Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Sent a letter to the Cdn. Civil Liberties Assn.

Akeeter
October 19th, 2004, 11:22 PM
I know at least one person has brought up the Att. Gen.'s speech on annoucement of the ban as being more than a little scary in the matters of civil liberties, increased powers of search & seizure by police & entities who are not the police (to be designated by Att Gen at a later date). From what i understood from his speech, a neighbour could target anyone by hearsay.

I also think that to say that 'the onus for proving that a dog is Not a Pit Bull lies with the accused' is rediculous for many reasons. Do we not live in a society where you are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around?

Since the Att. Gen seems to have no clear definition of what a Pit Bull is, & there is No clear consensus across Canada on what a Pit Bull is -Is this not a case of the Gov. asking people to prove something that cannot be proven? (or disproven?) Even with DNA testing, if you could afford it, all you could prove is the breed or breeds that went into creating this dog. And if the legal definition of Pit Bull isn't clear, how are you to disprove infomation that isn't being made available to you? :confused:

If the Att. Gen. is talking in terms of 150 lb Pit Bulls, as he did the other day, & presumably he is also going to include sizes S.M. & L, as well as that XL, them he might just as well say All dogs (are Pit Bulls?). His terms are too generalized, & all encompassing to give a reasonable definition, that somone can defend against in court.

If any other person who documented his speech, & other statements wants to contact Cdn. Civil Liberties Assn., & add to this Please do! Their e-mail addy is:
mail@ccla.org

Sheriffmom
October 20th, 2004, 09:20 AM
Akeeter, What a great idea!! I will for sure email the CLO. Thanks for that idea!!
I wonder if anyone out here is a lawyer or has lawyer connections. I think it would deffinetly be a case to take to the Supreme court. Defending our right to own a dog, and the right for a dog to live, and maybe having the onus of proving "pitbull" put to the Att Gen- and his gov't (Mcguinty's) of paying for the whole mess. (That is if the ban passess) I heard the AG wants Pit owners to pay for all the new changes, by drastically increasing the price to register a Pit. What a mess.... can you say Gun Registry part 2?

Luvmypit
October 20th, 2004, 10:41 AM
i just emailed them. That is exactly what I was thinking. Can't we challenge this in any way? I would like the supreme court to look at the basis in which Mr. Bryant constructed this legislation.

seeker
October 20th, 2004, 08:14 PM
The way he generalized any dog owner is a potential criminal . Who is to say my boxer-mix does not have pitbull blood in there somewhere ? So if my drunk neighbour gets scarred one night because my dog barks at him at 3am when he is outside puking and tells the cops he thinks my dog is a pit , I could face charges unless I can prove he isn't all because the dog is not neutered .

sammiec
October 21st, 2004, 08:53 AM
They emaile dme back saying that there's pretty much nothing they can do because it affects animals, not humans :sad: