Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Bryant learns a lesson

twodogsandacat
April 6th, 2005, 09:57 AM
This morning’s Globe and Mail has a story, which truly shows Michael Bryant’s understanding of the laws of our land.

The Ontario Superior Court has ruled that denying one-on-one therapy to children over 6 is discriminatory. Attorney-General Michael Bryant said it is up to the government not the courts, to determine programs for schoolchildren.

Wrong Mr. Bryant. It is up to the courts to determine if decisions made by governments are legal. Any laws or decisions must stand up to the law of the land and violating civil rights is not popular with the courts.

Go ahead and whine about it but you can be assured that it won’t be the first or the last time that laws implemented by this moronic government will be challenged. Challenged and defeated. Welcome to the real world.

Eleni
April 6th, 2005, 10:13 AM
im so glad they ruled the way they did.

I have a 2 year old son, who is being screened for autisim and a few other disorders.

he has what the speach therapist and the occupational thereapist call autistic tendancies.

you got me as to what that means.

however a few months ago we hit a few snags along the way. the occupational therapist acessed him and said he doesnt need her help, that he will catch up developmentally on his own.

now he sits and waits on a speach therapy waiting list, that i was told is 6 months long, however hes been on it more then 6 months.

he does have in the very least a language delay of 12-18 months

its disheartening because I was a diligent mom and when i realised something wasnt right at 18 months old i took him to the doctor and tried to get him help, and its basically been a hurry up and wait game.

my son is now 2 and a half, and we are still more frustrated then ever.

The resourses for this type of thing are just so sparse, they really need to be better handled in my opinion.


sorry this turned into a rant but it its a tender spot for me and my completly non verbal 2 yr old.


Eleni

twodogsandacat
April 6th, 2005, 11:14 AM
So it seems that Bryant and the Fiberals have dealt you double whammies. It's sad that the courts have to overule these twits when it seems that common sense should prevail.

Best of luck.

babyrocky1
April 6th, 2005, 11:21 AM
Im very sorry to here about your son Eleni. My brother had a host of problems from a young age but that was before there were so many cut backs. I definately remember him seeing a speech therapist, Ill talk to my mom and see if she knows anything about getting around the beurocracy. Good luck with it all !

bluntman
April 6th, 2005, 11:35 AM
This is a teriffic victory for parents, but if our government had any common sence, parents would not have to fight for whats right. Haveing to give up custody of your child in order to recive help for autisic children over 6 is wrong, Why can't Bryant and the rest of the Liberal meatheads see this?
Eleni, I can't imagine how frustrateing this must be for you, being left in limbo like that, you are doing all you can, and people are closeing doors on you, It's not right. have you tried to contact these people?
http://www.autismsociety.on.ca/

seeker
April 6th, 2005, 07:15 PM
This victory is under appeal by our big brother govenment . Shows how much they care . Appealing a decision that says they have to fulfill "their" election promise to provide care to autistic kids over 6 years of age . How sad this is but maybe the general public will get the idea on how much these guys care about humanity . How much money and time did they spend banning our dogs "in the interewst of protecting ontario citizens" ? How much time and money will be spent trying not to be forced to help these kids ?
How did we ever let polititions become so untouchable that we have no choice but to wait 2 1/2 years to get ride of these liars ? If I told an employer that I was capable of doing certain tasks and he was dumb enough to give me a 4 year contract then once I started working for him could not complete the jobs .He would have me in court for misrepresentation and the contract would be declared nul and void long before the end of the 4 year term.

twodogsandacat
April 7th, 2005, 08:23 AM
Well I hope they lose the appeal too – quickly and soundly.

This type of arrogance is what we can expect in the anti BSL fight too. Win - Appeal - Win.

I learn something new from my coop students everyday, often I have to admit their ideas are something I didn't consider or even think of. I can handle that. The Liberals (specifically Bryant) on the other hand just can't admit they are wrong or believe that somebody dare to challenge them.

Well they had better get used to it because this may be one of the most litigious governments Ontario has ever seen.

Eleni
April 7th, 2005, 08:54 AM
the problem is its all about $$

a childs future to them isnt as important as how much money is involved.

but as a parent with a child who needs help all the money in the world isnt worth my child missing out on much needed resources.

however regardless of the money the way its set up is you ahve to go thru referrals to specialist among specialist all with a month or more waiting list, usually more, by the time they get the help they need they have it for much to short a time and its cut off. saves the government alot of money that way.
keep the help away as long as possible, and make the help as short as possible.

then at the end of the day you ahve a child whom with early intervention could have adapted well, not adapting and struggling thru life without the tools to fit well into society.

its all beurocratic junk, i doubt it will ever change, but I still hold out hope tha it will


Eleni

chico2
April 7th, 2005, 09:16 AM
Many years ago,on another Forum,I got to know a single father with two autistic sons.He was right on the frontline fighting for the rights of his two sons.
Since his wife had left,he was forced to sell his house to pay for his sons treatments,they were 8 and 9 yrs old.Eventually he lost his job,too many days off because of his boys.He is now living on wellfare,going to the food-banks,regularly...but has not given up on the fight for his sons to have a life as normal as possible :sad:
I could not believe this was happening in Canada,Autism is a condition that can be improved and the same as my sons got medical-care(heartproblem,epilepsy)so should these children get treatment.
The children in this country are our future,the government should have them as priority,be it medical care,daycare,education or whatever is for the good of the children.
I am glad this outrage was finally brought to peoples attention,many had no idea what is really going on,the unfairness of our government,mind you,this is not only a Liberal no-no....the Pc's had a big hand in it too,it has been going on forever.But Bryant and his fiberals are the ones appealing,the long awaited court-desicion.

twodogsandacat
April 7th, 2005, 12:00 PM
Well said Chico2. They should respect that the courts have looked at it in an unbiased manner and found that it is wrong. Bryant should be a man and accept that right is right and stupid is stupid.

babyrocky1
April 7th, 2005, 12:18 PM
This is an important issue that would be another one to bring forward to his Riding! We need to get him on every evil thing he does to everyone!

twodogsandacat
April 7th, 2005, 12:38 PM
Oh it qualifies as an attack point simply because it is the right thing to do. It shows that the government made a discriminatory ruling and that the courts found it to be discriminatory. They then have the gall to appeal it. The actions of this government go far beyond dogs. They just don't seem to understand what is right and what is wrong. See the letters in today’s Sun.

seeker
April 7th, 2005, 08:24 PM
Actions like the dog ban has made me take a long hard look at government . I am far more interested than ever before and I do not like what I see .
I am sure many of us here have had similar "awakenings" . I will actively campaign AGAINST this government in the next election ,I hope you all do the same and help the party of your choice take votes away from these "reptiles".

Akeeter
April 7th, 2005, 11:32 PM
:clown: college? I'd think he'd know this..!

twodogsandacat
April 8th, 2005, 07:20 AM
I think he spent to much time teaching law rather than practicing it. In the UK they use the BSL laws as an example of poorly written laws. When Bryant returns to teaching I guess he will also face the same fate.

Little Johnny Wants to be a lawyer: "But Professor Bryant, didn't YOU write that law?"

I have said that the Liberals could ban red smarties. A judge will decide if that stands. Michael doesn’t understand that.

twodogsandacat
April 8th, 2005, 07:46 AM
Today's editorial from the star: keep the pressure up here.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1112910611449&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

************************************************
Editorial: One promise to keep

During the 2003 provincial election campaign, Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty called the Conservative government's policy of limiting specialized autism therapy to children under the age of 6 "unfair and discriminatory" and promised to extend the treatment to older children.

But now that an Ontario court has ordered the premier to make good on his promise, he has balked at the cost and decided to fight the ruling.

Nothing has changed since McGuinty made his pledge. The treatment, which many experts say makes a world of difference for autistic children, has always been costly — up to $60,000 a year for each child.

Regrettably, what has changed is McGuinty's resolve to keep his promise. Instead of dragging thousands of families back to court, the premier should accept the ruling.

The court case was brought by the families of 35 autistic children, who argued the age cutoff for government-funding of intensive one-on-one behavioural therapy breaches their constitutional rights.

Madam Justice Frances Kiteley of the Ontario Superior Court agreed. She found that the policy, which funds the treatment only for autistic children between the ages of 2 and 5, discriminates against older children on the basis of age and disability.

The ruling came as a short-lived relief to parents who have been fighting for years to have the therapy paid for beyond their children's sixth birthdays. Growing waiting lists also mean many children "age out" before they receive funding. Parents are so convinced the treatment will help their autistic children participate fully in society that many pay for it themselves by remortgaging or selling their houses.

But McGuinty decided almost immediately to appeal the decision, which would force Queen's Park to provide the costly therapy to older children through the education system. The courts, he implied, should not tell the government how to spend its money.

The premier, who is labouring under a large budget deficit, no doubt hopes to capitalize on a recent Supreme Court ruling that provinces have no obligation to provide autism treatment under their health-care plans. He might just win.

But there is a more important principle at stake: doing the right thing.

True, the therapy is extremely expensive. As our understanding of autism grows, however, less costly ways of treating it may be found. The government should stay abreast of any such developments.

But for now, intensive behavioural therapy appears to be the best treatment around. And in the end, it will cost far more to deny thousands of children a therapy that offers them the greatest chance of becoming productive, self-sufficient adults.

This is one promise the premier should keep.

LL1
April 8th, 2005, 03:57 PM
It will be interesting.I always find the armslength arrangement interesting.Especially given who appoints judges, and what Ministry pays their salaries.

I have said that the Liberals could ban red smarties. A judge will decide if that stands. Michael doesn’t understand that.

seeker
April 8th, 2005, 07:19 PM
In the article I read Mcguinty stated that "autistic" kids were a "minority" and that there are others that need help as much or more .
That is LIBERAL for :Helping these kids will get us a minor # of votes because only the parents of these children will support us . At the same time we can look to help children with other sicknesses as long as there are more of them so that the support will be bigger at the next election .
IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE about votes . Nothing more nothing less . They didn't care about our cause because pitbull owners are a minority of voters just like the parents of these kids are

LL1
April 8th, 2005, 10:20 PM
You're right,and that's the reality,regardless of who is in power.

twodogsandacat
April 9th, 2005, 11:44 AM
That is it exactly. Find those you can target without upsetting too many people. Lose one vote gain ten. It is time to scare the bejesus out of every minority voter with just enough information that they feel they may be next.

LL1
April 9th, 2005, 01:25 PM
What do you mean by respect the courts?

twodogsandacat
April 9th, 2005, 02:45 PM
What do you mean by respect the courts?

The Ontario Superior Court has ruled that denying one-on-one therapy to children over 6 is discriminatory.

Attorney-General Michael Bryant said it is up to the government not the courts, to determine programs for schoolchildren.

I think Bryant missed the point that their practices are discriminatory and that it is the government's role to determine programs for schoolchildren - as long as it isn't discriminatory.

He shouldn't be that stupid (although some would argue that) so therefore I believe that Michael Bryant does not respect the court's opinion that their practices are discriminatory. As the Liberal's will appeal the decision it also indicates that they are stubborn and do not care what the courts decide – they want it their way.

So I believe my comments are fairly accurate.

LL1
April 9th, 2005, 03:06 PM
Thanks for clarifying.Appealing decisions is common,and happens regardless of who is in power.

I did want to ask what you think about the armslength relationship between judges and the government, and the Attorney General.

seeker
April 9th, 2005, 04:06 PM
You're right,and that's the reality,regardless of who is in power.

That is exactly why so many people are throwing in the towel when it comes election time .
Look at it this way. Only the party in power can do anything about the way the province is run . Only the party that is in power can be voted out . We cannot ask the opposition regardless of whether it is Lib.PC. Ndp, Green, MJ or whomever to help the autistic kids or kill bill 132 ,help the farmers etc .Whether or not the problem was there before it matters not they were elected to solve these problems and they are not performing.
With 2+ years before the election they do not feel they have to answer to anyone just yet that is the reason for the complacency right now . So it is up to us to keep the pressure on and not forget what has gone on in recent times . The lies must not be forgotten , especially when they start to hand out the candy around May 2007 before they announce the election.

LL1
April 9th, 2005, 04:29 PM
I agree,I won't vote Liberal,but it's a difficult position for all voters to be in have,having to decide the lesser of evils.I don't have faith in the Fibs or Tories and am exploring the other options.

twodogsandacat
April 9th, 2005, 04:43 PM
We do exactly that. We vote out parties rather than put them in. I personally was a Liberal voter basically because I believed I was ‘more liberal than conservative’. There is nothing liberal about the Liberal party. They have been taken over by a bunch of corrupt, crooked, egotistical, lying, fear mongering, line towing, spineless sobs. Are they all that? Pick the Liberal and then decide which one (or more) to tag them with..you'll score a hit on most of them. They just passed a law despite all the evidence against the sanity of doing so. Why, a quick political win. Sorry I prefer to believe that when they did that they all heard a click and in 2007 they will understand what that was as it all blows up in their face. My job is to help make that happen. If I can look a person of colour in the face and say ‘so do you believe that Bryant told the courts that they (the government) will decide what is discriminatory not them’ I will do it with a smile on my face.

When Bill 132 is defeated as it surely will be then one of two things is sure. If the Liberals are in power it will of course be appealed by the spoilt little fat kid we all call Bryant or if it is after Oct 2007 it will be when the Liberals aren’t in power. If the next government tries to appeal it then their statements made in the hearings will be brought to bear against them. If they so much as say the dog they better have the name Courtney Trempe in that paragraph somewhere.

Arms length – the government should remain at arms length from the courts. That is designed for our protection. Let’s replace autistic kids with a particular race for an example: If the Liberals decided tomorrow that a particular race should not receive benefits of some type then the courts would of course rule against them in that case also.

Bryant will learn that the courts protect us from tyrants until we can remove them. They can appeal all they want – it’s the law - but if a judge were threatened with any retaliatory action I would expect that judge to have the SOB charged no matter who it was. There is no indication that the Liberals have tried to coerce the courts my point was that they should respect a determination of discrimination and do what is right. Of course we know that they are not capable of that already.

LL1
April 9th, 2005, 05:11 PM
Good points,I won't vote Liberal for the same reasons you won't,I've actually voted Liberal.Iwon't vote Tory either for much of the same reasons you won't vote Liberal.:)

Sorry my question wasn't clear,I should have asked if you really think the relationship between the government and Attorney General and judges is armslength?

MegShawnMom
April 9th, 2005, 06:09 PM
First we hated the Liberals so we voted infor a change with the Tories,Boy we were really p--ed with them,made lots of noise and we(collectivaly) like the opposition.So we voted them in,knowing deep down they were'to good to be true',now we don't like the FIBerals.Electiontime we might even vote them out because the opposition looks good.
See-Saw,back and forth, ghads- are we ever going to be happy with the government.maybe we should ask Charlie and Carmellia to come over and take control of our lives

seeker
April 9th, 2005, 07:21 PM
.maybe we should ask Charlie and Carmellia to come over and take control of our lives[/QUOTE]

I hope your kidding !!!!

babyrocky1
April 9th, 2005, 08:20 PM
.Electiontime we might even vote them out because the opposition looks good.
See-Saw,back and forth, ghads- are we ever going to be happy with the government.maybe we should ask Charlie and Carmellia to come over and take control of our lives[/QUOTE]
What we should do is have ourselves control our lives! Unfortunately, in Ontario we have to show the government of the day that were on the ball, we are watching, we understand what theyre up to and we wont put up with it! It would be nice if for once we could elect someone and they would actually do what they are elected to do but thats not been the case for a long time. We have to take time from our work and our play and our familys to figure out how to insure that we have a properly run democracy and I am really tired of it, but it stilll needs to be done :mad:

Loki
April 9th, 2005, 09:33 PM
The talk about "arm's length" has me thinking about the power that the AG can hold over judges.

It was Bryant that caused the investigation of Justice Paul Cosgrove, for "vilifying the state."

Regardless of wether that investigation was justified or not - all it took was one letter from Bryant. I think it's an automatic hearing, if an AG complains about a judge.

If an AG were to get vindictive, they could do some serious damage to a judge's career.

LL1
April 9th, 2005, 09:39 PM
Not to mention the AGs Fed and Prov appoint judges and pay them......

twodogsandacat
April 9th, 2005, 11:16 PM
First we hated the Liberals so we voted infor a change with the Tories,Boy we were really p--ed with them,made lots of noise and we(collectivaly) like the opposition.So we voted them in,knowing deep down they were'to good to be true',now we don't like the FIBerals.Electiontime we might even vote them out because the opposition looks good.
See-Saw,back and forth, ghads- are we ever going to be happy with the government.maybe we should ask Charlie and Carmellia to come over and take control of our lives

Actually I have always voted Liberal...Bryant has finally broken that run.

I have never been on welfare, been a teacher, suffered a disability (although I have had back surgery), I returned to and paid my own way through school and I don’t have kids so nothing ever really affected me before. Sad to say but it’s the truth.

Three years ago I adopted a dog, then another a year ago. One is a Rhodesian mix (an often confused for pit breed). That got me thinking. I went down a long dark road of dog abuse, dog fighting, bite statistics, dog related deaths and of course the Courtney Trempe case.

If I can see the reality that this was just a political ploy and does nothing to address dog safety I can’t understand why every stinking Liberal voted for Bill 132 and why no one else is outraged. I guess for the same reason I wasn’t outraged at every thing the Tories did –apathy.

I live in a small city that doesn’t have a pit problem but am convinced that the dog is never really the problem and banning one breed won’t do anything except destroy thousands of innocent dogs and force otherwise happy and friendly dogs (and their) owners to inhumane conditions – life at the end of a leash muzzled. Where I live (and walk my dogs) the labs are the biters (although those are dog on dog attacks not dog on human attacks).

So no I do not teeter back and forth. I ignorantly voted Liberal for all those years. This issue made me looks closer. I now have a lot of respect for a lot of NDP and yes a lot of Tories. That respect is a limited resource and there is only so much to go around so if you are wondering where that respect came from..it came from the Liberals. They threw it away.

:ca: Liberal Free in 2008