of the law wasn't to stop dog bites' and that 'it was the purebreds we were after, we only threw in the substantially similar [in physical appearance] clause in case somebody had a purebred and lied about it.'

Speaking of lying.

Let's hope that nightmare ends soon.  Today would be good.

Here's the whole article in the Ottawa Citizen.

Crossposted at Wag the Dog

MISSISSAUGA OR MISSISSIPPI?

 

 

You'll remember the case I highlighted last week, about the so-called 'pit bull' pups in Mississauga.  At the time, I asked whether Mississauga animal control is out of control.  The answer appears to be 'Yes'.

I'm pleased to report that thanks to Mississauga City Councillor Carolyn Parrish, the persecution has stopped.  Animal control visited the victim on Friday to announce that she could keep the dogs and just had to license them and provide their documentation when doing so.

Well, whoop-de-doo, animal control.  I guess you got kicked back into the pack by Councillor Parrish and City Council.  Let's hope they aren't finished with you yet.

The puppies' parents are a purebred Boxer and a purebred Bullmastiff.  Does that sound as if it would even remotely resemble the medium-sized breeds named by the idiotic Bryant?

When you hire and empower small-minded, uneducated thugs to harass and intimidate people who are doing nothing wrong (or worse, when you elect them to public office), you open the door to cases like this one - and trust me, this isn't the only one.

When I put up my second post, the one with the picture of KKK operatives, I didn't have a lot of details about the case and was just drawing an analogy.  Burn 'em at the stake, burn crosses on their lawns, throw rocks through their windows, terrorize them because of their dogs' looks - it's the same mob mentality we've seen throughout history, nicely reactivated by the McGuinty 'liberals'.  Thus far, I've seen no evidence of a liberal outlook in McGuinty's regime.

I was unintentionally (but not surprisingly) accurate.  The person walking the dogs was a member of a visible minority, an African-Canadian (oh heck, he's black) healthcare worker.  This is just one more example of the kind of dog owner profiling, both racial and economic that's been going on in Ontario.  In many cases (most of which don't hit the media) owners have been black or Asian and almost all are low income - except in this case, they messed up because these people are educated and earn good salaries.

Was this kind of profiling McGuinty's intent?  It seems likely, given the tendency by media and government agents to slander and libel the owners of bull-and-terrier types by describing them as drug dealers, gangsters and punks which is code for people who are 'different', like their pets.

The owner in this case is a registered nurse.  One of the requirements of the nursing college is that any conviction for an offense that could involve jail time, even if the defendant receives a discharge, must be reported to the licensing body.

Here's the applicable section from the College of Nursing of Ontario:

http://www.cno.org/docs/ih/42011_fsSelfReporting.pdf

Reporting a finding of guilt for a

criminal offence

Members must report if they have been found

guilty of any criminal offence, such as those

under the Criminal Code of Canada. For example,

impaired driving and alcohol-related offences are

reportable. In fact, nurses should report when they

have been found guilty under any federal statute.

This would include a criminal proceeding in

which there was a criminal court trial, including

offences under the Food and Drugs Act (Canada) or

the Controlled Drugs and Substance Act (Canada).

Offences under Province of Ontario Statutes that

resulted or could have resulted in a jail sentence are

also considered criminal offences and should be

reported.

Well, since the insufferable Bryant rushed pell-mell into legislating a half-assed, worthless law intended to impress his base - the ignoramuses among us - he likely didn't give much thought to this possibility when he threw in up to six months' jail time for owning a 'prohibited' dog or not complying with any of the ridiculous provisions he enacted.

What this means is that if you are convicted of violating Bryant's bizarre legislation in Ontario and are a member of a professional body, you are in danger of losing your livelihood because an animal control officer decides to harass you, or an uneducated citizen with an axe to grind complains about your (nonexistent) 'pit bull'.

How about that?  Nurses, Accountants, Dental Hygienists, Engineers, Architects, Lawyers, Veterinarians and others who are either self-regulating or regulated by legislation could potentially lose their licences to practise in Ontario on those grounds.

That's why the victim in this case was reluctant to fight in court.  Too bad, because it would have been easy to win this one and these goons need a major smackdown, especially since they are riding high after the Rambo case.  This woman was absolutely terrified of losing her livelihood with three children to raise.  Also a healthcare worker, her friend was in the same predicament and could have lost his livelihood, too.

So what do you do?  Hand over your dogs to be killed?  Get them out of Dodge?  Go to court and hope you win, lose your licence if you lose?  Talk about a difficult situation.

I'd sure like to see some of these licensing colleges and associations step up and issue public statements to the effect that should their members be persecuted under the Ontario dog ownership ban, they will stand behind them.

There's no way, even in Michael Bryant and Dalton McGuinty's special hell for dog owners, that an uneducated dog-catcher or twit on the street should have the power to instil fear among upstanding citizens - whether they are professionals or not.

There's no such thing as a 'pit bull' but there's sure a lot of pit bulls**t being thrown around.

Thanks again to Carolyn Parrish, who probably didn't know she was going to be Mississauga's champion for dog owners.  Thanks also to the victims in this case for their fortitude and their unwillingness to hand their pups over to Mississauga Animal services - that helped a lot because once the killers have dogs in their clutches, cases become more difficult.

The last thing the brownshirts need is positive reinforcement. 

It might go to their pointy heads.

For some helpful information about how to deal with Animal Control/Services, please see this post at Wag the Dog.  Don't let them sweet-talk you, people.  They are neither your nor your dog's best friend when they are hunting for imaginary 'pit bulls'.

I can't wait to get this piece of garbage overturned.

 

 

 

BRYANT DEMOTED - AGAIN

Mike Bryant Discussing 'Pit Bulls', Oct 2004

 

I see that Brytler's getting farther away from where the action is.  It seems he couldn't cut it in Aboriginal Affairs either, although I doubt he upset as many people as he did when he was Attorney General.  Brad Duguid, aka 'The Weasel' is taking his place.

"Aboriginal Affairs Minister Michael Bryant moves to take over the Economic Development Ministry. Labour Minister Brad Duguid switches to Aboriginal Affairs."

We used to call this type of action Special Project when I worked as a programmer at CIBC in the early 80s.  That meant they gave the person an office, a phone and absolutely nothing to do.  Eventually they'd quit.  Much more frugal than firing those overpaid Exec types - no severance package required.  Heh.

Maybe Brytler should look farther afield for employment opportunities since Ontario doesn't seem to be working out for him.  He could go hang with his buddy Skeldon in Toledo, or visit fellow tin-potter Nelson in Denver. 

I can probably get him a job as a Schutzhund 'stranger' if he's interested.  I'm sure he'd qualify because let's face it, few are stranger than Brytler. 

He should give me a call.

ONTARIO ' S THIRD BANIVERSARY

(Originally published last year, with some minor modifications)

It was four years ago yesterday that a phantom victim from whom we never heard again was allegedly being 'eaten from the ground up' in Toronto by two dogs he had bred and was walking for a friend in the middle of the night.   Apparently, he was inebriated and had one of the dogs in a head lock when he was bitten.

I'll say one thing for our former Attorney General, he knew how to turn a colourful phrase.  Unfortunately, while the new Attorney General isn't as theatrical, he's as unable to think logically about doggy issues as Bryant, who is gone but not forgotten.

Shortly thereafter, the hyperbole came to town.  We heard about 'inherently dangerous beasts, haunting our streets'.  We were told that 'pit bulls' were 'ticking time bombs'.  We listened to wild flights of fancy where 'pit bulls' were '150-pound beasts, crashing through the fence' and were 'a breed apart'. 

Aren't all dogs a 'breed apart' when you think about it?  I mean, isn't that the point of purebred dogs?  A Gordon Setter is a breed apart, a Border Terrier is a breed apart, a Brussels Griffon is a breed apart - they are all breeds apart.

It was tough to keep a straight face (or to keep your blood pressure down) when that wacky Bryant was off on one of his rants.

While watching the infamous televised sideshow featuring Bryant on October 15, 2004 where he made these silly statements and others, I was actually more interested in one of the questions from the floor.

"Attorney General, there is no such breed as 'pit bull'.  How will you prove that a dog is a 'pit bull'?"

"We don't have to.  We're gonna to make them prove they aren't ...buk-buk"

Louise Ellis, whose daughter was bitten in the face by a dog she claimed was a 'pit bull' (a dog already on a muzzle order being managed by a lout who eyewitnesses say was intoxicated at the time), was on stage with Bryant.  Talk about a subjective thinker on a vendetta against a shape of animal.  The mind boggles.

Some people just can't extrapolate or generalize.  That is the root of most of the strife in the world today.

Anyway, on her way out she tossed off a remark about her daugher: '...but she loves her Springer Spaniel'.  I immediately emailed Bryant to ask him to have Ms Ellis research the breed and talk to her breeder because of a documented neurological disorder that runs through some lines of Springers and which causes them to - wait for it - attack viciously and without warning.

So, she has a hate on for 'pit bulls' but she has a Springer spaniel?  That is one knowledgeable dog owner. 

Our new Attorney General, Bentley, has a Springer spaniel too.  He believes that Bullmastiffs and Dogues de Bordeaux are 'pit bulls'.  Actually, I'm not sure what he believes, since he just sent in the form response written by Dalton McGuinty when we surveyed him during last fall's election campaign.  In a way, that's even worse.

There's another anniversary which is even more repugnant and it isn't Hurricane Katrina, although the number of dogs put to death by so-called animal protection groups during that situation is horrendous to contemplate.

Today marks the third anniversary of the enactment of Ontario's foray into the world of wilful ignorance.

Today is the third anniversary of the effective date of the Ontario dog breed ownership ban.

We're still fighting, we'll never give up.

How about you? 

Donate to the legal fund, help pay the bills for the case.  You can do that here:

http://www.doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/donate.html.

Every dollar counts, it really does.

We'll be at the Ontario Court of Appeals on September 15 and 16, Osgoode Hall, Toronto.  Keep your paws crossed for a ruling on the side of decency and fairness, will you?