Do it today.
Make a phone call, send an email, show up at a protest, stand up Your only friend would do it for you if he could.
***
Email addresses for the Mayor and Executive Committe in Montreal:
Posted at 06:37 PM in Hypocrisy, Montreal, Take Your Breed Ban and Shove It | Permalink | Comments (0)
In an unexpected turn of events, internet social justice group Anonymous has turned its gaze on Peta, the animal liberation outfit that exemplifies the motto "Better Dead than Led".
Here is their scary video for your entertainment:
My friend who blogs at iHowie.ca (check it out) kindly typed up a transcript for people who have trouble loading videos.
Here is the transcription:
"Dear Brothers and Sisters:
Now is the time that we must see the true lies of the PETA organization. People take animals to PETA instead of local shelters because they believe the animals will be placed in a home and not put down. Unlike local animal shelters, PETA doesn't even bother trying to find homes for these pets. All of them are killed within a few hours.
PETA doesn't stop with animals that are dropped off at their facility. No, they actively seek out animals throughout the community to kill. PETA sends traps to catch roaming animals all over Hampton Groves. These traps are designed to catch traps. Many of these are not just strays but people's pets. They have even ventured onto a local federal installation where they captured dozens of cats and immediately killed them. The cats at this particular facility were living in a federal cat colony. They were well fed, spayed and neutered and received regular veterinary care at the expense of the government workers.
PETA in their renowned arrogance decided they knew better and illegally entered the installation several times, stole these people's cats and ended their lives. PETA employees and volunteers regularly enter private property to capture animals, which according to former PETA employees are often times people's pets, someone's cat out for a midnight stroll or even just sitting in their owner's yard.
Car loads of cats are regularly brought to PETA headquarters by employees and volunteers whose job it is to round them up. One such volunteer has brought in hundreds of cats, many wearing tags bearing the name and address of their owner.
The animals are loaded into a small storage shed where they sometimes sit for several hours in the heat and cold waiting awaiting their date with the executioner.
We must address this now and not waste time. PETA must be exposed and not allowed to conduct any further activities. We will not stand by and allow the creatures of gods creation to be brutalized and killed for profit or cheap thrills.
The time is now. We are anonymous. We are legion. For we are many. Expect us."
Posted at 01:39 PM in Dog Welfare, Hypocrisy | Permalink | Comments (1)
Something's been bothering me for awhile. I don't know what to do about it.
It's the bullshit, doctor. It's everywhere.
Yesterday, as a contribution to the truth in advertising campaign, I highlighted a common, outdated meme using a Facebook poster (for want of a better term) put out by a member of the choir. It sounded nice and truthy but its message is impossible to verify one way or the other. I don't know what these things are supposed to achieve anyway, but that's another issue.
If you can't back up what you are saying with evidence, why would you present it as factual without any qualification? How is this helpful?
You can't fight fiction with more fiction. Isn't that what we dislike about media and others who believe a bunch of malarkey about dog owners? Why aren't we holding ourselves to the same standard we expect from others?
I was surprised when another member of the choir criticized my criticism because, apparently, if you can't prove it's true it doesn't mean it's untrue. I guess the opposite applies as well, then: If you can't prove it's untrue it doesn't mean it's true. It's a wash.
I prefer to say that if you can't verify it, it's untrue and belongs on the big steaming pile of horse-pucky labeled "mythology" until it can be proved. Apparently, I'm wrong in saying that a person who presents information as factual has the burden of supporting it. Who knew? I figure the first guy out of the gate has the burden of proof.
So if I say, for example, that yobs in UK council flats are fighting Chihuahuas in bathtubs, is it true? It would be pretty hard to prove either way so I guess it's not untrue then. (It wouldn't surprise me at all if that became the takeaway point from this post and got sprayed all over The Book. No joke.)
If I say that Dalton McGuinty's family owned a "pit bull" named Tory, is it true? That one is actually in Hansard and I've seen it spread by self-styled BSL warriors around here. It was a joke but there I go again, spoiling a good story. What a bitch. I should change my name to Buzzkill.
I guess that anything said by any crackpot with a website or buffoon who claims expertise is true if it can't be proved to be untrue. So when some piece of garbage like this comes out:
Stanley Coren, the Vancouver author of over a dozen books on dogs and their behaviour, is sharing some statistics [huh?] compiled by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
“This is quite astonishing. Although pit bulls make up only a half per cent of the total number of dogs in the US, they are responsible for 43 per cent of fatal dog bites,” he points out.
...is it true?
Nobody knows how many "pit bulls" there are because it all depends on how you define the term. You'd have to go from town to town, counting "pit bulls" to get the actual numbers. (I know that Alan Beck thinks "pit bulls" are only Bull terriers and Staffordshire Bull terriers. He told me so. He is a good friend of Stanley's. He told me that, too.)
So, are people saying that if you can't define "pit bull" and you can't count "pit bulls" then anything said about them, including the bullshit blanket statement that they are responsible for 43% of fatalities is true. because it's not untrue?
Is that how this should work in some people's minds? It is certainly why "pit bulls" are one of the best propaganda models in history.
You can't have it both ways, people.
I don't care if it's old messaging. It matters. I matters when hormonally unbalanced, demented "journalists" quote supposedly credible sources when writing hate-filled rants intended to wound people by hiding behind dogs. They can't be called before a human rights tribunal for spreading hatred as long as they stay focused on those who can't read - or vote. "Hey, what gives, just talkin' about "pit bulls" snorgle burfft schizzleconk bloob...you got a problem with that?"
It matters when some poor newbie stands up at a public meeting and quotes one of these memes (there are lots out there from which to choose) or uses an infographic from a supposedly reputable site like National Geographic that uses 'the facts' as a title for a graphic that doesn't contain one fact because he doesn't know any better, then gets called on it and is stuck for an answer. Oops. Bye bye credibility. For everybody.
Those head-cases with their demented little echo chambers out in the cybernetic wastelands where all the bigots hide like to bend the truth, quote from unreliable sources and just make stuff up. I don't know what their problem is, nor do I care because they are irrelevant to what we are doing. If you validate them by treating them as serious players, you give them power. If you don't care what you put out, you give them snips to use against you.
If you only say what you can support, you don't have to worry about the nut-jobs and nobody can shake you or make you worry about what might leak. It's too late to change is not a valid reason for keeping on keeping on.
You aren't 'educating' the [imaginary] public when you are spreading mythology. You are talking to your own, brainwashing yourselves, marginalizing yourselves. That's how religion operates - march in lockstep, don't rock the boat, just go along with it, don't stir up shit, just say it, don't question it, repeat after me wink wink nudge nudge, this should make everybody like "pit bulls" or hate "pit bulls" or believe in "pit bulls" - it doesn't matter what the angle is. It's truthy. Get with the program and stop stirring the pot, heretic.
I don't care what people believe. I'm not going to try to convert them because that won't be possible. I don't care if they hate dogs and dog owners. That's their right. It's my right to be free of harassment when I walk down the street with my dog, regardless of my appearance or his. It's my right to not have to sweat the neighbours because a law is in place that allows them to put me through if they feel like it for no valid reason. It's my right to not have the government walk into my house any time they want to because I own universally legal personal property. It's my right to be judged by my behaviour - not my race, religion, nationality or my personal appearance or perceived status in the community.
Anything else is irrelevant to this struggle as far as I'm concerned.
We don't need to make stuff up. We don't have to hide behind anything. We are right out there in the open, drawing their fire and their impotent ire while laughing in their faces.
I don't believe in truth or much else, maybe because I was brought up without religion and was taught to question everything from an early age.
I trust evidence. The evidence does not support BSL.
End of story.
***
There are at least three battles being fought around dog ownership these days.
1. The battle against the animal-rights driven agenda to exterminate domestic dogs. This is fought by brainwashing sensitive people so they will parrot nonsensical messaging about "pet overpopulation", "nasty breeders" and more. It is embraced by those who don't fact-check and don't think about the long game or even what they are 'saying' because all their friends are singing the same song. Ignorance is fertile ground for this agenda.
2. The battle against legislation that discriminates against a minority to allow the erosion of civil rights for the majority. This is achieved by using propaganda and distortion to create a distraction. It's a trick. It is not hard to deal with legislators, even obstinate ones in thrall to ideology. It's a lot easier than trying to inject some sense into the animal welfare zone in my experience.
3. The battle for 'hearts and minds' which is not helped by advocates who send out awful messaging that is supposed to inform the public at large but is usually just a turn off for many reasons. Most of it reinforces stereotypes and isolates them further. Hey, if you keep telling me you are different and your pets are different, why wouldn't I believe you? If you keep telling me to hate/fear your dog, am I supposed to ignore that?
Somebody told me I shouldn't conflate advocacy with marketing messages.
What's the difference?
Posted at 12:49 PM in Denial, Education, Hypocrisy, Repeal Ontario's Breed Ban, Useful Idiots | Permalink | Comments (3)
"Hey Buddy, is this the way to Ontario? We hear our kind is welcome there."
In his book, The Woodcutter, Reginald Hill describes a Victorian prison that has retained its forbidding exterior while totally modernizing its operations and interior. Keeping the grimy facade satisfies the 'floggers and hangers'.
Ontario's self-styled Liberal (please) government hangs on to the most ill-conceived, un-Canadian, pandering piece of legislation since WWII the way a Scottie grips a bad guy's ass.
Meet the new Preem, same as the old Preem. This is not surprising, since she has been in government since 2003. Optimists among us had hoped that someone new with no investment in Ontario's dog ownership ban would be able to let it go gracefully.
Alas, Ms Wynne (a member of a once marginalized minority herself - she's a lesbian) not only refuses to acknowledge her government's grave mistake, but is supporting the legislation for reasons that are right out of the Peta playbook. (It was probably the only source she could find that is a real, live looney-bin and not just a website out in the boondocks of cyberspace.)
On the one hand, "pit bulls" are supposedly the most abused dogs out there (they aren't, but you knew that). The thinking is that we must exterminate them in order to protect them. I shudder to think what their cure for child abuse would be.
On the other, a couple of people had been savagely abused by "pit bulls" so action was required. Now, in case you thought they had a similar solution to that problem, rest easy-ish. Again, it's "pit bulls" who must go.
Sticky wicket for "pit bull" owners, eh, because enforcement of longstanding legislation doesn't seem to be an option. To stamp out crime, remove the victims. I must admit there is a certain elegance to it. Trouble is, the ones who are abusing "pit bulls" (other than the ones who spread lies through media) are the people who enact and cling to this type of legislation.
But cheer up, Charlie, there is hope on the horizon! In the US, new Bills are being brought forward almost daily to make breed/shape-specific legislation illegal at the State level. And they are passing. Towns and cities are rejecting BSL out of hand or repealing it. More and more places are becoming enlightened. Check out Stop BSL for updates and lots of other useful information.
Sure, there are pockets of corruption (h/t Bronwen) out there, but it's pretty much over, thanks to a lot of dedicated people all over this continent (and others). We are winning. We are the good guys, after all, so we are supposed to win (#happily_ever_after).
Ontario may soon be the last jurisdiction of any note to cling to its legislated bigotry. BSL gives permission to hate for superficial reasons. It is enacted to supposedly target 'dealers' and 'gang-bangers', terms which are just dog whistles for young men who are poor or new to the country. BSL is only supported by those who either know nothing about it or directly benefit from it. The true evil of it is that it panders to those who just have to hate something or someone and don't care much whom or what it is.
It's an embarrassment to real Canadians to have had such a law even considered, never mind enacted, especially in the face of overwhelming opposition by every expert out there and tens of thousands of citizens.
It must go and so must those who passed it and continue to support it.
Remember when an election is finally announced to
VOTE AS IF YOUR FRIEND'S LIFE DEPENDS ON IT
It's the least you can do.
I see that Brent at KC Dog Blog is also in a positive frame of mind this week.
Posted at 01:34 PM in Fiberal, Hypocrisy, Take Your Breed Ban and Shove It, Witch Hunts | Permalink | Comments (3)
MPP Bob Delaney, Liberal Member for Mississauga-Streetsville, was at a family fun skate today. The event was free for all and from what I've heard, missed turning into a free-for-all by a dog's whisker.
When a constituent wanted to discuss Ontario's noxious dog ownership ban, whereby dogs are restricted and prohibited based strictly on their physical appearance, not their behaviour, Member Bob distracted her by bongo-tapping on the table, stood up, faked left and deked right into the Men's room to get away.
What a hunk of man!
Delaney was Chair of the Committee in 2005 when all Liberal members obeyed McDad and ignored expert advice and experience, preferring to marginalize dog owners. Fib Committee members voted down every amendment written to improve the legislation. Delaney gaily stood up to be counted on March 1, 2005, helping to pass Ontario's "pit bull" ban into law. He voted against us again in February 2012 when Bill 16 came up for Second Reading.
Bob acts as if we are all fools who think the law is about dangerous "pit bulls" and protecting people from dog bites. Even Big Daddy Dalton's lawyer said that wasn't true in open court in 2007.
Maybe Mrs Delaney's little boy is out of the loop, or hopes that if he just keeps slinging it, eventually some of it will stick, somewhere.
Delaney said to the woman at the rink today that he's glad the "vicious killing machines" are gone and that he will support the ban, forever.
The vicious killing machines in Ontario are Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government, of which MPP Delaney is a proud supporter, and the OSPCA. They certainly aren't domestic dogs, unless you're a rodent or a weasel.
Forever has a way of not being that long, Delaney, when you aren't holding up your end.
Wake up, Ontario voters! Give this charlatan and his ilk the bums' rush at the next election.
Don't let them get away with this nonsense.
Brindlestick covered this as well.
Posted at 09:09 PM in Fiberal, Hypocrisy, Repeal Ontario's Breed Ban, Take Your Breed Ban and Shove It | Permalink | Comments (1)
Animals, especially dogs and cats, are big business these days.
The pet industry is huge, with revenue in the billions annually in both the US and Canada.
A lot of revenue is also being generated by charities, rescues and advocacy groups. Unfortunately, these outfits are not all what they seem.
Here's an excerpt from a press release issued by the Canada Revenue Agency about the revocation of charitable status for The Animals' Charity, a group I'd never heard of until today.
The Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) audit has revealed that the Organization failed to devote its resources exclusively to its own charitable activities by participating in a promoted donation arrangement in 2008. As a direct result, the Organization issued donation receipts exceeding $9 million for cash and shares purportedly traded on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. Of the $1 million the Organization received in cash, it paid fundraising fees equivalent to 90% of the cash received to the donation arrangement promoter, Innovative Gifting Inc. It is the view of the CRA that the property for which the tax receipts were issued did not legally qualify as gifts; that the Organization failed to demonstrate that it had actually received the tax-receipted property; and that the Organization failed to report the fair market value of the property purportedly gifted. Additionally, the Organization has operated for the non-charitable purpose of promoting a donation arrangement and for the private benefit of the donation arrangement promoters.
Litte "rescue" groups pop up like mushrooms and disappear in short order. Anybody can set up a website these days, and a Facebook page is even easier to create if you want to look like the real deal.
Here, look at this. It's just a small sample of what is operating because these are groups that actually have websites, etc. Some of these names are familiar, some aren't. Animal "rescue" has become a huge cottage industry in Ontario.
There are good rescues and bad ones. I want to be very clear about that. The bad guys are doing even more harm to the good people in rescue and advocacy than they are to soft-hearted contributors. They are tarnishing everybody's good name.
One of the first indications that somebody is serious is if they are a registered charity, because it means they are accounting for revenue and expenditures each year. But as we've just seen, even charitable status is no guarantee that your donation is going to where you think it is going.
A lot of "rescues" are just people who are taking advantage of unwanted dogs and your kind heart and are selling them on Kijiji and other sites, using the term "adoption". They are con artists who are making a buck on the backs of innocent animals, just like the millers and uncaring breeders are. To them, a dog is a commodity.
From NCIS LA: "Rescue dog. Everybody wants a rescue dog. It's cool to have a rescue dog these days."
It's true. Everybody wants a story.
"Animal protection" ( the new term for animal liberation now that animal "rights" is blown), groups are taking in millions from people who aren't familiar with the philosophy. The thinking seems to be that if they can afford to run well produced ads and have celebrity (usually has-been or C list) endorsements, they must be OK. These organizations believe that domestic animals should be rendered extinct and that humans should have no interaction with other species. You don't have to drill down far to find that out but most people don't do it, likely because of the emotional pitch of the advertising which is designed to pull the heart-strings while bypassing the head.
The whole celebrity culture is a big topic, but the widespread and wide-eyed belief that just because somebody is telegenic, can lie well and fake emotions ie, act, it makes them a trustworthy source, really needs to go bye the bye. There are obvious exceptions, but overall if the person has more replacement parts than original parts, there's a good chance they are faking everything, including their earnest concern "for the animals". Just sayin'.
So, what to do?
Ask around. Ask people you know who may be more plugged in. Don't fall for promo on a website or a sad picture.
Begging for money on Facebook can often be a red flag. Established groups are set up to take donations by PayPal, credit card, cheque, etc. They have mailing addresses, even.
Ask for references and check them. How many animals have they placed? What progress have they made for the cause? Ask for references from people who have dealt with them, including pounds or shelters they may claim to be affiliated with.
Are they a registered charity or an incorporated not-for-profit? Charities must keep any political activity, lobbying, etc to a minimum so a good advocacy group will have incorporated as a not-for-profit instead.
While being registered obviously doesn't prevent dishonesty, it does mean that they are accountable and have some kind of dispassionate oversight. They also have more to lose than some raggedy-pants opportunist who is here today, gone tomorrow.
Ask if they have insurance, including liability insurance. In cases where a dog advertised as a great pet turns out to be unsocialized, unmanageable or in need of expensive medical care, what is their policy? Are they in a position to pay any bills that may arise during a probationary period?
Demand a receipt for all formal donations (dropping five bucks into a jar at a booth doesn't count).
Ask how long they have been around. Longevity usually means they are more likely to be on the up-and-up because word gets around quickly about who's naughty or nice.
Don't fall for slick marketing, sad stories and pictures. Don't believe everything you see on the internet. Don't let these dishonest, callous people break your heart while using animals for their own personal gain, or for a twisted agenda based on death and extinction.
It's a jungle out there and ultimately, your own gut feeling is one of the best indicators. While some of the suggestions I've made may help, in the long run, with "rescue" being an unregulated industry, and only a small percentage of groups even bothering to incorporate, you have to be careful.
Posted at 11:36 AM in Dog Welfare, Hypocrisy | Permalink | Comments (1)
Just kidding. It's just that Dog Bites Mail Carrier isn't news. Or is it?
I watched Global for a change last night because I get tired of the pro-Liberal bias on the other major networks.
They had a report about a mail carrier who had been bitten by a dog. The story was about the increase in chases and bites to posties nationally this summer. Summer is historically when there are more bites and chases, for a variety of reasons, just as we see in warm climates.
I really felt sorry for the woman, her arm was wrapped up and she was trying not to cry. She is new to the job and was only subbing in the neighbourhood. She said the dog pushed the door open, ran out and nailed her, then the owner came out, grabbed the dog and took him in and didn't even come out to see how she was , let alone call paramedics. Nice. I think that's what bothered her the most. It sure bothers me and I wasn't even there.
I thought the report was handled well. It was a chocolate Labrador retriever-type who bit the mail carrier. They showed him on TV with his dogwalker, wagging his tail. The police said it was "an accident" and "not a malicious act" and "no charges would be laid"
Gee, what a surprise.
Remember mail carrier Darlene Wagner, one of the two victims of severe dog attacks whom the Fibs trotted out to testify in favour of banning "pit bulls" in 2005 (except she didn't favour a ban)? This incident is similar to hers, except there were two dogs in that one and she was really worked over, mostly due to the dog owner's stupidity. No charges were laid in her case, either.
I wonder when the House debates will begin to talk about a ban on a) retrievers, b) Labrador retrievers, c) Chesapeake Bay retrievers, d) Golden retrievers and any mutt that is substantially similar in appearance and physical characteristics?
I'm betting never. Anybody want to bet against me?
*
Global also mentioned an attack out west involving two mastiff types running at large who seriously injured a mail carrier. They said the dogs "looked like" the picture they showed of a Dogo Argentino. Points for a) knowing that the breed is indeed a mastiff type; b) helping to educate the audience that not every short-haired dog is a "pit bull" and c) not mentioning "pit bulls" once, not that they had to, wink-wink, nudge-nudge.
Here's the video from last night's newscast.
Posted at 10:42 AM in DDA, Hypocrisy, Media, Repeal Ontario's Breed Ban | Permalink | Comments (0)
Recent Comments