|
|||||
|
Saturday, September 12
by
Selma
on Sat 12 Sep 2009 01:12 PM EDT
Finally, a video that explains how breed-specific legislation got its start. Thank you, Ryan O'Meara, for putting this together.
If you have been wondering what sort of person could possibly have thought that discriminating against dogs by shape was an idea with even a molecule of merit, wonder no more. If you suspected all along that dog-killing laws were born in a dark, damp, foetid place far removed from the light of reason, here's your proof. Watch the video from K9 Magazine by clicking here. h/t Social Mange, who has a nice editorial piece about Brytler this week. Read Navigator's Purple Kool-Aid and Bryant's Legacy of Death. Gee, I guess Soche is a bit pissed off. Or something :>) Saturday, September 5
by
Selma
on Sat 05 Sep 2009 09:26 AM EDT
Is anybody else sick of watching the media wankers as they paint Michael Bryant as the victim in Monday night's tragic incident?
Well, Fred over at One Bark at a Time has had about enough of it. Lori at Wag the Dog is really annoyed too. I started to lose it when the smarmy news-readers at CTV, shortly after Bryant was charged, were breathlessly analyzing grainy video footage on the six o'clock news. The point was that witnesses had reported seeing the Saab driving on the wrong side of Bloor Street on Monday night. It sounds bad, alright, but guess what, folks? There was a construction truck parked on the right side of the road, see? So Bryant had no choice but to go around it - he had to drive on the left! Phew, that was a close one! And so the bullshit flows. Lately, there have been stories in the print media about Bryant's family, about what a swell guy he is, about how many loyal friends he has and so on and so forth. As if any of that matters. It's so obvious that the slick PR firm hired by Bryant, Navigator, is behind all this sickly sweet nonsense. The question is whether the media minions are doing it because orders have come down from on high or because they, too are being cleverly manipulated by Navigator. They are practically arguing the case on the suppertime news and are painting Bryant as a sterling fellow who was victimized by that nasty cyclist. The day after the tragic incident, the insufferable snake-oil salesmen at CTV were yammering about all the collisions between cyclists and vehicles - thousands of them, see? It's a very common thing. They also ran the leaked resignation letter Bryant sent where he claims to be innocent. The next day, they were analyzing evidence - the videotape - to show why the wrong side of the road was the right side of the road. The next day it was all about how Darcy Sheppard, the person who was killed Monday night when he was knocked from Bryant's car, hit a mailbox and then smashed his head on a fire hydrant, had been cautioned by police over a disturbance that afternoon. The police sent him on his way, yet an unidentified person was commenting about how he was drunk, which doesn't make much sense. Spin, spin, buzz, buzz. I've been trying to pretend that Bryant is just a normal person, someone I don't despise, to see if the propaganda is as bad as it seems to be. I've even pretended that I like the little knob, that he's one of my friends, to see how the whitewash looks. No matter how I try to spin it in my own head, the relentless coverage and clear bias are so obviously over-the-top that it's an insult to anyone of even average intelligence. I'm even wondering if they've crossed a line since this is a criminal matter that will be before the courts in October. Everybody is saying Bryant will get off because of who he is (if anything, he should fry because of who he is as far as I'm concerned). I don't expect him to get life in prison, only hard-core deviants ever get that. I do expect him to be tried, convicted and punished, though, and I'm not talking about community service or house arrest. Through all the fluff pieces and sugar syrup, let's keep something in mind: A person is dead. Spin that, Navigator. *
The Toronto Star is seeing things my way this morning. They have a good article entitled, Spinning the First Week of Michael Bryant's New LIfe. Wednesday, September 2
by
Selma
on Wed 02 Sep 2009 11:51 AM EDT
The bizarre events continue to unfold here in Ontario.
I watched former Attorney General Michael Bryant's short comment after his release yesterday. There's a video of the statement at the Toronto Star if you want to watch. He was offering condolences to the family of Darcy Alan Sheppard, the 33-year-old cyclist who died after an encounter with Bryant on Monday night. He went on to thank people who were supporting his family. His comments made it sound as though Bryant thought he was the victim in the case. I get that the matter is before the courts so he obviously wouldn't comment on any details, but condolences? A simple 'no comment' would have made more sense. * Some U.S. readers have expressed concerns about the 'slap on the wrist' aspect of Bryant's charges in the case. Dangerous driving is a crminal offense in Canada, it is not a traffic offense. Here's some info from an Ontario criminal lawyers' site: A Dangerous Driving conviction results in a criminal
record and an automatic one-year licence suspension. Dangerous driving
offences resulting bodily harm can result in the accused being sent to
jail, and imprisonment for up to ten (10) years. An accused convicted
of Dangerous Driving cause death is liable for imprisonment of up to
fourteen (14) years. Criminal negligence causing death carries a maximum penalty of life in prison, which in Canada is 25 years. Here's the section from the Criminal Code of Canada.So Bryant is in serious trouble. Tuesday, September 1
Wednesday, February 18
Tuesday, February 3
by
Selma
on Tue 03 Feb 2009 07:04 PM EST
![]() 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. Tuesday, November 18
Friday, October 31
Tuesday, October 28
Thursday, September 18
by
Selma
on Thu 18 Sep 2008 12:48 PM EDT
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.
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. Sunday, August 24
by
Selma
on Sun 24 Aug 2008 02:24 PM EDT
Yesterday, we held our sorta, kinda, annual gathering to commemorate the day that Democracy finally died in Ontario - August 29, 2005, the day the 'pit bull' ban became law. It was also the day that Katrina hit New Orleans, which pushed 'our little problem' out of the media. Probably just as well, all that weeping and gnashing of teeth was hard on the nerves anyway. Our storm wasn't as biblical in proportion or as widely destructive but to those of us who know and love dogs it was an unnatural disaster of the worst sort. Our own bulldog, Franny, took a few pictures of the gang. It was very hot and humid, not good dog (or people) weather, but despite that the turnout was fantastic. We will win this, folks, I just know it. We know we are right and they are wrong - and so do they. It's just a game and the dogs the gamepieces, which is no way to treat your only friend. Due to traffic, construction and a couple of fender benders, it took us over 2.5 hours to get to Queen's Park - it's usually about a 70-minute drive. My air conditioning packed it a couple of weeks ago, so it was hard on my boys. The ride home was better but we were glad to get into the house and just relax last night. Warning: The wide shot is big, because otherwise it's too hard to see, so if you have slow service, you might just want to view the thumbnail. I have more pics, will put them in the file later, but I was anxious to share these few with my friends in the fight. Here's a link, click on thumbnails to see larger versions of the photos. Wednesday, August 13
by
Selma
on Wed 13 Aug 2008 09:11 PM EDT
I wonder if David Zimmer* saw this article today:
* *Here's MPP David Zimmer (Lib-Willowdale) being rude to a witness while showing off his knowledge of 'pit bulls' at the committee hearings into Ontario's dog-killing scheme:
by
Selma
on Wed 13 Aug 2008 03:16 PM EDT
The gasbaggery begins. Here's the kind of poppycock you can expect in BC fairly soon, if things follow the usual pattern. Remember, Bryant is one of your native sons, he's not from Ontario. Maybe it's a genetic flaw that made him such a ticking time bomb. I was just tripping through the Hansard from 2004, reading some of the debates about the Ontario dog-killing plan.
That's because Frank Klees is Spock-logical and also represents his constituents - two things that are beyond your ken, Mike.
You forgot to mention that they smothered one dog with a mattress, according to reports. Other important details about this strangely under-publicized story were left out but we expect no less from the tiny emperor sans des vetements.
Yes, the answer was clear but you defiantly forged ahead anyway. There was a lot at stake - your ratings in the polls and face-time on the six o'clock news, for starters.
So, there are clearly a lot of secret 'attacks' that require no medical attention (any dog bite requiring medical attention, even just cleaning, generates a public health record). Maybe I'm a bit thick, but if they are unreported, how do you know there are any, let alone many?
So when can we see these emails? We thought you'd be handing out copies in front of the legislature, or at the least, posting them on your website or getting your handmaidens in media to publicize them for you. Other guys read the emails they receive aloud in the House but you never do and I doubt it's for reasons of etiquette or sensitivity.
Wow, just the media reports and not the unreported incidents. Why doesn't it include the unreported incidents - woudn't including them bolster your case? I guess they're right - you can't fight irrationality with facts and logic.
Tuesday, August 12
by
Selma
on Tue 12 Aug 2008 10:54 AM EDT
Thank you, Peter Worthington, for your great column about Ontario's revised Animal Welfare Act (2008). It's time for those in media, who have a way of getting information out to the public, to start examining this issue in detail - as you have done in today's Toronto Sun.
Let's hope this ball will now get rolling. Oh, and I'm sorry I called you Cranky Pants last year, but you know you deserved it. Tuesday, July 29
|
|||||
|
|||||
















