Caveat
Caveat
Caveat
Search
Alltop. Seriously?! I got in?
Login
User name:
Password:
Remember me 

Put The Big Red Button on your site
image
Locations of visitors to this page Who links to me?
incivility
Free Web Counter
Free Hit Counter
This Month
September 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
Year Archive
View Article  SO THAT'S HOW 'BREED' (HA HA) BANS GOT STARTED...
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 :>)

View Article  SUGAR-COATING MICHAEL BRYANT
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.
View Article  BRYANT OFFERS CONDOLENCES TO FAMILY OF VICTIM
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.




View Article  MICHAEL BRYANT, THE GUY WHO BANNED 'PIT BULLS' IN ONTARIO, CHARGED IN CYCLIST'S DEATH
Former Attorney General of Ontario involved in bizarre incident last night on Toronto's tony Bloor Street.   more »
View Article  THE LAST POST: BANNED AID BEAT OVERWHELMING ODDS
Phase One is over for Banned Aid   more »
View Article  MIAMI-DADE BAN VOID FOR VAGUENESS
Great news from Miami.  The area's 20-year-old dog ownership ban has been found to be too vague to be enforceable.

It's nice to know that some judges understand that the rationale for breed banning is a result of faulty logic, scapegoating and mental laziness.

KC Dog Blog has the details with a link to Animal Law Coalition.

View Article  AN EFFECTIVE GUARANTY AGAINST UNREASONABLE GOVERNMENT

It's time to post one of my all-time favourite statements from the Bench.  I originally put it up in August 2006 and again in August 2007.

I'm a little overdue in reminding myself why I got involved in this 'pit bull' thing in the first place.  In my view, it has little to do with dogs or 'pit bulls' and a lot to do with treating people equally under the law.

If only the dogsbite nutters and other low-information flying monkeys could stop repeating canned nonsense and take a good, long look at what's really going on, things would be a lot better for everybody.

Enjoy.

"I regard it as a salutary doctrine that cities, states and the Federal Government must exercise their powers so as not to discriminate between their inhabitants except upon some reasonable differentiation fairly related to the object of regulation. This equality is not merely abstract justice. The framers of the Constitution knew, and we should not forget today, that there is no more effective practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed generally.  Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively as to allow those officials to pick and choose only a few to whom they will apply legislation and thus to escape the political retribution that might be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected. Courts can take no better measure to assure that laws will be just than to require that laws be equal in operation."


--Robert Jackson, Railway Express v. New York

h/t Lawyers Guns and Money

View Article  HEY DALTON!



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



Chew on
this.



View Article  THERE'S A CURE FOR IGNORANCE
But you can't fix stupid   more »
View Article  THE NEXT TIME SOME MOUTH-BREATHER
Threatens you or your dog with harm or death, you might want to use this handy piece of information from the Criminal Code of Canada to shut them up:

Assaults

Uttering threats

264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat

(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;

(b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or

(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.

Punishment

(2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

Idem

(3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) or (c)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 38; 1994, c. 44, s. 16.



View Article  AURORA BAN UPHELD
For reasons unknown   more »
View Article  DOGFIGHTING STING SHUTS DOWN ANIMAL ABUSERS IN TEXAS
Too bad they killed all the dogs....   more »
View Article  AURORA REPORT
Paws crossed for a judge who can see past the red herrings   more »
View Article  AURORA CO BAN GOES TO TRIAL TODAY

Think good thoughts for the folk who are suing Aurora CO over its panic policy-making.

There's a good article in the Denver Post today which presents some facts that prove that 'pit bull' bans are nothing but 'pit bulls**t'.

Let's hope the folk in Aurora get a judge who can look past the hyperbole and snake oil to understand the core issue.  That's obviously the trick.

Florence Vianzon Sasek hopes she can take Isis outside for a walk through her Aurora neighborhood again without strapping a pink leather muzzle over the dog's mouth.

Isis, a 5-year-old American Staffordshire terrier mix, can't ride in the car without being enclosed in a locked crate and is not allowed to roam her backyard without supervision.

Today, Vianzon Sasek's lawsuit challenging the city of Aurora's pit-bull ban goes to trial in U.S. District Court in Denver before Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel.

The case was filed on her behalf by the American Canine Foundation, a Washington state-based group focused on protecting the rights of dog owners and promoting responsible dog ownership.

Here's the rest.

View Article  AND THE FOUR HORSEMEN RIDE ON
Or so it seems   more »
View Article  ONTARIO COURT UPHOLDS 'PIT BULL' BAN, LEAVES CITIZENS VULNERABLE TO GOVERNMENT MALFEASANCE
How and why this happened remains a mystery   more »
View Article  RAMBO: POST-GAME ANALYSIS
Who won?   more »
View Article  THEY'RE GETTING WARMER...

I think he's got it!  By Jove he's (nearly) got it!

From my great-grandmother's home town:

Pit bull law should be overturned

 

An Ontario Court of Appeal is hearing arguments this week that literally are a matter of life and death. However, because these aren't human lives, many people might not even know it's going on.

That, however, doesn't lessen its importance.

The case in question is an effort to have the Ontario government's 2005 legislation that forbids the owning, breeding or selling of pit bulls overturned.

Lawyer Clayton Ruby is arguing -- correctly -- that the ban is "unconstitutionally vague,'' and should be sent back to the legislature.

 

View Article  "WHO'S ON FIRST?"

Those exact words were spoken by Mr Charney, lead counsel for the government's team, at the Ontario Court of Appeal yesterday. This followed an argument that was a jaw-dropping adventure in obfuscation.  If his head felt anything like mine during his bafflegabbery, I'm surprised it didn't explode.  His ears became increasingly red while he tried to evade direct questions from the bench, which was funny to watch.  I'm really tired of the back of that guy's head, I tell you what.

He's the one who announced that there's no such thing as a 'pit bull' at our Remedy hearing in July, 2007.

He also said yesterday that he didn't like his own argument - on that point we can agree.

The day before, he gave us another great zinger:  "We're making this up as we go along."  No kidding.

He is a good lawyer, they say, and very senior at the Attorney General's office.  Your tax dollars at work.

Charney shouldn't tease, though.  I thought he was  prepared to come clean and admit he's been working for the wrong side all along but it was just a momentary lapse.  It must be tough to have to defend a law that is based on propaganda.

Our evidence and basic arguments have not changed.  You can view my original notes from 2006 starting with this post, Day One.  At the top you'll see a link to Day Three and at that post, to Day Two. They are out of order.

We pointed out various ways in which the Superior Court judge had erred and argued technicalities and subtleties as well as broad-brush principles in an eloquent, clear and persuasive manner.  Let's hope it was enough.

*

The Court of Appeal is quite different from Superior Court.

There are three judges and they ask questions and chat back and forth.  It's a very pleasant atmosphere and oddly, seems more casual than the lower court.

The government's schtick doesn't bug me as much as it once did and not just because I'm totally used to hearing it.  It's because it sounds almost quaint now that most of it is so outdated.

They keep on about 'pit bulls' attacking without warning signs, doing more damage, being dangerous, etc - all the mythology that was debunked four years ago here in Ontario by people who knew what they were talking about.  To hear it repeated this week was a trip down bad memory lane.

Think of what's changed since this Bryant nonsense started in late 2004.

Holland repealed its 15-year-old ban.

Lower Saxony changed its law when it was found that 'pit bulls' were the same as other dogs.

More studies have been done into canine behaviour.  More bite studies have been done.  More data have been collected.

The Vick dogs - what a great thing that was for us because it hit the mainstream media, hard.

We had the Ontario law found partly unconsitutional.

Many places have rejected banning dogs and have brought in generic laws instead.

A lot more has happened that's affected public opinion regarding 'pit bulls' in North America as well as the body of evidence.

We want the whole section of DOLA struck down, not just bits and pieces.  Our wonderful lawyers, Clayton Ruby and Breese Davies, explained all that and made many excellent points.

The justices were paying atttention and asking the right questions.  The government lawyers were typically disorganized and weren't answering direct questions from the bench.  I doubt that will win them many Brownie points - at least I hope not.

All in all, I feel pretty good.  There are always times during these hearings when I feel like butting in, saying "No, that's not true and I have the scientific papers to prove it" or "What's your source for that statement?  The Star?"

I will try to post a few more details about what happened later but I wanted to put a bit of a summary up.

The bench reserved judgement, which I see as a good thing.  Usually, they give their decision right after the arguments have finished.  In about 10 - 15% of cases, they reserve it.

We have no idea when that decision might come out.

In the meantime, contrary to the nonsense in the Toronto Star, I feel as confident as possible.  We've done what we can to fight this law.  Whether it's been good enough remains to be seen.

Since we're Canadians, we're never very confident.  It's a national trait - believing that every job could be done better.  Whatever.

When a law is based on a lie and then irrational and circular rationalizations are presented ex post facto as 'reasons', you have to believe it won't stand up to judicial scrutiny once the facts are made available.  To do otherwise would be to lose faith in the justice system.

I'm not quite ready to lose faith in the Court - since it's the only thing that can protect me from the government.

When I know more or can put together some notes, I'll post further info.

View Article  INTO THE FRAY
Step two   more »
View Article  WE GO TO THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL ON MONDAY
.   more »
View Article  ON THE BENCH
Instead of focusing on the politics of candidates for the Supreme Court of Canada, we should focus on the qualities needed to do the job    more »
View Article  YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO CUBA
To find rigged hearings   more »