Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Bryant busy patting himself on the back...

Faceless
April 7th, 2005, 10:20 AM
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/04/07/986137-sun.html

Thu, April 7, 2005

Pit bull ban draws fans, Bryant says

By Alan Findlay, Toronto Sun

ONTARIO'S BAN on pit bulls is getting some interest from other governments across Canada and south of the border, Attorney General Michael Bryant said yesterday. New Mexico and U.S. municipalities such as Denver have requested copies of the breed-specific legislation. Lawmakers in other provinces are also sniffing out details.

"We've had some informal discussions with some attorneys general from across the country and we're more than happy to assist," Bryant said.

His comments come after a 6-year-old Michigan girl was mauled to death by two pit bulls earlier this week.

The 90-day clock on Ontario's pit bull ban, which exempts existing animals, doesn't start ticking until Aug. 29 . Bryant urged pit bull owners to have their pets neutered or spayed and to muzzle them in public now.

Luvmypit
April 7th, 2005, 11:31 AM
I hope and pray all this gets thrown back in his face. He keeps saying we should muzzle are dogs now. ARGHHHHHHH. How dare he.

twodogsandacat
April 7th, 2005, 11:50 AM
It's popular for a number of reasons.

It takes no brains to implement.
It is high profile for any wanna be politician to get their name in the paper.
As already proven any idiot (or 72 idiots) can implement it
It draws attention away from real issues
When you canít do anything else right you can always point to your one single 'success'.


The only real drawbacks: Innocent dogs destroyed, responsible owners victimized and of course the facts. Breed bans don't resolve any real issues. Oh, and they usually don't stand in the higher courts and will result in a strong attack against those politicians the in the next election.

Seeing as it isn't implemented yet it really is a little to early to be calling it a success. In 2007 it may prove to be political suicide.

Of course when some of those politicians see the actual wording they will be rolling on the floor laughing at the juvenile way this bill was written. Let's see if this thing is still standing in 2007.

babyrocky1
April 7th, 2005, 11:51 AM
"pit bull ban draws fans" Bryant Says! Im so sick of him writing his own headlines!
Maybe hes writing the whole story. He should start drawing a pay check from the papers since he seems to be writing them himself. I guess its the other way around though. Those people are consulting him abut a pit bull ban-just like he consulted the Vet Ass. etc about a ban!!!! We should start muzzling him now!!!If theres really going to be a gag order, we should start our campaigning now. I have no problem putting up posters when Im in his riding. Its not that far from my beloved Trintie Spadina. St Pauls is the next riding over. Im going to see if I can find some neighbourgood papers for that area and maybe we could direct some editorials there way. Lets get him guys!!!

twodogsandacat
April 7th, 2005, 11:56 AM
Babyrock: Can you provide the actual street names that this riding fits into. I may be in Toronto in the next month - I may as well beatify the city a little.

babyrocky1
April 7th, 2005, 12:06 PM
Cool, I know that the political parties have the names and maps at elction time. Ive used them when Ive campaigned. Ill try and track them down through the NDP
First Iwill call my mpp cause they know me and ask them what to do. ASAP Im still much better with the phone than the computer! It always helps to remind them that your still onthe case anyway!!!

Mom_Of_Two_Dogs
April 7th, 2005, 02:17 PM
How about a ban on Attorney Generals? I'd be for that, and maybe that idea will become popular seeing as how inherently dangerous and stupid this one is!

seeker
April 7th, 2005, 08:07 PM
I saw this this morning and couldn't help but wonder how the American courts would handle officers entering houses without warrants ?
There was a case this week that had charges against a gro-op dismissed because the police entered the house without a warrant . It WAS in Ont and it WAS the supreme court . The charges were dropped because the police violated the Canadian Charter . SO there my be hope for us yet Not that we are all growing weed but just the fact that one of the major sections of Bill 132 has just been declared unconstitutional .

twodogsandacat
April 7th, 2005, 08:18 PM
Oh it gets better than that - they entered due to a dog.


*******************************************

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1112652644023

Toronto Star
Apr. 5, 2005. 01:00 AM

Judge dismisses grow-op charges
Home searched without warrant

Charter rights abused, court rules

TRACY HUFFMAN
CRIME REPORTER

Durham Region police took a "casual approach" to the Charter and used two vicious dogs as an excuse to bust a marijuana grow operation without a search warrant, a judge concluded yesterday in dismissing charges against Edmond Kim.

"Inclusion of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute," Justice Barry MacDougall said, concluding the evidence obtained in the search was not admissible.

Defence lawyers have been winning a number of cases involving accused grow operators because judges are ruling that search warrants are invalid. Police say that's one of the difficulties in containing the spread of grow ops.

Kim, 30, had pleaded not guilty to one count each of possessing and producing marijuana, possessing it for the purpose of trafficking and possessing the proceeds of crime.

Kim's lawyer, Leora Shemesh, argued that police violated her client's Charter rights by entering the Highview Rd. home in Pickering without a warrant.

Crown Attorney Sevag Yeghoyan argued the officers didn't require a warrant because they believed that someone may be injured inside the home.

"I find there was no risk of safety ... and a warrant should have been obtained" before entering the house, the judge said.

Police could have contained the scene and obtained a warrant before entering, MacDougall said yesterday in Whitby Superior Court. "Genuine attempts" to get a warrant were not made, he said.

He also noted that information supplied to a justice to obtain the warrant the next day was misleading and contained inaccuracies.

At the trial, court heard from officers who were called to the scene on April 20, 2003. It had been reported that two vicious dogs were loose in the neighbourhood and someone had been attacked.

Court heard that the dogs went in the house and an officer shut the door behind them. That officer, Const. Bob Elliott, testified the door was unstable and he was worried someone inside could be injured. He also said there was a strong smell of marijuana coming from the home.

Elliott testified that because of the broken door, he believed there had been a break and enter. MacDougall said the officer's testimony on that point was not credible.

The judge said the officer never checked the back of the home for evidence of a break-in and never called in to ask if one had been reported. Court heard the officers, despite their belief that someone could have been injured inside, waited several hours before entering the home.

seeker
April 7th, 2005, 08:30 PM
Thanks for finding that,I read it earlier but could not find the link and left out some significant details.
Don't let it be said we support the dismissal of charges against these criminals but the fact that the court upheld the rights of a Canadian citizen is a good thing indeed.

Loki
April 8th, 2005, 05:42 AM
http://www.electionsontario.on.ca/fyed/images/maps/pdf/081.pdf

http://www.electionsontario.on.ca/fyed/en/map_page_en.jsp?dcode=081

twodogsandacat
April 8th, 2005, 07:14 AM
Thanks. This is the one Liberal that absolutely needs to go in 2007.

Schwinn
April 8th, 2005, 02:20 PM
I'm glad that other jurisdictions are asking for a copy. Think of what will happen when they decide, "Hey, this is stupid! And why is it written in crayon?" That'll really look good on him!