Showing posts with label Ontario. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ontario. Show all posts

February 24, 2010

Who's a bully now? Brampton hires big-city law firm to defend the indefensible

[Photo from Facebook's Injustice Brampton Dogs on Death Row.]

It's official: Brampton bureaucrats have lost their minds.

They have hired a pricey Toronto law firm on the Brampton taxpayers' dime to defend the warrantless seizure [and, perhaps, the killing] of friendly dogs that have committed no offense. Dogs that belong to law-abiding Brampton citizens. That is, to the very people Brampton's government is obliged to protect and serve.

At least I thought that was the way it worked, but apparently Brampton officials think covering their posteriors saving face is their first priority, and cost be damned.

Imagine what people like this might be capable of doing to those poor impounded dogs — the dogs no family member or family-chosen veterinarian is allowed to visit.

And the cost? If Brampton officials are this determined to torment their own citizens and kill beloved pets, the cost may turn out to be far greater than they imagined.

Related:
More bullshite in Brampton
Brampton dogs: Still on Death Row

February 21, 2010

Brampton dogs: Still on Death Row


Hmmm... sure looks like a pit mix to me. Kilo ponders his fate during Saturday's rally for the boxer-mixes locked up in Brampton. Rambo and Brittany haven't seen their families for over a month, for some damn reason that is too incredibly cruel and stupid and petty for me to imagine. Stay classy, Brampton bureaucrats. [All photos from Facebook's most excellent Injustice Brampton Dogs on Death Row].

This coming weekend there will be a rally in Kingston, Ontario, to protest the persecution of responsible dog owners in the province. The rally will be in front of City Hall, Kingston, at noon on Saturday, February 27th.

As is clear from the situation in Brampton, Ontario law grants officers the right to come into a home with no warrant and confiscate a licensed dog that has committed no offense. If the dog isn't killed for the crime of possessing a short coat and a relatively broad skull, he can be shipped from the province and adopted out to total strangers.

"Issues like this must be thoughtfully and cautiously considered," say Brampton officials, as they spread fear and anguish among law-abiding citizens, and kill or threaten to kill good dogs. "Thoughtfully considered"? Spare me. Like all terrible legislation, Ontario's breed-specific law is at its disastrous worst when interpreted and enforced by idiots bullies like the ones in Brampton.

A few of the signs from Saturday's rally in Brampton. Did I mention that someone in Brampton's City Hall found this blog via Facebook? Leave the Dark Side, Brampton bureaucrats!

For more Brampton coverage, please check out the following blogs:
One Bark at a Time
KC Dog Bog
Brindle Stick


Amen, brudder.

February 11, 2010

Dogs still at risk in Brampton

Remember those two dogs in Brampton, Ontario? The dogs that 1) have never harmed or threatened to harm anyone; 2) have never been the subject of complaint by neighbors; 3) have never escaped from their yards or been found wandering loose; 4) have licenses and law-abiding owners; and 5) are by all accounts friendly, much-loved companions?

Yeah, those two: the ones facing execution for the crime of living in Ontario while having a short coat and a wide-ish skull.

The execution has been postponed, but the families are barred from visiting or even glimpsing their pets, and their family vet is likewise barred from checking on the dogs, which have been locked up for the better part of a month. [Habeas canis, anyone?]

On Saturday demonstrators rallied in support of the families and their dogs, and the bureaucrats are now "moving forward very cautiously."
The goal is to find a solution that works for everyone in the best way possible while respecting the legislation.

"Respecting the legislation" — Gah, I love that. Because defying a piece of crap legislation simply isn't done! Unless, of course, you happen to have a backbone and a shred of integrity.

For updates on the fate of the dogs in Brampton, keep an eye on the following blogs:
One Bark at a Time
KC Dog Blog
Social Mange

Edited to add
a new bog covering this story: Brindle Stick. The more coverage of Ontario's epic BSL failure the better, sez I. Thanks to Lori for the heads up.

February 4, 2010

Brampton officials forget to pull heads in before shutting window. Again.

These two dogs are on death row in Brampton. Crime: not a damn thing. They're nice dogs, with loving - and very worried - owners. Brampton sez they're ticking time bombs, though, on account of being "pit bulls." So Brampton officials have to kill them. It's the law.

How on earth [a commenter wonders] can a city veterinarian, in good conscience, euthanize a healthy dog that 1) has never harmed or threatened to harm anyone; 2) has never been the subject of complaint by neighbors; 3) has never escaped from his yard or been found wandering loose; 4) has a license and a law-abiding owner; and 5) is by all accounts a friendly, much-loved companion?

How can animal control officers justify entering a family's home and taking possession of such a dog?

How can city bureaucrats justify their willingness to inflict such cruelty on a dog and such anguish on law-abiding citizens?

Beats the hell out of me. But it's apparently business as usual in the Ontario city of Brampton: two families are sick with worry and two dogs have been impounded and may be killed, and killed soon, because of Brampton's canine version of the one-drop rule. Doesn't matter if Momma Dog was a Boxer and Dad was an AmBull mix: there might be some pit bull blood in there somewhere, and we can't have that.

Seems Brampton didn't get the memo that ignorance, hysteria and urban legend are terrible grounds for legislation; and Brampton officials lack the balls, the brains and the integrity to take a stand against a crappy law that hurts citizens, kills good dogs and wastes the taxpayers' hard-earned money. And that's where things stand tonight, in 2010, in Ontario, Canada.


H/T: One Bark at a Time

Related:
From Brent's awesome KC Dog Blog: The Problems with BSL - Brampton, Ontario Edition [be sure to check out the links]

June 14, 2009

Oh, Canada: the good, the bad and the ugly

First, the ugly. Canada's Supreme Court will not hear a bid to overturn the province of Ontario's ban on "pit bulls."

TheStar.com reports — badly:
Louise Ellis will never forget the horror and helplessness she felt when she saw her 5-year-old daughter being attacked by a pit bull.

But now she's breathing a sigh of relief after the Supreme Court yesterday said it will not hear a bid to overturn Ontario's ban on pit bulls.

"I'm so pleased with the ban," said Ellis, who still remembers the 1994 attack vividly. "The pit bull took the flesh off from underneath the eye, across her cheek and just down the nose, the bottom of the nose."

Ellis said her now 20-year-old daughter shows few signs today of the 300 stitches that repaired her face.

This just in: the number of pit bulls in Toronto has risen since the ban was implemented. Dog bans are quirky that way, which is one reason places like the Netherlands have repealed BSL.

And dog attacks still happen in Ontario. BSL doesn't stop serious dog attacks — it never has. In fact, let me tweak that news article: Korie-Lyn Edwards' grandmother will never forget the horror and helplessness she felt when she saw her 17-month old grandchild mauled to death by the family's own 10-year-old Rottweiler-German shepherd mix.

And now the Ottawa resident is furious that breed bans and the false sense of security they provide will leave other children at risk
.

This just in, too: there have never been any pit bull-related fatalities in the province of Ontario.

Canadian-Californian dog expert Jean Donaldson explains that breed bans are over-inclusive and under-inclusive: they target great numbers of good dogs that will never harm anyone, and they utterly fail to deal with dangerous dogs of other breeds and types. Breed bans are irrational, in other words. Unjust. Profoundly stupid. Worthless.

Dr. Karen Overall nails it: "[Laws] banning breeds will not make you safer, and the illusion that they will do so is dangerous to humans and unfair to dogs."

Oh, Canada [sigh]. You know better than this. Your citizens deserve so much better than laws demonizing and banning their good dogs.

*************

"Enough with the bad and the ugly, already — where's the good?" you ask. "Where's the good?"

I'm happy to report that the good — City of Calgary Animal & Bylaw Services — is so good it deserves an entire post to itself. Calgary's Animal Services director Bill Bruce gave a series of seminars in California last week, and I went to the nearest one here in SoCal and was impressed to pieces. Stay tuned for more.

December 7, 2008

Truth on trial

Banned Aid needs help, right now, this week, this minute. It's horrifying that some people, some judges, for God's sake, could look at urban legend on one side and peer-reviewed articles by AVMA and CDC experts on the other, and conclude that the truth about dogs must be, you know, somewhere in the middle. But there you are.

Please read. Please donate.

Breed specific legislation doesn't prevent dog bites and it doesn't prevent dog bite fatalities. It never has, and it never will. As a local Australian Government Minister complained back in 2006, "If I keep expanding the restricted breed list, we will have no dogs left in New South Wales."

And here's the issue: whenever the media, the courts and the city councils buy into the "safe breed"/"dangerous breed" fallacy, the general public is the biggest loser.

Instead of being informed and reminded about the importance of socialization and training and proper care and supervision of all dogs, parents are encouraged to think their families will be magically inoculated against dog bites if they simply buy a "safe breed."

I wish with all my heart that politicians and the media could be held liable for lulling parents into this false sense of security. Whenever a child winds up in an emergency room with an injury caused by a "safe breed" — and this happens tens of thousands of times each month in North America — proponents of BSL are complicit and should be held accountable.

As it happens, such a concept may be beginning to dawn on members of the press. When a Wal-Mart worker was trampled to death last week by eager shoppers, David Carr of the NY Times held a mirror to the media:
The willingness of people to walk over another human being to get at the right price tag raises the question of how they got that way in the first place. But in the search for the usual suspects and parceling of blame, the news media should include themselves.

Just a few days ago, the same newspaper writers and television anchors who are now wearily shaking their heads at the collective bankruptcy of our mass consumer culture were cheering all of it on.
Gawker thinks the NYT is blowing smoke:
Of course, it was just Wednesday that the Times was mythologizing gluttonous consumerism, and not long ago that it literally serenaded the frenzied crowds chomping at the bit for their iPhones. And the holiday edition of high-end-consumption porn rag T Magazine is due in the next week or two, right? It's true that Black Friday is a stupid, fake idea, but media cheerleading of crazed consumerism is here to stay. If an unfolding economic depression wasn't enough to stop rabid consumers from breaking down doors to buy LCD television sets, a single death isn't going to reform desperate newspapers.
No surprise there: 60,000 hospitalizations from dog bites each year still haven't transformed hysterical calls for BSL into editorials demanding that people take the time to socialize and train their new puppies. This doesn't mean the day won't come: just that we shouldn't stand idly by while the truth about dogs is, well, trampled underfoot. Please: donate.


In related news, the blogging world was saddened to learn of the tragically early death of Doris Dungey, an expert economist who wrote under the name Tanta. She died in November at the age of 47, of cancer.
Tanta used her extensive knowledge of the loan industry to comment, castigate and above all instruct. Her fans ranged from the Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times who cited her in his blog, to analysts at the Federal Reserve, who cited her in a paper on “Understanding the Securitization of Subprime Mortgage Credit.”
You may be wondering what this sad news has to do with dogs, pit bulls or breed specific legislation. This:
Tanta liked to chew on the follies of regulators, the idiocies of lenders and — a particular favorite — clueless reporters, which according to her was just about all of them. She did not approve, she once wrote, of “parading one’s ignorance about mortgages in an article full of high-minded tut-tutting over ignorance about mortgages.”
Consider that the average business reporter knows quite a bit more about mortgages than the typical reporter knows about dogs, and you'll get an idea of the frustration some of us feel whenever a journalist is sent [or stays home] to write about dogs, let alone a controversial type of dog like the pit bull.

But also consider this: during her lifetime Tanta's blog came to be recognized as a "crucial source of prescient analysis," according to the New York Times. A hopeful sign, perhaps, that someday the press may grant a dog blogger [or two or twenty] a bit more recognition. Yes, I'm a dreamer.

April 12, 2008

Sibling rivalry

Talk about throwing your grandmother under a bus: Dalton McGuinty's parents owned and loved a pit bull.

If a politician is willing to ignore the experts and pander to a lynch mob, it's time to vote for someone else.


Yes, that Dalton McGuinty, the current Premier of the province of Ontario, Canada — the province where any dog "substantially similar" to a "pit bull" can be confiscated and put to death based on nothing more than its appearance.

Was the "McGuinty family pit bull terrier" [as the dog is described in, of all things, a 'let's quit for the holidays' petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in 1987] a chained-up, dangerous, unloved backyard dog? Apparently not: Dalton McGuinty Sr., serving at the time as an MPP, considered this pit bull such an important part of the family that the dog is mentioned by name — Tory McGuinty, so help me — and his or her pawprint was added to the petition.

Poor Dalton McGuinty, Sr. must be spinning in his grave at the current state of affairs in Ontario. Is this what it takes for a politician to stay in office: support for the eradication of several breeds of dog [and all dogs "substantially similar"], even if it might mean confiscation and death for an elderly parent's beloved companion, were Dalton Sr. and Tory McGuinty still alive?

Ambrose Bierce called politics "a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles," and seldom are politicians less adept at maintaining a facade of integrity and intellectual honesty than when the topic is banning breeds of dogs. Pay close attention, voters, because BSL is a great litmus test: if a politician is willing to ignore the experts and pander to a breed-bashing lynch mob, it's time to vote for someone else.

Hat tip to Barking Mad, whose blog featured this important news today:
Hello everyone,

Our appeal for the Constitutional Challenge of Bill 132 in Ontario, will be heard on Mon Sept 15 and Tues Sept 16 [2008] beginning at 10:30 a.m. at the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen St. West in Toronto.
Room to be determined the Friday before.

We just want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has stepped up to the plate and supported the Legal Challenge of one of the most significant threats to dog ownership in Canada.

The response to the CKC fund-raising initiative has been overwhelming!

As we move forward into the home stretch, funds are still desperately needed to continue.

Everything is greatly appreciated!

On behalf of the Banned-Aid Coalition

THANKS!!

Cathy Prothro

President AmStaff Club of Canada
Sec/Treas Dog Legislation Council Of Canada
Treasurer Banned-Aid Coalition
Ontario, Canada's BSL isn't just "one of the most significant threats to dog ownership in Canada." It's a threat to my dogs and a threat to yours, no matter what type of dog you own. Banning breeds anywhere threatens all dogs everywhere. Please click on this link to help fight the good fight in Ontario, Canada. Do it for your dog. Do it for Tory McGuinty.

March 2, 2008

Toronto's gulag for dogs

Dogs aren't people. Toronto's city animal shelters aren't Guantánamo. But dogs aren't refrigerators or cars, either, so forgive me for comparing Toronto's shelter system to a prison system, a place of isolation and suffering, when the wardens issue chilling statements like this:
A sign of just how controversial the [pit bull] issue can be, animal services officials refuse to allow the media to photograph or have contact with the condemned dogs in their shelters.

"All it would do is make the public very upset about that particular one dog and whoever might own that dog -- it would potentially cause them further upset," says animal services manager Eletta Purdy.
"Make the public very upset"? And why on earth shouldn't we be "very upset" that a good dog — a dog that has never harmed nor threatened to harm anyone — may be scheduled to die because of a brindle coat or a broad head? Why on earth shouldn't a family rage that a beloved, trustworthy companion was taken from them on the basis of a law rooted in ignorance and hysteria?

We should all rage against such criminal idiocy — and against the politicians capable of enacting such flawed legislation. Don't imagine that their judgment will improve or their knowledge increase when they turn to laws aimed at people.

The blockquote above was taken from an article in the Toronto Sun: an article so badly written that the reporter never mentions the total number of dog bites recorded each year; and never mentions the fact that Ontario's lone dog-attack fatality of 2007 did not involve a pit bull. No, Ontario is not safer.

But if we hide the cruelty, maybe we can get away with it. Maybe we can disappear a few breeds and make Michael Bryant and like-minded bigots happy. And if the public doesn't raise too much of a fuss — well then, we'll flex our power a bit more.


No, Ontario is not safer.