Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

interesting article from another forum

Mom_Of_Two_Dogs
November 7th, 2004, 12:08 AM
Bryant and Bush: Separated at Birth?

By Rev. Andrew Jensen

Canadian politicians sometimes copy the techniques used by their American counterparts. But I never expected to see a Liberal Attorney General mimicking George W. Bush.

Michael Bryant seems to have embraced the "Cry ‘Wolf’ and they’ll forget my government’s failures" technique made so famous by the American president’s "War on Terror." The difference is that Bryant’s "wolf" is actually a dog: the Pit Bull.

The parallels are amazing. Where Bush was seeing "weapons of mass destruction" in an empty desert, Bryant keeps seeing "ticking time bombs" in faithful family pets. Bush ignored teams of scientists and other experts who warned him against invading Iraq, pushing blindly and stubbornly ahead. Bryant is ignoring the advice of Humane Societies, the Veterinary profession, and the experience of many other jurisdictions where breed bans have failed or been overruled in court, and is pushing blindly and stubbornly ahead to eventually extirpate this dog breed from Ontario.

There is more. Bush blatantly and irresponsibly inflamed the American citizens’ fears of terror attacks, from abroad or internally, regardless of the evidence of real threat. Bryant is blatantly and irresponsibly inflaming Ontarians’ fears of attack from Pit Bull dogs, most of which are stable and loyal family pets. Bush has pushed his country into a war that is expensive and possibly unwinnable. Bryant is pushing Ontario into a breed ban that is probably unenforceable (due to the near impossibility of accurate identification), and may well be very expensive.

Bush succeeded in clouding the journalistic vision of his country’s national press, so that they temporarily bought in to his version of reality, and supported him. Bryant has managed to convince the Toronto Star, once possessed of a respectable reputation for balanced reporting, to support his campaign not only with editorial support, but with the most biassed and unprofessional reportage I have ever seen in that newspaper.

Worst of all, both politicians are cynically manipulating the emotions of their electorate with what they hope will be seen as a "motherhood" issue, with the idea that people will rally around them, despite the facts of the issue, and regardless of the other errors they have made in government.

There is one big difference: Bush has not yet discovered a "final solution" to his bogeyman. Bryant is legislating a "final solution" to the Pit Bull breed and, potentially, to any other dog breed that falls out of political favour. Ideologically, Hitler’s government would have been very comfortable with this proposed breed ban, except for its inefficiency.

Do we really need to be in terror of Pit Bulls? Are they really "ticking time bombs", hiding as a kind of "fifth column" in our homes, waiting to wreak havoc on us? Should we be sending the military out to find Osama bin PitBull, so we can finally be safe in our beds? Should we have Pit Bull alerts, in Yellow, Orange and Rednose?

This would be laughable, if it were not so serious, and potentially tragic. I hope that our MPP’s can see through this sham. We need legislation to deal with dangerous dogs, regardless of the breed. We do not need manufactured hysteria and warlike strutting that masquerades as statesmanship.


Rev. Andrew Jensen is a United Church of Canada minister in Ottawa. Earlier this year, he lived in Chatham-Kent, and presented extensively researched information to public meetings in opposition to a proposed Pit Bull Ban there. He would like to thank his daughter, Kiersten, for pointing out the parallel between Bush and Bryant.

Schwinn
November 8th, 2004, 09:07 AM
That was well-written. The parallels are illustrated perfectly. One difference I'd like to point out, however, is that it was a lot tougher for the media to investigate the validity of the WMD.

Also, is the Toronto Star still on the ban bandwagon? I thought the had written some editorials against it? I could be wrong.