UPDATE: Canada's Breed Ban - "Pitbull" Ruled Unconstitutional

Take a good look at this photo of Michael "PuppyKiller" Bryant  - and remember his face.

He is the man responsible for the one of the world's most notorious breed bans - a ban intended to exterminate pitbulls and their owners from the Province of Ontario, Canada

But poor Michael was looking rather red-faced last week after losing part of the challenge to his breed ban.

The Red-Faced AG Comes Up Empty

Let's just say that the Ontario Attorney General's pants were hanging down to his ankles last week when the appellate judge, hearing the constitutional challenge to Ontario's notorious  Bill 132 - "Dog Owners Liability Act", left some of the act in place but ruled that the term "pitbull", found throughout the law,  is unconstitutionally vague, striking it from the law.

We're not sure which part of Michael Bryant was redder - his face or his arse - having been spanked  hard in public..........

in a very legal sense. 

Now Mr. Bryant can blather to the media all he wants - and somehow try to claim victory ( I think I hear his handlers saying, "Spin it, baby, spin"), but he's coming up empty.  Why?

The Judge Rules For Innocent Dogs

Because when you have a law that bans pitbulls, followed by a ruling that rules that the government cannot legally use the term "pitbull", whaddya got?  A big FAT nothing!

We have one thing to say to the judge: You, GO, girl!

So what does this ruling mean for the thousands of innocent dogs and innocent dog owners throughout the Province of Ontario?

First - let's do a quickie recap, shall we?

The History Of Bill 132

Canada's notorious breed ban  - known as Bill 132 - Dog Owner's Liability Act (DOLA) - was rammed through the provincial government in an effort led by Michael Bryant, Ontario's Attorney General  - along with Premier Dalton McGuinty.

Now Bill 132 - outraged animal lovers the world over and was opposed by literally every animal organization in Canada.  But that didn't stop Michael Bryant - nooooooo-sir-eee-Bob - and Ontario's breed ban passed in a vote that split right along part lines. 

Something was seemingly upside down, too - for those of us here in the States - as in the party vote - the Liberals voted FOR the ban, and the Conservatives voted AGAINST the ban.

Bill 132 -The Planned Extermination of Pitbulls

But what's in Bill 132 - the notorious Ontario breed ban?

For those of you who may be unfamiliar with such an evil plan - The Dog Owner’s Liability Act:

• Bans Ontarians from acquiring pitbulls and says:
• No person shall own a pitbull
• No person shall breed a pitbull
• No person shall transfer a pitbull, by gift or by sale, or otherwise
• No person shall abandon a pitbull  - or allow a pitbull to stray
• No person shall import a pitbull
• Train a pitbull for fighting (can you say, duh?)
• Mandates that all owners of existing pitbulls must spay or neuter existing animals
• Mandates that all existing pitbulls be muzzled in public
• Requires dog owners obtain certificates from veterinarians to PROVE their dog ISN'T a pitbull (called a reverse onus)
• Allows police and dog wardens to enter a citizen's home to seize any dog fitting the description of a "pitbull"
• Requires that all pitbull puppies be shipped out of the province, sent to reasearch facilities or euthanized.

Yes -euthanized.  Dead puppies. Oooh - and violators face a maximum penalty of $10,000 and six months in jail.  Can you say breed extermination?

Who Will Save Innocent Dogs?

Bill 132 left Canadian dog lovers devastated, and condemmed innocent puppies to death - or rather a  fate worse than death if you count those research facilities. 

Who would save these innocent dogs? Who would stand up for the owners of these innocent dogs, and who would stand up against a government with such an evil plan?

Now maybe you were all thinking what I was thinking! - that PETA and Ingrid and Wayne Pacelle and HSUS  would swoop in and help save the day. 

And maybe you were thinking what I was thinking - that PETA and HSUS would put the resources of their milti-million dollar organizations at the disposal of innocent dogs and innocent dog owners in Ontario.

And maybe you were thinking what I was thinking - that PETA and HSUS would press the button on their magic media console, and fire up the legions of PR spokespeople, "issues specialists" and the like - all for the benefit of innocent dogs in Canada!

And maybe we both thought that the sounds of PETA & HSUS outrage would soon be heard around the world!

Alas - that was not to be, and help from the  PETA and HSUS calvaries did not arrive............

The Sounds Of Silence

Where was the usual outrage from PETA and HSUS? 

Where was the well-oiled PETA press  machine?  Where was the well-orchestrated HSUS PR machine that rolls with precision to asks us all to help save the animals?

PETA and HSUS were.........Missing. Their presence was .......None, Zilch, Nada.  PETA & HSUS were strangely quiet. I heard the sounds of ............ silence.

What - were PETA & HSUS too busy begging for money to save the seals?  Didn't both these organizations petition the Canadian government for other animals?

Didn't Ingrid and Wayne have time to save innocent dogs?  Or..............maybe Ingrid and Wayne didn't have time to save innocent pitbulls? 

Would it be because PETA and HSUS can't make any money -ooooops, I mean donations - off this cause? 

Would it be because PETA and HSUS actually back breed specific legislation?

Like when PETA's Ingrid Newkirk wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle saying that all pitbulls in shelters should be euthanized?

Or like when HSUS backed breed specific legislation in their letter to the Louisville Metro Council last year?

Such lingering questions, but I do digress .....................

The Province Of Ontario Kills Innocent Dogs

Now with Bill 132 in place - Michael Bryant's storm-trooping police went about the province seizing and killing innocent dogs of the pitbull persuasion, and even those dogs that resembled pitbulls - like labs and boxers etc.

And if you were a kind-hearted soul that rescued your dog - and thus had no pedigree to PROVE your dog wasn't a pitbull, then you were S*O*L* - and it was nite, nite for your dog.

Even travelers coming to the Province Of  Ontario with dogs resembling pitbulls risked having their dogs seized or killed.

Taking On The Government

So - Toronto dog owner, Catherine Cochrane, represented by prominent attorney Clayton Ruby, and backed by the Dog Legislation Council Of Canada, did what every-red-blooded dog-owner who believes in truth and justice and equal protection under the law - she sued the government. 

To help pay the legal expenses, the DLCC held bake sales, and fashion shows, and Candlelight Vigils!  Across Canada the people who stood up for pitbulls pooled their pennies to help save innocent dogs.

In fact - I would encourage every dog lover to make a donation to defray the mounting legal bills : DONATE TO THE DLCC HERE.

So months later, in an effort that took the cooperation of so many, not to mention the generosity of many, and the testimony of dog experts from around the world, dog owners had their day in court to help save innocent dogs.

And finally - the ruling came down from On High on behalf of those innocent dogs, and much of it in favor of those innocent dogs and innocent dog owners.

Not only that, but dog owners, respresented by the talented Mr. Clayton Ruby, jammed a crowbar into the lid of Mr. Bryant's evil master plan and jacked open the lawbooks.

While the ruling left certain items standing - the ruling cleared the way to having Bill 132 overturned by invalidating two crucial elements:

Firt - the definition of pitbull, and Two - the reverse onus of proving one's dog isn't a pitbull.

About The Ruling

First - the court ruled that the term "pitbull", contained in Bill 132 - the  Dog Owner's Liability Act  - or DOLA - is unconstitutionally vague, since there is no such breed and is striking the term "pitbull" from the law. 

However, the court left standing the definitions of the American Staffordshire Terrier, the American Pitbull Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

Second - the court struck down the reverse onus -or the requirement that Ontario's dog-owning citizens obtain a certificate from a vet to prove their dog isn't a pitbull. 

So while Michael Bryant and the government are all puffed up and claiming that Bill 132  withstood the challenge - we say read it and weep, Michael. 

In fact - if you'd like to read Bill 132 WITHOUT the term "pitbull" - you can get a copy right here - and see for yourselves just how gutted the ruling left Bill 132, now that "pitbull" is removed: Download Bill132NoPitBullBan.pdf 

Read it and weep, Michael - Cha, cha, cha.

The Bottom Line

OK - so for all you dog lovers out there - this is the bottom line:

The ruling basically means that all "pitbulls" - meaning all the dogs that are unregistered with a dog registry, or are unregistrable because they are mixes or mutts - are now safe (technically) from Bill 132.

But - that unfortunately leaves the purebred dogs, such as the American Pitbull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier at risk - these dogs are still covered by Bill 132 or DOLA.

So now that we're all clear on which dogs are safe, and which dogs come under Bill 132 - just how many dogs will this impact?

Ask The Right Questions

Now - the citizens of Ontario will be glad to hear that their Attorney General has gone to such great lengths to keep everyone safe from vicious dog attacks by sparing absolutely no expense.

Michael Bryant has spent millions of dollars to pass Bill 132, not to mention spent months and months and spent even more money on the lawsuit.

The good people of Canada will rest easy tonight knowing that with the murder rate in Toronto at an all-time high, and the McGuinty government defending against corruption charges left and right, and a failing school system, that Michael Bryant has spent every last dime to make sure every last "pitbull" in Ontario was either unable to reproduce or dead.

The good people of Canada will rest easy tonight knowing that from the year 2000 - through the year 2006 - that there were approximately 600 purebred dogs that would come under Bill 132 registered in the Province of Ontario:

• Approximately 60 American Staffordshire Terriers
• Approximately 100 American Pitbull Terriers
• Approximately 400 Staffy Bulls

The question for Mr. Byant and the goverment of Province of Ontario is why?

Why Ask Why?

Why would Mr. Bryant and the government of Province of Ontario spend millions of taxpayer dollars to ban so few dogs?

Why would Mr. Bryant and the government of Province of Ontario spend millions of taxpayer dollars to duplicate laws that basically already exist ?

Why would Mr. Bryant and the government of Province of Ontario spend millions of taxpayer dollars to promulgate and defend such a law?

Would it be because Bill 132 is a cloaking device - a Trojan Horse with a secret inside?

Is Bill 132 really meant to do other things, things that maybe a democratic government in the Western Hemipshere really shouldn't be doing, or couldn't legally be doing and get away with it?

Just what secret might be hidden within Bill 132, and other breed-specific, anti-dog laws around the country?

We'll Tell You No Lies

Now to those dog lovers who find statistics and census data boooooooooring  - this might perk you up a bit:

Would it surprise you to learn that according to the 2001 Census by the Canadian Government that:

• Over the period of 1986 to 2001, the number of immigrants living in Toronto increased by almost 800,000 or 65%
• In comparison, Toronto’s Canadian-born population increased by almost 400,000 or 18%
• Immigrants accounted for two-thirds of Toronto’s total population growth between 1986 and 2001

Nope - it wouldn't surpise me at all.  But just what do the Census numbers have to do with dogs and breed bans?

Not-So-Hidden Racial Profiling

Let me spell it out for those readers who may not get the connection between breed-specific legislation, race and poverty.

So follow closely, boys and girls, and let's connect the dots together in ten easy steps. Ready?

1. Breed bans aren't really about the actual dogs or breeds of dogs.  Why? Because there are already laws in place that punish and kill dangerous dogs.
2. Breed bans are really about the people who own the dogs. Why? Ask youself who, in the minds of the politicians, own such dogs?
3. Why, the answer to that question is easy, since the media  - and the HSUS - tell us on a daily basis that pitbulls are the "dogs of choice for crackheads and criminals, gang members", right?
4. And just who are these crackheads, and criminals and gang members - these "criminals who own pitbulls"? 
5. Do politicians stereotype these "criminal pitbull owners" as white, female criminals and gang members?
6. Or.... do politicians stereotype these "criminal pitbull owners" as black, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim, and male gang members?
7. And just what does this breed ban do? Why it expands police powers, silly.
8. And what else does this breed ban do?  Why it allows the police to enter homes without a warrant silly!
9. And just ask how else would a government (excluding the Bush administration's Patriot Act) be able to legally engage in racial profiling, legally target racial and ethnic minorities, not to mention legally grant expanded powers to the police of search and seizure without a warrant?
10. It's called Bill 132 - the Dog Owner's Liability Act.

The Biggest Loser

Michael Bryant is the biggest loser - and the numbers don't lie. 

Just like I said - ask no questions and we'll tell you no lies.

Remember  - take a good look at this photo of Michael "PuppyKiller" Bryant  - and remember his face, and remember what he perpetrated against innocent dogs and innocent dog owners.

That way you won't forget when he asks to be re-elected this fall.

Comments

[Heather]

wow. i made the biggest mistake of my life. I came to get my dog fixed....because someone reported me having a pitbull...pretty sure she is mixed but i am not a dog expert...so i took her to the vet and had her fixed...chipped...INSURED...the vet said what is the breed of your dog? THE VET ASKED ME!!! i said i guess its a pitter? WRONG MOVE! now she is branded. I had her registered before the ban, she had her grandfather status...then I unfortunately had to move with her out of the city for personal reasons... 2 years later i move back...and because i failed to re register her (BECAUSE I DIDNT LIVE HERE!!!! DUH brantford ontario) now i have a court appearance december 2nd... they give me 2 choices. moce back out of the city with my dog...or get rid of her. NICE. my argument is that I went through all the trouble of doing what I was supposed to do as a responsible owner, but now they want to penalize me because I moved and came back, into the city I have lived in all my life... someone out there give me some advice. is it possible to go back to the vet and tell them..PROVE my dog is a pitbull?

[scott]

hello, i am just looking for information and read though this artical but am a little confused, i currenty live in new zealand but am moving to looking at moving to Toronto (canada haha) the middle of next year but i have a 6 year old american red nose pitty girl who is fixed, does these laws mean i cannot take a pitbull into canada anymore etc ( in new zealand this type of law has passed and pitbulls are banned from entering NZ and breeding them etc its really annoying law because once i take her outa nz i cannot bring her back, my email is jay@pcsonline.co.nz if anyone could help me at all, thanks heaps

EDITOR's RESPONSE: Pitbulls - as well as any mix or ANY dog that resembles "pitbulls" are banned from the Province Of Ontario, which includes Toronto.

I amm copying friends at the detail.

Also - I would strongly urge you - or any dog owner - to join the Dog Legislation Council Of Canada. The DLCC can assist you and answer your questions in detail. you can find them on the web at:
http://doglegislationcouncilcanada.org/

[Celeste]

I think that hundreds if not thousands of dogs are going to be needlessly slaughtered if we don't do something.
The appeallic judge in this case should never have been on this case because she obviously doesn't love animals.
This breed ban doesn't do anything to stop dog bites nor does it do anything to stop people from trying to smuggle illegal dogs into the province as was the case with Rambo who was sent out of province to avoid being euthinized.

[Ann G.]

Hey, all:

Glad for all you supporters of our wonderful pitters and their like!

Ontarians challenged the Law on September 17 & 18/08 - that part made the news - but I can't find one word on the outcome!

Anyone able to help me find the results?

You are much appreciated.

Thanks,

Ann

[cory moore]

i think they should treat pitbulls like any other dogs that is crulity and that is wrong i am a young person help pitbulls

[Caveat]

BSL is about killing dogs because of the way they look. That's it.

I thought everybody knew that. It has nothing to do with behaviour, age, etc.

The owner is going to court, we'll see how it turns out. I suspect things will be OK but we'll have to wait and see.

[jennifer]

there is a innocent dog now in the torn=onto humane societies hand s becasue of this law he is only 5mnth old and they want to put him down kill him. he is not a threat to society nor has he done anything he is just the breed "pitbull" and because he is under age they want to kill him under this new law. go on toronto humane society web site and you will see him owner is devastated and is fighting in courtI THINK THIS LAW IS TWISTED AND REALLY NEEDS TO BE LOOKED INTO AGAIN.
KILLING A INNOCENT ANIMAL DUE TO HIS BREED " PITBULL" IS ABSOLUTLY
DISGUSTING AND DAMN RIGHT CRUEL. THE DOG DID NOT HARM ANYONE AND IS NOT
A THREAT TO SOCIETY SO WHY ARE WE KILLING HIM????????//, IF YOU ARE
GOING TO HAVE A LAW AS SUCH MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE IT FOR ALL BREEDS ,
THERE ARE DOTHER BREEDS THAT ARE JUST AS DANGEROUS YET DON'T HAVE SUCH A
LAW. yOU WOULD NOT TAKE THE LIFE OF A TWENTY YEAR OLD JSUT BECAUSE HE
IS TWENTY AND OTHER KIDS HIS AGE ARE KILLING PPL WITH THE GUN YET YOU
ARE TAKING THE LIFE OF THIS DOG!!, I THINK THE GOVERNMENT HAS THERE
PRIORITIES OUT OF WHACK AND REALLY NEEDS TO LOOK INTO THERE LAWS. WE
HAVE THE YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT IN PLACE AND ARE WATCHING EVERYDAY KIDS
KILLING KIDS BY THE GUN !!! YET WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT DOIGN ABOUT THIS
THEY PROTECT THESE INDIVIDUALS AND THE SERVE HALF THERE SENTENCE AND ARE
ON THE STREETS AGAIN. YET YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE THE LIFE OF A INNOCENT
CREATURE FOR BEING A "PITBULL". WOULD THAT MEAN YOU WILL KILL A CHINESE
MAN BECAUSE SOME OTHER CHINESE PEOPLE HAVE DONE BAD THINGS?? THIS LAW IS
NOT FAIR NOR IS IT RIGHT> IT IS ANIMAL CRUELTY!!!! AND IT DISGUSTS ME
THAT WE ARE QUICK AS A SOCIETY TO EUTHANIZE A DOG FOR BEING BORN INTO
THE WRONG BREED YET WE WILL ALLOW KIDS TO CONTINUOUSLY BE KILLED BYTHE
GUN AND ALLOW THE YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT TO PROTECT THE PERSONS RESPONSIBLE
. tHIS DOG DESERVES LIFE, AND THAT LAW NEEDS TO RE EXAMINED AND CHANGED
EITHER YOU INCLUDE ALL DOGS OF VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR OR NONE. BUT
DISCRIMINATING ONE BREED IS NOT RIGHT!!! THIS STORY BREAKS MY HEART AND
HURTS ME . YOU SAID WE HAVE TO FOLLOW RULES??? WELL THIS IS LIFE AND WHO
ARE WE TO TAKE AWAY A INNOCENT LIFE. FREE RAMBO AND GET RID OF THIS
DISGUSTING LAW, IT'S ONLY BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION BECAUSE OF MEDIA WHAT
ABOUT ALL THE REPORTS OF OTHER BREEDS AND DOGS ATTACKING PEOPLE
???????? AND BELIEVE ME THERE ARE ALOT OF CASES THAT ARE NOT BROUGHT TO
MEDIA OR TO SOCIETIES ATTENTION. THIS DOG DESERVES LIFE, AND THIS LAW
NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. "FREE RAMBO" LET HIM GO HOME TO HIS FAMILY WHO
OBVIOUSLY LOVES HIM, OR LET THE HUMANE SOCIETY SEND HIM OUT OF ONTARIO
TO A GOOD HOME. KILLING HIM IS NOT THE SMART OPTION , JSUT LOOK AT THE
MESSAGE YOU ARE GIVING SOCIETY!!! MANS BEST FRIEND YET WE ARE KILLING
HIM INNOCENTLY.

JENNIFER

[Caveat]

Anyone concerned about animal welfare opposes Peta, H$U$ and the rest of the motley crew.

They have no interest in animal welfare. They do nothing to protect animals. They want to kill them all, not just 'pit bulls'.

Peta and the rest throw a good line for the suckers but if you know the facts, you dismiss them as fanatics on a hellbound mission.

Harumph!

[David O]

You're OPPOSED to PETA? You should take a long, hard look at your values if that's the case. I guess "ethical treatment" for animals isn't high on your priority list.
EDITOR's NOTE" You SUPPORT PETA???? DAvid, it is YOU that should take a long hard look in the mirror. Just in case you DIDN't know - Igrid Newkird thinkgs that any "pitbull" dog is better off dead and thinks shelters should treat likem liek a Roach Motel. They come in - but never leave - that is unless it's in a body bag. Shally I go further? Wasn't it PETA that euthanized all those innocent dogs & cats in NC in a scam - they promised new homes but dumped the dead carcasses in the Piggly Wiggly dumpster? But wait, DAvid - there's more. Doesn't PETA KILL about NINETY PERCENT of ALL ANIMALS they take in??? Ingrid Newkird is a scammer - she's only opposed to killing animals UNLESS she gets to do the killing. Wake UP, David................ Do you want the RED PILL or the BLUE pill????

[Caveat]

Silly Penguin is aptly named. Is that you, Michael, doing some more of your famous sock puppetry?

You forgot to mention that in addition to the tossing of 'pit bull terrier' and 'includes', Section 19 was thrown out completely as violating the Charter right to trial fairness.

You also appear to be typically ignorant about the dogs themselves. In fact, they were bred to be housepets above all else. They were utility dogs, livestock dogs, draft dogs, kids' companions.

Check YOUR facts because you are playing with the big boys now.

[Lisa]

I am a proud owner of a 4yr old Staffordshire terrier, and Bill 132 has done nothing but disgust me to no end. Not once have I seen my beloved dog bite, snarl, or growl at another human being. I walk him without a muzzle and have never had one dangerous expereince, most people stop us to pet him and comment on what a beautiful dog he is. I am overseas, and after all of this nonsense in Ontario refuse to move back to my hometown in Ontario, but will be relocating else where in Canada to ensure I can keep him, a dog that cuddles with me, does tricks, and loves to be around people. I would also like to add, that I am not a crackhead, or gang member, I am a Registerd Nurse, how do I fit into the stereotype of the Staffordshire owner? It is good to know that while I have been overseas, my government has been working hard at making Ontario a safer place to live!

[Silly Penguin]

Maybe you better check your information. The term Pit bull terrier was only struck out of the definition of a pit bull type dog. The rest of the breeds including american pit bull terrier as well as anything that resembles it is still included in the definition. Pit bull terrier was only removed because it it is not an actual breed of dog. The rest of the law has stayed intact, and the ruling is nothing but a blip on the radar for the law. Wether the law is just or unjust, a case could probably be made either way. This law has only been put in place to protect people, because these dogs were never meant to be house pets.

[Jay Shaw]

Just wanted to toss my own 2 cents in here. I live in a medium sized city in southern ontario. I'm also the owner of a 9 year old 3-legged Staffordshire terrier. One of my neighbors at my former residence decided it would be amusing to set his mutt on my CRIPPLED dog, then call the police and say he attacked HIS dog. Needless to say with the law written as poorly as it is, I was hoping to get an officer who'd actually read it. Lucky me, the officer actually owned a Staffordshire himself. He listened to my neighbors story, came over to my dog, scratched him on the head and continued straight to his cruiser and left.

I really hope that every other "pit bull" owner lives in a town where the cops are smarter than the neighbors, and understand that the law is so vaguely written that it is truly un-enforcable.

[Dickthedog]

I work in Nashville, Tn. My home is in the country. I am one of five dogs and two cats.Even when one of us needs to go outside-we live on 110 ac.horse ranch- One of the humans go's outside with us. My point is { i'm a bird dog] that not all folks "here or there" take the responsibility that comes with caring for their creators gift of companionship, seriously. So i think you humans do need laws-not the kind that Brilliant Bryant and his band of thugs wanted- but the kind that will protect all of us,from some of you, most of the time. and from those "human folks" that don't care about no one, but themselves and "those human folks" know who they are! To the rest of you, Thanks for your love, support and protection that most good humans share and provide "us" with. "Please,"don't ever forget,while we can't speak up for ourselves "we feel pain, too"! Keep the good work up.

Dickthedog

[Gail Sinclair]

I wonder if Brilliant Bryant, who has no qualifications, certifications, diplomas, or degrees in the psychology of canine behavior, will pass a law against the dog owners who hit their little dog's bottom, ensuring that such owners can never own a dog again because hitting their little dog's bottom has just taught the dog that human hands cause harm, thus teaching the dog to bite strange hands that may well mean to pet them. And then this charming owner will let this fearful dog run off-leash. I wonder if Brilliant Bryant will legislate such owners as dangerous to the public? Power without qualifications will always result in tyranny and chaos at the hand of such an intellectual barbarian.

[Bea Stenger]

Y'know, when all this started, Bryant's face was everywhere except on milk cartons.

Now he's really, really quiet.

I don't know if I should trust that. Perhaps he's just keeping his head down till the election, hoping this will all blow over, rather like a bad dream.

No chance, Mike. We're your worst nightmare - honest, law abiding citizens who are beyond angry about being labelled as criminals and deprived of our rights.

And we're not going away.

[Anonymous]

Brytler, get outta here. Your tie is making my eyes bleed again.

[Michael Brytler]

You guys better stop picking on me or I'll ban you! Don't think I can't, either.

Pibbles are so still banned, don't listen to those bad ladies from the DLCC they don't know anything.

Listen to me! Only me! Me me me me me me me!

[Dianne Singer]

Something I envy about the U.S.A. - individual property rights burned into its Constitution. The federal Fiberals did us out of that, and we didn't even get dinner first.

That's why changing "pet" to "companion" and "owner" to "guardian" is so dangerous. It removes animals from the category of property, and makes it easier for AR extremists to fight their war against pet owners and pet ownership of all species.

Stay far, far away from the soft and fuzzy stuff promoted by the likes of Peta, HSUS and the rest. It's a red herring designed to lull one into complacency and eventually destroy your right to own a pet.

[Dianne Singer]

Beauty! We in Ontario are living under a Liberal aka Fiberal government that lied to get into power, and then fought a court action by a citizen trying to bring it to account for its lies. What happened? We discovered that the Fiberal goverment does not want to be held accountable for its lies. This Fiberal government has more constitutional challenges and lawsuits against it than any other I can remember. This Fiberal government is the worst thing that's ever happened to this province - full of arrogance and self-importance, much sound and fury with little meaning. The Fibs have flailed about since taking office, reflexively leaping onto every bandwagon that passes, with no apparent plan for governing this province or improving Ontarians' lives. Anyone who even considers voting Fiberal in the October 2007 election needs to write a large personal reality check.

[Jamie MacDonald]

Hurrah for the good old USA!Our American friends get it(At least some of them).Some, if not all of their politicians are just as stubborn and blind as ours.
I sent the link to our esteemed Michael Bryant.
I know you`re reading it Michael.
Despite the spin you`re putting on it,here`s the truth.
The owners of the unconstitutionally vague dogs will continue the fight to save the purebreeds
I urge everyone to make a donation to help these dogs.

[Caveat]

Bingo LeeAnn!

Just to clarify, the search and seizure provisions I described applied to the owners of ANY breed of dog, not just the mythical 'pit bull'.

While the public sleeps in front of the TV, rights are being eroded at a frightening pace. By the time people realize it, it will be too late.

Right from the start, I didn't believe this had anything to do with dogs either. The dogs are just a red herring.

[LeeAnn O'Reilly]

The amendments to DOLA in my opinion ,were never tailored to address dangerous dog owners,nor the media maligned dogs.

After all,even the twisted folks of AR understand that banning a breed is the wrong approach.

However they take it many steps forward and wish for it to be applied across SPECIES.

It was about seeing how far Canadians would allow BIG BROTHER to invade their homes and pervert their rights.

The softest target is always something the mass public ( AKA SHEEPLE) have little or no interest in.

The 'PIT BULL' was believed to be a soft target.

WRONG.

Lets face it,lawyers are born bred and raised in the finer art of manipulation and disinformation.

They are the masters of SPIN.

Thats why lawyers never retire,they become politicians.

[Caveat]

Great post!

Actually with respect to reverse onus, it worked like this (I know, I know, this law was so confusing that even officials couldn't figure it out):

1. The Crown alleges that your dog is a 'pit bull'.
2. A certificate purported to be signed by a vet with no proof of signature or affliation with a veterinary licensing bureau would ID your dog as a 'pit bull' in court. The vet would not be called for examination.
3. This would constitute proof by the Crown (prosecution) that the dog was a 'pit bull'.
4. The onus was then on the owner to prove the dog was not a 'pit bull'. Good luck if, like most people, your dog isn't registered.

That section is gone, so is the reversal of the burden of proof.

So is the unconstitutionally vague definition of 'pit bull'.

As for warrantless entry, under the law a police officer, bylaw officer or other deputized person not defined could enter any premises including a private residence without a warrant if they 'believed' that a dog inside was imminently threatening a person or domestic animal.

I personally think that was the cornerstone of the law so that the police could save the time and trouble of due process and enter any premises in order to address a supposedly dangerous dog situation. While in there of course, they could look around and see what else might be going on.

Similarly, there was a provision whereby a dog could be seized, even from a private residence, using whatever force was deemed necessary, whether the owner was present or not.

Now I must go polish my tinfoil hat :)

[D. Shields]

Just one point -Did the Police actually seize any dogs, & described a possible pitbull from a home under Bill 132/DOLA?

It is my understanding that local Bi-Law Enforcement Officers had this job. (A cute way of downloading the costs to local governments.I'm not sure that any areas footed the bill for hiring more bi-law officers, just for Bill 132.)

I know that our local Police will respond to a dog attack, or serious bite incident,& dog fight investigations, but they have said that they are Not Interested in playing Dog Catcher.

They have more than enough to do with real police work.

If there has been an search & seizure incident after Bill 132/DOLA's inception, involving the local police or the O.P.P. (Ont. Prov. Police)that wasn't part & parcel of a dog attack, dog fight ring investigation, or dog bite incident, I'd be very interested to hear about it.

To date, I haven't heard of any police forces willing to enforce Bill 132/DOLA. It's seen as a local by-law issue, that primarily effects towns & areas with their own BSL regulations. (Some that pre-dated Bill 132 by many years, like Kitchener-Waterloo region for example.)
.... Just wondering..?