Why Michael Bryant should be prosecuted...

Today while I was out walking one of the dogs at the humane society I saw a beautiful pit bull in a van in the parking lot with a two women and a teenaged girl. I assumed, they brought the dog to get his license or they were adopting a second dog and they wanted to make sure the two got along. I saw one of the ladies go into the shelter in reasonably good spirits, the other lady told the dog to calm down and that it's not play time as this dog barked(in a wanting to play manner) at the dog I was walking. I did a lap and when I arrived back in the parking lot I saw one of the women with the dog and the teenaged girl. Then I heard the lady that came out say "euthanize" that was the only word I could make out at least.
Next thing I heard was this teenaged daughter break out into tears. I walked over to them and asked them what was wrong and what was going on. The lady told me, as she consoled the teenaged girl, that they had to give the dog up but they were going to euthanize him. This lady was a friend of the woman who owned the dog and she drove her to the shelter. I told this lady to tell her friend to get their dog back; I could help as I have some contacts involved in pit bull rescue. But alas, she couldn't convince her friend (the owner) to get her dog back. Why you all might ask? When they came out I asked what happened.
They informed me that their neighbours and others in the neighborhood have made their lives a living hell and they have feared for their safety. The dog has been attacked numerous times. He's been attacked with metal wrenches. The owner herself has been threatened One neighbour has threated to sick their rottweiler on her daughter if she didn't get rid of the dog. The police said they could/would do nothing. There simply wasn’t any time to get this dog into a rescue in time before he or the family were harmed. They brought the dog into the shelter expecting to give him up so he could find a new home. BUT, this was not in the cards...these people from the neighborhood have complained about the dog on numerous occasions. So basically you have a pit bull with a bad rap, sadly shelter policy is that this dog must be euthanized and can't be adopted. Michael Bryant should be prosecuted for hate mongering. He's no different than Hitler when he incited German's against the Jews. But most of all, he should be prosecuted for breaking that teenaged girls heart who was crying outside the shelter, for that girl was the dogs "girl" that brought him into their home when he was a puppy, when he was innocent, when he didn't die because of Michael Bryant.

..and just so their is no confusion. I did not choose my name because it is "tough sounding" My name is in honour of Bandogge Dread, a pit bull who is the most titled dog in history. Learn more about Dread at www.workingpitbull.com

I could not agree with you more Dread, That's why we need to go over Bryants head and inform the Federal Attourny General about what Bryant has been up too. His lies and hate have gone far enough and must be brought to a halt, for the sake of all pet owners and the animals. If the police are far to busy to help someone being verbaly,psyisicly and psychologicly assulted, how will they be able to enforce bryant's law? This man has no bussiness being in public office period, he is a disgrace.

Dread,your story cleared my sinuses :sad:
Although I believe personally I would have fought anyone threatening my dog or me,it's easy to judge when you are not in the situation.
Yes,Bryant should be prosecuted,but people who are brainless,who listen to this mans word like gospel and decide to take their unfounded fury out on innocent dogs and owners are equally evil.
It's strange how this"whitch-hunt"has not been recorded on the news,maybe if someone is killed,we would read about it.

100%. The man is evil, 100% evil. I hope he rots in hell. Some people don't like comparisons to Hitler but I convinced that they "are a breed apart"

EVIL:
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."
Socrates (469 BC-399 BC) Greek Philosopher

Something is not right here. People are making threats to another human being(rotti attacking daughter) and the police will not do anything???? Let alone the dog is being abused by neighbours(attack with metal wrenches)!!! Either these people aren't telling the whole situation regarding their dog or they like other people telling them how to live their lives and what to do! If the dog was a perfect angel and has never posed a threat to anyone why would you give him/her up?? The neighbours have made numerous complaints regarding the dog and this is why the humane society has to have the dog PTS?? What are these complaints and have they ever been investigated to determine whether or not the alleged allegations were true??

If I was in this situation, I would be making the biggest stink about these incidents!!! I would not let it go until something was done about it and the police have intervened. NO ONE would ever make me give up my dog. The only way I would give up my dog is if I was dead or if he were to become a danger to society(which I highly doubt would ever happen in a trillion years!)

I have called the police before about neighbours harassing my dog and yes they didn't do anything(really wasn't anything they could do as no laws were being broken!) The officer asked me what I wanted them to do about the situation. I said I wanted them to have this complaint on record so that IF my dog were to snap at these neighbours, he has good reason to and that it was provoked!

I feel horrible for this mother and daughter. And at the same time I do see their situation is extremely difficult but I do think there were other options! Neighbours were harassing them afterall and this is an offence........isn't it??

Edited for content

Coppers Mom I see your points and they are quite valid I also would never let anyone threaten me or my dog. But I also have been harrassed by people because of the Village Idiot and it can be intimidating so I imagine living with these ignorant people around you could be scary.Who knows what they will do. I lived beside a crazy woman and she eventually did the unthinkable and poisoned my dog. I do not trust people when they threaten you some will actually follow through on their threats. MB should be prosecuted as the hate monger he is. I think he should be asked to resign he has done nothing positive and personally we are paying this little weasels salary and I resent that. I would forward this to case in point to the Mayor, the PM the village idiot and every other politician who is even in the least way involved in this ridiculous ban. If they send you back a form letter email back asking if they actually read your email? I have found when you add this little line at the bottom of your email (if they had not responded appropriately) saying if you cannot take the time to read my email and respond with an answer that addresses my concerns then I will not be bothering with your propaganda when election time rolls around I will not need to consider your party.

I think he is already McGuinty's...........

Just document everything that happens and keep it for the class action lawsuit.

And, of course there's usually more to the story - but if you strongly believe that a police officer is not doing their duty, definitely speak to their supervisor.

Bryant has overstepped his bounds, and no matter what the outcome, we still have to be on top of this and fight him for however long it takes. There is no way I am going to let this zealot beat me down. It won't end here, and I'm not gong to let him treat this as another feather in his cap. He must be exposed for the menace he truly is.

Politicans work in a team--if you're going to point the finger I'd point it at the whole party.

As someone who spends her days working to try to put another party in power, I can tell you that the quickest and easiest way to put and end to this sort of aggravation is to vote differently. Talk to your friends, be the opinion leader and make a difference when it comes time to vote. While it may be a few years before we have that opportunity again, think positive and use this time to unveil the truth behind the Liberals. They want power--they want control and more importantly they want our money.

Talk to your friends, be the opinion leader and make a difference when it comes time to vote. While it may be a few years before we have that opportunity again, think positive and use this time to unveil the truth behind the Liberals..

Correct. I have talked to many Liberal voters that are as disgusted as I am with this government. My family has always owned dogs over the years. My parents don't anymore but they gave us a dog when we were kids and now we all have a dog in our homes. A home wouldn't be a home without a dog in it. Little dogs, big dogs, show dogs and mutts.

We pretty much thought of ourselves as Liberals. Not anymore. The same for some I work with. If everyone can sway ten Liberal voters .....they will be banned.

Remember also find what they don't like about Liberals and build on it, it doesn’t have to be Bill 132. One guy I worked with mentioned that he thought veterans should be able to smoke in the legion. I bumped his anger up a notch when I said many of them probably smoked their first cigarette on a beach...in Europe around 1939-1945. Opps.

Whatever it takes....they are a breed apart.

First of all - it is INCREDIBLY offensive to call ANYONE a Nazi.

Secondly - to refer to Michael Bryant and the reference to Hitler "He's no different than Hitler when he incited German's against the Jews". Hitler did a hell of a lot more than "incite" Germans. He slaughtered 6 million people. Those people were tortured and subjected to vivisection and other horrors. Every time you call someone you do not like a Nazi, you are being hateful and minimizing what people went through.

Michael Bryant has not advoctaed abusing dogs. If people use the POSSIBLE ban as a reason to attack dogs they are sick. They could do this, and have before a ban was ever thought of, because the sky is blue. Sick people do not need a reason.

I am surprised the admin of this board has allowed the hate spewing against Michael Bryant (and do NOT get me wrong, I oppose the ban as well) you folks who post hatred and hoping for violence and ill will to fall on Michael Bryant are NO less evil than those attacking dogs and should your IPs be tracked, could be prosecuted. I would like to point out to admin that this has gone on for quite some time and been ignored, should Michael Bryant view this website and the promotion of hatred and violence against him, you could well be subject to criminal charges.

First of all - it is INCREDIBLY offensive to call ANYONE a Nazi.

Secondly - to refer to Michael Bryant and the reference to Hitler "He's no different than Hitler when he incited German's against the Jews". Hitler did a hell of a lot more than "incite" Germans. He slaughtered 6 million people. Those people were tortured and subjected to vivisection and other horrors. Every time you call someone you do not like a Nazi, you are being hateful and minimizing what people went through.

Michael Bryant has not advoctaed abusing dogs. If people use the POSSIBLE ban as a reason to attack dogs they are sick. They could do this, and have before a ban was ever thought of, because the sky is blue. Sick people do not need a reason.

I am surprised the admin of this board has allowed the hate spewing against Michael Bryant (and do NOT get me wrong, I oppose the ban as well) you folks who post hatred and hoping for violence and ill will to fall on Michael Bryant are NO less evil than those attacking dogsm and should your IPs be tracked, could be prosecuted. I would like to point out to admin that this has gone on for quite some time and been ignored, should Michael Bryant view this website and the promotion of hatred and violence against him, you could well be subject to criminal charges.


Amazing response

First off it is not illegal in Canada to call someone a nazi. You may be sued but not prosecuted. Of course to sue someone you must prove them wrong.
http://www.canadiancartoonists.com/beutel/glob&.htm

To me and many others Michael Bryant is EVIL. He is also a documented LIAR. Best of all he is a public figure as you have more leeway as to what you can say about them. Although there may be degrees of evil his willingness to lie to support a hatred of something is clear evidence of what many would consider to be evil. His goal is the extinction of a breed. He has not made any public comments regarding ongoing harrassment of innocent dog owners. AND HE LIES about stuff he knows nothing about. This is why I attached the Socrates quote.

To be sued by Michael Bryant might not be a bad thing as of course a court of law would have to decide if HIS statements were true or not. In other words the FACTS would have to be looked at. If they found them to show evidence of fear mongering then so be it. In court he would not have as much power as he would in a criminal court as he would simply be a citizen.

As for your point I agree in point only that it may be insensitive. Still euphuisms become what they are, they can't be legislated. Some will always see oppression, bigotry, fear mongering and group targeting as nazi tactics. There are far too many quotes from the likes of Goring regarding propaganda that are still apt today. When Goring says do A and then B then somebody does A and then B why can't they be called nazis? One of those quotes of course is to repeat a lie often and Michael Bryant has certainly done that - on camera. Lying isn't illegal but when someone in power does it it should be.

If you wish to forward this page Michael Bryants email is: michael.bryant@jus.gov.on.ca and IPs can be requested with a warrant as can our real email addresses. I'm sure he or an aide can get one if what we are doing is illegal otherwise it would be an abuse of power. Still I think he already knows we are here. This site is most likely monitored by some lackey just for that reason. It also shows up when you search the internet for Michael Bryant.

My momma says don't do anything you would be ashamed of being found out about. I'm not. I am exercising my rights as a Canadian and until that right is stolen by the Liberals I will continue to do so. The day we can no longer legally call them nazis is the day we can be sure that they are.

Wishing someone harm is not the same as inciting it. If I told you I pray he has an accident you would have to prove that God exists and I believe I can petition God to do something before I could be charged with anything. 1984 was only a book and thought crime is not illegal. Yet.

:ca: and free.
.

Maybe we could all lay off it a little though. Not the Bryant bashing just the nazi comparisons. If they want to add it to the banned word list I would have no problem with it.

Nobody has made "criminal threats" against Bryant here. It is wrong to try and denounce people's opinions by throwing out limited knowledge of the law. People are expressing their outrage against his abuse of power which will extend to the killing of hundreds of family pets. It's fair for one to be a little sensitive about their family members, and it's healthy to rant here rather than stew about it at work etc. This is a respectable board. None of us likes coming off like a angry sob, but that's what this legislation has done. You don't think vets, teachers, the elderly etc, and every other lied-to Ontarian does not have something to say about Bryant? You can be ticked-off and blab quite imaginatively well below the threshold of a criminal threat.

Bryant can have all the IP addresses he wants, starting with mine - I have not said anything I would not state publicly. He "should" be a big enough man to take a little flak for holding the office he occupies. Some petty abuse he gets on this board is nothing compared to the emotional strain he has inflicted on innocent law-abiding tax-payers, and on the heartache of harassed owners.

About the Nazi comment, I personally think he is acting like one, to the Tee - but, on that subject I would refrain from using that term if people take offense. Otherwise, I can still say that he is a reckless, fear-mongering Goon. :D

I hate Michael Bryant, so what? that is my opinion,at least my opinion is based on fact's, provided by him, not some questional stats from the U.S. This board allows people to vent, No law's are being broken here, We know he is a hate monger and a lier, saying this and compareing him to other hate mongers based on his statements and lies, is the poster's right, under our freedom of speech law's. No one one this board has any criminal intent against bryant, we just wish we could wake up one morning and he would be gone. Yes wipeing out a race, is more extreme than wipeing out a breed, but the hate and igorance and lust for power, that would drive a person to do such an atrocity are the same, this is the comparison some people make. Michael Bryants attack on bully breeds is 100% based on his personal "HATE,IGRORANCE AND LUST FOR POWER". This he has proven every step of the way, he is useing our money to spread this hate, and lies, and if some people get a little carried away, so be it.
Hateing M.B, is no different than hateing the owner of a deplorable puppy mill, it is our right, No one here has made a "Direct threat" against M.B, just a bit of whishfull thinking, no harm in that.
I will not back up M.B just because he is human, and should not be hated, he has not shown any sign of being humane, from ware I sit, he looks like a monster.

The provincial Liberals had no problem calling Mike Harris every name in the book, and THEIR supporters made the Nazi reference towards the PCs many times at protests and in print.

Calling someone a Nazi or referring to them as Hitler is obviously Hyperbole, which is an understood exaggeration in order to make a point.

Also, it can be argued that this is another example of political correctness run amuck when people start getting offended over Hitler comparisons. Do people freak out when someone is compared to Stalin, who murdered more people than Hitler did? Not many do.

Hitler scape-goated a race of people to explain the problems in German society. Bryant is scape-goating a breed of dog in order to score political points with voters who are distraught with conditions in the community and want to vent their anger. While it is on a totally different scale, I'm sure anyone can see the similarities.

Hitler may of been evil personified but that doesn't mean that Bryant can't be described as evil.

I for one certainly understand the comparisons and I'm sure Michael Bryant does too. Michael Bryant has ignored FACT to support a ban which will result in the extinction of a 'breed'. He is doing this for political reasons, has shown hate and is willing to lie to do it. He has attacked a group that some don't like - this is how evil starts. Soon there will be other groups and most will ignore it until they wake up one morning and find they have become the target. He is willing to scapegoat a group for political reasons. It is EVIL. He has made statements like 'a breed apart'. Humans are far more valuable than animals but the animals in my life are family. They are loved, they love back and when they are gone they will be missed.

To some animal lovers the result of a ban can be equated to genocide. Sure one is a crime against humanity and the other is only a crime in the minds of those who value animals - people like me.

The Genocide Convention of 1948 defined genocide (comments in brackets are mine): Forget for a moment that genocide is a term used when talking people and you may see the evil that Bryant supports.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group (DESTROYED - unadoptable - sold to research facilities)
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (OWNERS are being harmed both mentally and physically)
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (BAN = extermination)
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (STERILIZATION - breed ban)
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (Shelters for destruction or RESEARCH FACILITIES)
Genocide Convention 1948 - The definitional article included in the 1948 convention stipulates: Article II

Nazis weren't just about being anti Semitic and I would never accuse Bryant of that (he isn't). Still they developed methods to gain power and keep it....those lessons haven't been forgotten over the years and the Liberals have adapted them for their use. Tell lies over and over again until the people believe them, show the people a threat (real or unreal) and tell them you will protect them.

In my opinion this man is the lowest form of scum. Play the press conference when he announces the ban...play it without sound. Look at his face. Ask someone to describe the look using only one word. Some will say anger but it will most often be described as ...hate. Try it.
.

As I have advocated on the other threads, be intelligent and educated when arguing your point. I agree with LL1 that name calling and hate mongering of any sort is not necessary. If you are truly right, you can prove it using facts and figures. You won't need to call anyone names.

While I would never and do never adovcate Liberal, in fairness to MB as a human being--he is doing his job in the respect that he probably did not create the PBT ban alone, he acted on behalf of the views and information he was given. Again, provide intelligent and resourceful information to him and your friends about the ban, and his suspected errors.

He is not a part of the Hitler crowd. He is not advocating for the slaughter and abuse of PBT, and he is not taking them out of the homes in which they currently preside. The irresponsible or scared families are doing that on their own.

I'm definitely not a fan of Bryant, and feel that he has acted irresponsibly at times.

That being said, he isn't a "loose canon" acting on his own. This ban is a political action in many ways, and he is playing the role assigned to him. He has his orders. If Bryant were to resign tommorrow, another Liberal Mpp would step into the role.

In a warped way, I feel that it is a dis-service to solely blame Bryant. He was appointed as mouth-piece( for lack of a better word) for this ban. The Ontario Liberals gave him the nod.

Much of the dog-owner harassment speaks volumes about the impact of media and hateful nature of people. Bryant may have stirred the pot a little, but these things existed long before Bryant. Bryant did exploit the media( many politicians do), but they exploited him also. Alot of papers were sold because of this issue.

I'm not gonna lie - if Bryant resigned, I'd be dancing in the street. But I wouldn't expect the problem to go away. Some other Mpp would pop up in the newspaper everytime a dog-attack happened.

IMO At the end of the day, we need to convince people that the ban is wrong. Facts are pretty much on our side. We need to make sure that those facts are read. I agree with lil_kirk that the best way to do that is with informed, factual and non-emotional letters to the powers that be.

he probably did not create the PBT ban alone, he acted on behalf of the views and information he was given.

Actually, he acted on behalf of some of the views and some of the information he was given.

He's ignored the rest. Blatantly.

And as the provinces chief law-maker, that is exactly what he should NOT be doing.

Sorry I should have said, perhaps he didn't have ENOUGH, resourced and credible information prior to submitting this proposal. Like I have seen in my own line of work, and in some of the comments on here---irrational or unresearched or illegible or angry submissions of information will NOT provide the MPPs with anything valuable or worthwhile to change their minds.

This is strictly my opinion. Like LL1--but perhaps a bit more--I want the Liberals out..but I refuse to blame everything on one person.

Thanks for your post. I would not like myself or my child to be posted about like people here do with Michael Bryant, and I suspect they would not like it either. I also would not want my child to read the hateful things people post here - this is a family board is it not?

As I have advocated on the other threads, be intelligent and educated when arguing your point. I agree with LL1 that name calling and hate mongering of any sort is not necessary. If you are truly right, you can prove it using facts and figures. You won't need to call anyone names.

While I would never and do never adovcate Liberal, in fairness to MB as a human being--he is doing his job in the respect that he probably did not create the PBT ban alone, he acted on behalf of the views and information he was given. Again, provide intelligent and resourceful information to him and your friends about the ban, and his suspected errors.

He is not a part of the Hitler crowd. He is not advocating for the slaughter and abuse of PBT, and he is not taking them out of the homes in which they currently preside. The irresponsible or scared families are doing that on their own.

Thank you too LL1. One would think that this is a family board. But as with most things in life, you can never really be sure...

]He is not advocating for the slaughter and abuse of PBT, and he is not taking them out of the homes in which they currently preside. The irresponsible or scared families are doing that on their own

Hes not directly saying ABUSE the APBT but its still happening, when this first talks of the ban were happening I had PArents not let their kids pet my dogs any more -the week before these same kids were swimming and playing with my dogs, so what he says directly and indirectly affect peoples decisions and actions

Our mayor went on the record by saying this is NOT something he would have pushed for and said the statistics in Ottawa were 851 dog bites and 4 were reported to be pit bulls, but seeing as hes given a vote he will vote YES to the ban, goes to show that other political figures who might not agree with the ban will follow regardless of what party their from.

Had MIcheal Bryant slept in an hour later that day maybe this ban wouldnt become a reality. SO you cant bet your a$$ I will blame him.

I no longer have rights as a tax paying pitty owning citizen here, I have to worry about who is going to threaten us on our walks, I carry Bear off why should I have to do that while Michea Bryant and the rest of his party sits at home all comfortable?

This BAN will only affect us responsible owners, who do you think we should blame besides the irresponsible owners? My vote is to blame Bryant.

I have never voted Liberal and never will, but seeing as Bryant brought this meaningless act to the table any party that gets in wont change it- it will be enacted already

V& the brats

I have read all the posts here and have not come across anything that is hatefull,If you feel that it is and dont wish your child to read it than maybe you should direct them to the Picture board :) and look at all our nice pets :thumbs up .Even better maybe you should screen what your child reads "I DO"

As for Mr Bryant :yuck: he is just misinformed :confused: as to what is right and wrong about what he's doing but this is typical of most politicians,"Allways a few sandwiches short of a picnic" :D .We can also thank our Media for all this negative hype. :mad:

As for this ban if it gets to be out of hand i'll just pack up and move back to ojibway territory where this ignorant law doesn't apply to my peoples.
Thank the creator our leaders are a little smarter than Mr Bryant and the rest of his political party. :D

While I would never and do never adovcate Liberal, in fairness to MB as a human being--he is doing his job in the respect that he probably did not create the PBT ban alone, he acted on behalf of the views and information he was given.


We are venting here, we are not coresponding with M.P.P,s, the things we say here are not what we would be writting to them. In all fairness to us, Micheal Bryant is NOT acting on behalf of the view's and information he was given, and he is not missinformed, Remember, it was M.B who refused to meet with anyone who did not support his personal hate for pit bulls, so therfore he is acting on his own acord, this is his baby, not the liberal parties, the fact that the rest of the liberals are jumping on the bandwagon is iceing on the cake for him. This is a "private members bill", this is not part of the liberal agenda, but they have embreaced it becuase they have done little else. So I DO hold Micheal Bryant personally acountable for this bill. I have not seen any evidence that this bill was a liberal party effort, or liberal agenda. This is Bryants bill, plain and simple.
I do belive the public is generally missinformed yes, but Byrant is a Lawyer, he is a smart man, he knows the fact's, but the fact's do not support his agenda, lies do.
Frustration does bring out some name calling, we see it here, and we see it in politics, we see it everywhere, I know that does not make it right, but I do understand where it is comeing from, frustration about how powerless we are to stop something we know is wrong.
I do wish I could be as calm cool and colective as you lil_kirk, but I admit I can't allways do that, somtimes emotions get in the way.
I'm glad you are part of this discution lil_kirk, we do need a little straitning out every now and then.

Thanks Bluntman. I know it must be very hard for many of you. I do not own a pitbull, nor have I had much interaction with them myself. I admit that before visiting this site I might not have had the same feelings about BSL as I do now. I am now able to recognize the flaw in this bill--and in this line of thinking. I'm not sure I would have been able to without this information.

I'm in the thick of politics everyday, which is why I am always trying to give advice on how to get through to these guys. It's one of those things...you don't want to miss your opporunity to make a difference for your furbabies because you're upset or angry. (though I understand why you feel that way!)

The topic has been edited. It has happened in this topic and many others in the past. L'il Kirk I want the Liberals out just as much as you do, and despise the idea of the ban just as much as everyone else.
I have read all the posts here and have not come across anything that is hatefull,

I'm pretty much done on this subject but I have to object to one suggestion.

That being said, he isn't a "loose canon" acting on his own. This ban is a political action in many ways, and he is playing the role assigned to him. He has his orders.

Just following orders is no excuse. It sounds a lot like a defense we have heard before - at Nuremberg. Wrong is wrong.
.

Bryant is not "just following orders." This bill is his baby. Do you think Dalton McGuinty would really be the force behind this bill when he used to own a pitbull?

Wrong is wrong.

I agree, and I'm certainly NOT defending Bryant. I'm just saying that I feel that he isn't the only one involved. He is certainly the most vocal and visible. I feel that Bryant is wrong in the way he handled things.

I think he is responsible, but not solely responsible. I feel that many of the Ontario Liberals have their hands dirty on this. As do much of the media.

I truly believe that he has been directed to cause a distraction.
Yes McGuinty owned a pitbull, but I don't remember hearing him admit that or defend them in any way. He certainly could hold Bryant in check if he wanted to. After the initial incident I clearly remember McGuinty saying " these pitbulls have locking jaws...yada yada.....".

I personally think that this ban has very little to do with dogs or public safety at all. It is a cash-strapped government that saw an opportunity after a highly publicized dog attack. Bans are cheap, on the provincal level, if you force the cost to municipalities.

I understand why people solely blame Bryant. I just think that there are others involved with dirty hands also.

Absolutely! The press also plays a role, and the folks who support a ban,and the other areas who before or after talk of the Ontario ban have instituted their own bans,and the Liberal party, irresponsible owners, etc. He is not the only one who believes this nonsense.
I agree, and I'm certainly NOT defending Bryant. I'm just saying that I feel that he isn't the only one involved. I understand why people solely blame Bryant. I just think that there are others involved with dirty hands also.

Bryant is not "just following orders." This bill is his baby. Do you think Dalton McGuinty would really be the force behind this bill when he used to own a pitbull?

I actually received a response to an email I sent which included comments about Tory. This is a paragraph of a document Dalton McGuinty sent. It at least clears up the Tory the pit bull issue.

In regards to your concerns regarding the rumour that my family owned a pit bull named Tory, I would like to ease your mind by telling you that these rumours are completely false. This rumour was started by some of my opposition colleagues after they stumbled upon a story of my father, Dalton Sr., introducing a bill into the Ontario Legislative Assembly in 1987 that had a paw print of “Tory McGuinty”, a pit bull. This bill was in regards to giving holiday time off for Members of Provincial Parliament and their staff, and Dalton Sr. was trying to make a joke about the importance of being home for the holidays by having the petition signed by all of the members of his family.
The paw print was fictitious. Neither my father nor myself have ever owned a pit bull.

So of all the things they may be at least Dalton has not desecrated the memory of a family pet. Bryant has an agenda and Dalton supports it. With the popularity of the Liberals being what it was any distraction was needed. Bryant simply took opportunity to distract attention away from the real issues. I would say I can't wait until somebody sues this government for it's inaction but I can't say that. Somebody would have to use Bryant's not an issue comments against him after an attack by a Rottweiler or Shepherd.
.

If that is true, why didn't Dalton dispute the fact in the legislature when it was brought up?

I don't know but I have to believe what he sent. :sorry: I know that sounds ridiculous, believing what a Liberal says but I can find no other evidence other than the petition in question that the McGuintys had a pit bull. Are there any old family friends out there with a picture of the McGuinty family pit bull?
.

I'm not saying it's wrong, but if it's true it shows what a moron McGuinty is if he doesn't even refute "rumours" like this when they are used to whack him over the head in the legislature.

No where in any of my posts have I ever said Dalton wasn't a moron. You take that back.

And I also think responsibility for this falls on all the groups named in the Trempe inquest recs who ignored them.There's a big list of them who did nothing, some of whom ironically are on the list to protest the ban.

And I also think responsibility for this falls on all the groups named in the Trempe inquest recs who ignored them.There's a big list of them who did nothing, some of whom ironically are on the list to protest the ban.

Fair enough but ultimately those 'recommendations' that can be should be legislated. Additionally if the Liberals have opened the door on dog safety then they should at least look at the findings of the inquiry. New Mexico just legislated that a dog can't be chained for more than an hour a day. If you raise viscous dogs and have ten of them it seems like you may have a problem now.

The province could legislate a large portion of the recommendations and they should endeavor to include as many of them as they can.
Collection of stats (then we would be able to see the truth)
Education (is already controlled by the Province, what is one or two hours per student out of the school year?)
Provincial license not municipal (although maybe the municipality could keep the license fee).
Minimal training to keep that license (say within six months of attaining a pup or a dog).
If your dog isn't a purebred it is neutered or spayed (by law)
Breeding (licensed - if you have no business breeding then you don't. If you have shown that you and your dogs are champs you can breed puppies. Also would cut down on puppy mills)

Some recommendations would have to be voluntary such as newspaper stories on dog attacks having a blurb on safety at the bottom of each attack story. The government can't control the press but they could at least ask - or pay a fee for a blurb attached to the bottom of a story.

Still the province paid for the inquiry (as did Donna Trempe) and they should legislate as much of it as they can.
.

I agree, and the Tories were in power for several years and did nothing with the reccs,I blame them as well.What can be legislated,should be legislated.I don't excuse the CKC,Humane Societies,OVMA,CPSO,press/media et al for doing nothing either.They too had reccs aimed at them and did nothing.Not sure what you mean by saying Donna paid for the inquest?
Fair enough but ultimately those 'recommendations' that can be should be legislated. Additionally if the Liberals have opened the door on dog safety then they should at least look at the findings of the inquiry. The province could legislate a large portion of the recommendations and they should endeavor to include as many of them as they can.
Some recommendations would have to be voluntary such as newspaper stories on dog attacks having a blurb on safety at the bottom of each attack story. The government can't control the press but they could at least ask - or pay a fee for a blurb attached to the bottom of a story.

Still the province paid for the inquiry (as did Donna Trempe) and they should legislate as much of it as they can.
.

Donna Trempe is Courtney's mother. While we as citizens may of paid for the inquiry we can't forget the cost the Trempe family paid.

The PCs ignored the inquiry. The Liberals have brought dog safety to the table (albeit recklessly, blindly, unfairly and for their own reasons) and therefore they now OWN it.

All those other organizations need to read the inquiry and decide what recommendations may relate to them. Where a central organization can apply them they should and then insist that all local chapters follow.

The inquiry recommendations will be hard to implement but let's get the ball rolling - fairly.
.

I know who she is. I didn't understand you saying she paid for the inquest.It was not clear that you were trying to say.All parties named in the inquest reccs were provided with a copy of the reccs.Funny now it's blamed solely on Liberals, and some of those same groups who now oppose the ban, and the Tories, did nothing to to stop things from heading down this path.A whole lot of people and organizations should wear the blame.

(It's crystal clear which reccs relate to which groups,they need to do implement what was recomended instead of sit and do nothing but complain.)
Donna Trempe is Courtney's mother. While we as citizens may of paid for the inquiry we can't forget the cost the Trempe family paid.


.

Funny now it's blamed solely on Liberals, and some of those same groups who now oppose the ban, and the Tories, did nothing to to stop things from heading down this path.A whole lot of people and organizations should wear the blame.

Sorry I didn't make that clear. I just felt that I couldn't say WE paid for the inquiry without mentioning Donna Trempe.

Yes, the PCs were in power and did nothing - shame on them. My point is that the Liberals have at least picked up the ball. The only problem is that they are running down the field the wrong way and they know it. Also the motivation is selfish, political diversion from real issues. I will give them no leeway here as their plan affects the lives of innocent dogs. A dog is nothing but property. Their lives don't count for anything. Well have I got news for Bryant - wait till you see the power of a puppy killer ad. I will do what ever I can to bury the Liberal's in the next election - period. I don't care for their excuses or justifications. Every voter I can sway I will. If I can do it without mentioning the word pit or dog I will.

There is nothing unique about this legislation. Double the fines. A cut and paste from Winnipeg's bylaws and maybe jail time AFTER an attack. This from somebody that taught law. Hell I could teach that course if that is all there is to it. As long as you don't break any copyrights or get carpel tunnel from all that cut and pasting it doesn't sound too hard. He can do better and we deserve better.

Prevention is the key to preventing not just full out attacks but also from Fido biting little Johnny's hand when Johnny tries to pick up Fido's bone. Yes the other orgs have dropped the ball too but they aren't trying to annihilate a breed. The Liberals are. If a few good Liberals go down with them - too freaking bad.

Sorry but that's how I feel and I will not accept any excuses. The issue is now on the table, a committe has been formed - let's see what they can do. Do it right and I still won't vote Liberal - do it wrong and I'll convince everybody that I can to not do so either.

I do not want them to walk away from Bill 132 altogether. I want it to be passed and I want it to be right and the inquest recs are the way to go - period. I'd rather see half of them put into play than to see BSL. YES I am afraid of pit bulls - in the wrong hands. I wouldn't let my dogs play with most of them. :sorry: Sorry guys but i don't trust my guy not to be an idiot - he won't start it but he's too stupid to walk awayfrom it too. I won't however support some of the sweetest dogs I know being banned. This whole thing is wrong. They (Liberals) sicken me. I feel nothing but disgust for them.
.

OK. I'm done on this one post. Wrong is wrong. That's all. I don't care if Bryant acted alone or in a group. If he has legitimate concerns or not. It's wrong to target a breed. Rotti's have killed in recent history on both sides of the country and Bryant says they are not an issue - get a grip - look at the quality of the ownership. Pits attack and are often running loose when they do so. Punks train them to fight and when was the last dog fighting conviction you read about - in Ontario.

I would be willing to take a test to be able to keep my dogs or aqquire another of any breed or any breed over a certain weight or type. I would support mandatory training.

Of the dogs that have drawn blood at the canal where I walk all have been labs or retrievers. Were they violent attacks I don't really know. When a Choclate bit my on leash pointer after the owner threw it's ball at my dogs feet it was a single bite and the reason it did is called guarding. I know the Rhodisian attacked by the Lab needed stiches to it's ear. The Ridgy owner works for the Humane Society and was shocked that a lab did it. I know the two Ridgys and would be shocked if they started it.

We need to stop pointing fingers - every dog can bite. Plain and simple. I am feeling emotions over Bill 132 that I am not used to feeling and i'm sure a lot of others are. The government has the inquiry findings - act on them. It's a mockery of justice, an attack on owners and an insult to victims to focus on only one breed and ignore that inquiry.

Peace out.
.

Thank you Twodogsandacat for a very intelligently,clearly written post :thumbs up
When I think BSL,the only face coming to my mind is M Bryants,the HATE in his eyes,especially on one occasion where he gleefully yelled"BAN,BAN,BAN the Pit-Bull"!!sent shivers down my spine :mad:
My family and most of our animal-loving friends,noone owning a Pit-Bull,who were 150% Liberal,especially after the hateful years of the Harris/Eves screw-ups,will never again with a clear conscience vote for"the Kitten-Eaters".
Action needs to be taken,against puppy-mills and dog-fighting rings,but for Bryant killing off a whole breed is a simple way out,I feel for all the responsible owners out there and their dogs :grouphug:

Michael Bryant deserves every thing that is being leveled at him here. If you doubt it, go to the Humane Societys on line adoption dog page and have a look at all those poor innocent "pitbulls" that don't have a hope in hell of being adopted. He is a sickening man.

Personally if you would like to send my IP address I could careless I have not physically threatened him. Yes the mere mention of his name makes my blood boil, I have called him many names and I really do not care about his wellbeing. But that said when I write a letter it is fact based and not rude nor do I call him names, even if I would love to. I come here and speak to others who feel the same way about this ridiculous ban. We get to rant and rave about it and last time I checked it was not illegal (well that could change never know with Liberals in power). If I get we get it out of our systems then you can sit down and write fact based calm letters. I'm Jewish and in the context the Hitler comments were made did not offend me in the least I took it I think as if was meant. Just for the record I do not own a pit or a staff but I do not plan to sit idly by while MB and his cronies ban these breeds and then move on to more if you think it won't happen you really are living in a fantasy world next will be Rotties and GSD and it will go on. I am not waiting for this to turn into the ban list that they have in Italy. So honestly if you do not like my comments about MB than skip my posts.

Personally if you would like to send my IP address I could careless I have not physically threatened him. Yes the mere mention of his name makes my blood boil, I have called him many names and I really do not care about his wellbeing. But that said when I write a letter it is fact based and not rude nor do I call him names, even if I would love to. I come here and speak to others who feel the same way about this ridiculous ban. We get to rant and rave about it and last time I checked it was not illegal (well that could change never know with Liberals in power). If I get we get it out of our systems then you can sit down and write fact based calm letters. I'm Jewish and in the context the Hitler comments were made did not offend me in the least I took it I think as if was meant. Just for the record I do not own a pit or a staff but I do not plan to sit idly by while MB and his cronies ban these breeds and then move on to more if you think it won't happen you really are living in a fantasy world next will be Rotties and GSD and it will go on. I am not waiting for this to turn into the ban list that they have in Italy. So honestly if you do not like my comments about MB than skip my posts.

AMEN......... :thumbs up

First of all - it is INCREDIBLY offensive to call ANYONE a Nazi.

Secondly - to refer to Michael Bryant and the reference to Hitler "He's no different than Hitler when he incited German's against the Jews". Hitler did a hell of a lot more than "incite" Germans. He slaughtered 6 million people. Those people were tortured and subjected to vivisection and other horrors. Every time you call someone you do not like a Nazi, you are being hateful and minimizing what people went through.

Michael Bryant has not advoctaed abusing dogs. If people use the POSSIBLE ban as a reason to attack dogs they are sick. They could do this, and have before a ban was ever thought of, because the sky is blue. Sick people do not need a reason.

I am surprised the admin of this board has allowed the hate spewing against Michael Bryant (and do NOT get me wrong, I oppose the ban as well) you folks who post hatred and hoping for violence and ill will to fall on Michael Bryant are NO less evil than those attacking dogs and should your IPs be tracked, could be prosecuted. I would like to point out to admin that this has gone on for quite some time and been ignored, should Michael Bryant view this website and the promotion of hatred and violence against him, you could well be subject to criminal charges.

I detest Michael Bryant because his behaviour is hateful. He hates pitbulls. Michael Bryant doesn't give a cr** about protecting the public all he is after is seeing his own ugly mug in the media and where that will get him politically. He is ignorant and I suspect he is quite evil. IMHO

Calling someone a Nazi generally refers to the actions and methods that person takes (Soup Nazi, anyone?). It's become a part of our colliquialisms in every day language. And I certainly understand the comparisons. I think part of the issue is where you equate human life with animal life (that isn't meant as a reference to anyone one here). Someone who would not put an unknown dogs life on the same level as a human would find the reference a little more of a stretch. We can get into that whole ethical debate, but I think that that can help to form your opinion of Bryant's "nazi-ism". I think the other reason is that he pounds the pulpit about a certain group, ignoring all factual information, painting a scape-goat and not addressing the real issues. It can certainly be argued that there is a familiar parallel there. That being said, for anyone who is Jewish, and/or has friends or relatives who have been a part of the holocaust, I can certainly see where they may find it offensive, and feel that using thier tragedy to describe this situation may be trivializing it.

As for blaming Bryant for the treatment of owners, I think it is as valid an arguement as charging someone for inciting a riot. You don't have to say, "go burn down those buildings" to be charged for people doing it.

...political goals are definitely always playing a role in what MB and any MPP does....

If he didn't see this as a political gain, then I doubt he would be doing it at all. I personally don't see how this is gaining him any supporters--or the party--but who knows what their communications people are telling him.

The media is pro Liberal, so as it stands, BSL is getting varied coverage---SUN Media papers seem to be shedding more light on it than CanWest Global papers, so we can at least give them a teeny round of applause for at least trying to spread the word.

Personally, i have no problem with people not liking MB--i believe we could all pull one politician out of our hat who we each personally detest for our own reasons. That's just politics! The more personal they get---and you can't get more personal than banning someone's family member--the more negative feelings you are going to have. You can't be blamed for that.

Exactly. Maybe if Bryant didnt call on Pit owners to start muzzling there dog now before any of his info was proven. Also him call them INHERENTLY dangerous, Ticking time bombs, lock jaw and his jubluence in reciting the word Ban over and over again then we wouldn't have such back lash. For me that is equivalent to a witch hunt if I ever heard one. There were other ways to introduce this bill and ways in which he should have conducted himself.... you know in a professional unbiased manor. He should have prepared himself and not persecuted us like a crazy bunch of dog weilding criminals. But he did and the people responded in exactly the manor he wanted. Supporting him because he made them afraid. He matter of factly said their inherently dangerous with no proof. Its like me going out and announcing to the world that coc**** juice contains bad bacteria that could kill you. You would believe me because hey why would call a press conference unless I had some damning proof. Well we know why he did it, to blind ontarians into forgetting the real issues. The lies and taxes that we werent supposed to get.

I did not vote Liberal.I do not support the ban.I DO own a pit cross,who is a rescue,and have had them in my rescue, so no need to refer me to the dogs dying or going to die in shelters.I also run a rescue and am in local shelters all the time,and well aware of it.I do not support advocating violence on someone which has been done in several posts by several posters,some posts have been removed, not all tho.I'm not going to quote them as I don't think it's appropriate.I don't see a difference between people posting wishing MB harm here,and people thinking he is committing a crime and responsible for attacks on innocent dogs by crazy people that are happening right now.No difference in my opinion.I also take offense to the Hitler Nazi references,much like some people take offense when PETA has compared the Holocaust to the slaughter of chickens.I don't find either reference more offensive than the other,both are wrong and offensive in my opinion.Alot of posters do the same things they vilify MB for. I do believe the ban is ridiculous.I happen to think the current party and the AG are completely wrong.I also think the previous govt,and all the groups named in the inquest reccs who did nothing led to this current situation and are also to blame.Much like the municipalities and ignorant members of the public who support this ban and in some areas have implemented their own bans.I personally don't think any one single person is to blame.I am not making excuses for anyone,or supporting MB and the Libs in any way shape or form.

I have absolutely no problem blaming Bryant for the increasing number of "pitbulls" being dropped off at shelters. And I would have no problem pointing the finger directly at him if they have to be euthanized because no one will adopt them. The ban isn't even in place and many poor dogs are suffering the consequences.

This is all a very heated topic for people on both sides of the debate. Ultimately, it can turn into a stone throwing competition. Both sides despise the other.

The pro BSL group can't fathom what it is one sees in PBTs, want the government to get rid of them, and are angry at owners for bringing them around their children.

The anit BSL group can't stand the government, the ignorance and the dog haters.

Both sides should put their engergies together and argue against the government for their lies and election promises gone awry!! Give me back my money and stop ruining my health care!

This is very much like the same sex marriage debate--neither side will ever convince the other that they are right.

LL1 we know what your stance is. If its used to make a point then I don't see the harm in it. It only minimilizes the horror of the holocust to those who allow it too. It wasnt meant to put the sufferering of others down and I am sure it wasnt the intent. It was used mainly to draw that human connection for better understanding. It is a touchy subject and if anyone takes offence then I am sure the person who used it certainly didnt intend to do so. Some people don't care about dogs or thats not an issue for them, something like the holocost can shed some light maybe on to whats really happening here. Its just like someone saying this BSL is racism, prejudice ect... ect... These are things we use to describe the human condition but when comparing them with dogs or animals its hard for some to see it in that light. Im not saying that the use of Nazis is neccasary because its not just pointing out why I think it was used and in what context.

Personally I would not use the word Nazi,but it's meant in a descripive way,the way Bryant eggs on the public,the very same people who harass Pit-Bull owners,he started it,he's responsible...
Hitler was an evil little man,blaming Jews,Homosexuals,Gypsies and handicapped people for all the ills in Europe and we can hardly compare Bryant to Hitler,but the method is the same...there are a lot of people out there,who in thinking of a Pit-Bull sees a vicious,jaw-locking killer and will cheer Bryant on.It will be a feather in his hat :evil:
I am certain his hateful bill will go through,Ontario would be better served if he would introduce the Anti-cruelty law,which has been on the shelf for years,replace the 100yr old law,that views any domestic animal as property not a living feeling creature.
The proposed Bill,would see puppymill owners,Pit fighting and any other animal-cruelty cases as criminal acts and punish bad owners,not the responsible ones,but I don't think Bryant has anything else in mind,but banning the Pit-Bull :mad:

I agree - the Federal government needs to push it through, it keeps being met with resistance by the Alliance party and various other groups.

Ontario would be better served if he would introduce the Anti-cruelty law,which has been on the shelf for years,replace the 100yr old law,that views any domestic animal as property not a living feeling creature.