Cruentus
Grandmaster
The “McGuinty” Government: Collectivism, and the legislation of Murder...
In August of 2005, the Government of Ontario Canada, otherwise known as the “McGuinty Government” as led by individuals like Dalton McGuinty and Paul Martin of the Liberal Party, has demonstrated their own brand of collectivism by effecting legislation titled the Dog Owners Liability Act (Bill 132), otherwise known as the “Pit Bull Ban.” http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/dola-pubsfty/dola-pubsfty.asp
The Pit Bull Ban is OntarioÂ’s attempt to eradicate an entire breed of dog from their province based on untrue information and bias towards this particular breed. This is the first state or province in North America to activate a province wide breed ban. You can read more about their feelings on this issue straight from the Ontario Attorney GeneralÂ’s website: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/news/2004/20041015-pitbulls-nr.asp
First of all, the bias against this dog breed is utterly false and unjustified. Attorney General Michael Bryant said he is “convinced” that the dog breed is “inherently dangerous.” Let’s look at the facts before we go further:
1. The American Temperament Test Society (ATTS) is an organization that takes a statistical sample of dogs from many different breeds and tests them for “poor temperaments.” More Pit Bulls are used to represent the American Pit Bull Terrier then most other breeds tested, yet the breed consistently scores higher then the average of all breeds tested. According to Alfons Estelt of the ATTS, If you compiled their scores from year to year, American Pit Bull Terriers have a very high passing rate of 95% compared too the average of 77%. “Pit Bulls” consistently prove to be of a better temperament then Beagles, Collies, Dachshunds, Cocker Spaniels, Toy Poodles, Schnauzers, and, well, you get the point. The breed is not only inherently dangerous, but it consistently proves to have a better temperament then most other breeds of dogs. http://www.atts.org/index.html
2. Although the dog has great physical attributes, it isn’t unordinarily more physically capable of doing damage then any other medium to large breed dog. There are many myths surrounding the breed, however, such as “pits have locking jaws” or “pits can bite with over 1500psi” etc. These myths have proven false. According to Dr. Brisbin of University of Georgia, multiple studies have shown that the jaw structure and biting mechanism is no different then any other dog.
3. Dogs that top breed statistics in terms of frequency of bites are the most popular dog breeds at the time and usually the most popular among irresponsible owners. Research shows that genetics have nothing to do with these numbers.
4. Dogs that do become “mean” or “ dangerous” are generally those used by criminal elements to guard drug dens, dog fight, etc. These Criminals represent only about 1% of the owners of this breed.
5. Most people don’t know what a “pit bull” actually is, so most dog attacks are blamed on “pit bulls.” A pit bull classically would be either an American Pit Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier. However, there is no DNA evidence to date that would separate a “pit bull” from any other dog breed. This means it is left to the people to decide what the dog “looks” like if there is no pedigree info. Here is a short list of some dogs that have made the news for viscousness that the media has credited to “Pit Bulls”: Great Danes, American bulldogs, Bull Mastiffs, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Greyhounds, lab mixes, other mix dogs, and many more. Most statistics that cover “pit bulls” usually include any mix breed that might look like a “pit bull. The fact is “Pit Bull” isn’t actually a recognized breed; it has become a generic term for any dog that might display undesirable aggressive traits. Yet, when legislation is passed to cover this generic term, it is the recognized breeds that are killed first.
6. There is no “pit bull” epidemic. In fact, there is no “dog attack” epidemic. Fatalities from dog attacks only include 0.0000004% of the population. Statistically, you are more likely to be killed on a bicycle then by a dog….maybe we should ban those?
These few facts alone prove that “pit bulls” are not unique to any other medium to large breed dog in terms of how much of a danger they represent to the public. I could go on and on with more proof, but I’ll let you read through these links for yourself if your interested:
http://www.austinlostpets.com/kidskorner/2October/pitbull.htm
http://www.goodpooch.com/MediaBriefs/GPpitbulls.htm
http://www.pitbulllovers.com/american-pit-bull-terrier-myths.html
http://www.fataldogattacks.com/
Now that we have concluded that the breed isnÂ’t dangerous, what the hell is up with Ontario?
Attorney General Michael Bryant and a handful of other ignorant McGuinty collectivists are whatÂ’s up.
Mr. Bryant is supposedly responding too 2 high profile reported attacks by “Pit Bulls” in 2004 . These attacks supposedly are what made this Nazi (I would call one who blames all of a certain problem on one race, and seeks to destroy that race a Nazi) go on a rampage against an entire dog breed.
The irony is, when presented with photo’s of different dog breeds by Janet Chernin of the Dog Legislation Council of Canada, he was unable to distinguish AmStaffs or American Pit Bull Terriers from other “similar looking” breeds. Ironically as well and once again for consistency, one of the two high profile attacks that sparked this absurdity didn’t even involve a “pit bull.”
More debunking Bryant here: http://www.dogwatch.net/fight_ontario_ban/michael_bryant.html
http://www.dogwatch.net/fight_ontario_ban/index.html
See if you can find the “Pit Bull” here: http://www.arrf.net/The Truth About BSL.htm
And an articleÂ…
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1125315169569_7/?hub=Canada
Besides the inhumanity and absurdity of all this, the legislation points to the bigger problem of the McGuinty collectivists. Side note: each period of oppressive government regimes earn itÂ’s own nickname (Stalinist, Maoists, etc.), so this one should be no different.
The bigger problem is that the McGuinty collectivists are willing to sacrifice individual rights and freedom for some sort of “greater good” or “collective ideal,” and are willing to lie and misrepresent information to do so. This is what is happening when a government decides to pass a law that allows them to search and seize without a warrant or due process, and eradicate another living creature en mass, thus violating the right of the animal to exist, and the rights of the individual. Such an act sets a dangerous precedence, and it points to the ideals of officials in the McGuinty Government. It says that they are willing to sacrifice inalienable rights for the sake of their “ideals.” It is unfortunate that such violations never come to question when the threat effects only a small minority; in this case bulldog owners. But this dangerous precedence has the propensity to grow like a cancer, stripping the individual of rights more and more for some sort of “greater good.” This is what happened with Hitler, with Stalin, and with many dictatorial governments; it is a wonder when people will learn that sacrificing individual rights for an ideal is never for the “greater good” of anyone in the long run.
Hitler eradicated millions of Jews. Thousands of a dog breed have been seized and euthanized due to this ban. I donÂ’t propose that dogs are humans. But, considering that research has shown that dogs are among higher order mammals that are least self-aware and self-conscious, one could consider this murder. Despite your personal beliefs, it is an atrocity just the same. The ban has only perpetuated myths and cruelty to the breed in Ontario. You can read about one case here, among other cases of animal cruelty (warning, it is graphic and might make you get sick or cry): http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/sadreality/4.php
So what should the penalty be for the likes of Bryant and the other Mcguinty collectivists who would support and cause such an atrocity?
The only answer that I have is that I am going to find a way to fight this. I will be contacting some different organizations, like these folks here: http://www.dogwatch.net/index.html to find out what I can do. I do a lot in Ontario, being here in Michigan. Until recently, I have grown very fond of the province and its people. But as a result of my last trip over and the effects of this legislation, I can see that this unfortunately has to stop. I know that I can’t risk my dog or myself, or the lives of the many people who would be harmed if something serious were to ever happen to us as a result of this legislation. I know that I don’t want to support an economy that would kill my dog and persecute me over a collective agenda, if simply someone were to call and say that I had a “vicious dog.”
So, I will be doing what I can to fight this. I suggest, at least for the sake of the animals and for the simple prevention of a domino effect, that ALL OF YOU do the sameÂ…
You donÂ’t want to wait until such a cancerous ignorance shows up on your doorstep.
Paul Janulis
In August of 2005, the Government of Ontario Canada, otherwise known as the “McGuinty Government” as led by individuals like Dalton McGuinty and Paul Martin of the Liberal Party, has demonstrated their own brand of collectivism by effecting legislation titled the Dog Owners Liability Act (Bill 132), otherwise known as the “Pit Bull Ban.” http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/dola-pubsfty/dola-pubsfty.asp
The Pit Bull Ban is OntarioÂ’s attempt to eradicate an entire breed of dog from their province based on untrue information and bias towards this particular breed. This is the first state or province in North America to activate a province wide breed ban. You can read more about their feelings on this issue straight from the Ontario Attorney GeneralÂ’s website: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/news/2004/20041015-pitbulls-nr.asp
First of all, the bias against this dog breed is utterly false and unjustified. Attorney General Michael Bryant said he is “convinced” that the dog breed is “inherently dangerous.” Let’s look at the facts before we go further:
1. The American Temperament Test Society (ATTS) is an organization that takes a statistical sample of dogs from many different breeds and tests them for “poor temperaments.” More Pit Bulls are used to represent the American Pit Bull Terrier then most other breeds tested, yet the breed consistently scores higher then the average of all breeds tested. According to Alfons Estelt of the ATTS, If you compiled their scores from year to year, American Pit Bull Terriers have a very high passing rate of 95% compared too the average of 77%. “Pit Bulls” consistently prove to be of a better temperament then Beagles, Collies, Dachshunds, Cocker Spaniels, Toy Poodles, Schnauzers, and, well, you get the point. The breed is not only inherently dangerous, but it consistently proves to have a better temperament then most other breeds of dogs. http://www.atts.org/index.html
2. Although the dog has great physical attributes, it isn’t unordinarily more physically capable of doing damage then any other medium to large breed dog. There are many myths surrounding the breed, however, such as “pits have locking jaws” or “pits can bite with over 1500psi” etc. These myths have proven false. According to Dr. Brisbin of University of Georgia, multiple studies have shown that the jaw structure and biting mechanism is no different then any other dog.
3. Dogs that top breed statistics in terms of frequency of bites are the most popular dog breeds at the time and usually the most popular among irresponsible owners. Research shows that genetics have nothing to do with these numbers.
4. Dogs that do become “mean” or “ dangerous” are generally those used by criminal elements to guard drug dens, dog fight, etc. These Criminals represent only about 1% of the owners of this breed.
5. Most people don’t know what a “pit bull” actually is, so most dog attacks are blamed on “pit bulls.” A pit bull classically would be either an American Pit Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier. However, there is no DNA evidence to date that would separate a “pit bull” from any other dog breed. This means it is left to the people to decide what the dog “looks” like if there is no pedigree info. Here is a short list of some dogs that have made the news for viscousness that the media has credited to “Pit Bulls”: Great Danes, American bulldogs, Bull Mastiffs, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Greyhounds, lab mixes, other mix dogs, and many more. Most statistics that cover “pit bulls” usually include any mix breed that might look like a “pit bull. The fact is “Pit Bull” isn’t actually a recognized breed; it has become a generic term for any dog that might display undesirable aggressive traits. Yet, when legislation is passed to cover this generic term, it is the recognized breeds that are killed first.
6. There is no “pit bull” epidemic. In fact, there is no “dog attack” epidemic. Fatalities from dog attacks only include 0.0000004% of the population. Statistically, you are more likely to be killed on a bicycle then by a dog….maybe we should ban those?
These few facts alone prove that “pit bulls” are not unique to any other medium to large breed dog in terms of how much of a danger they represent to the public. I could go on and on with more proof, but I’ll let you read through these links for yourself if your interested:
http://www.austinlostpets.com/kidskorner/2October/pitbull.htm
http://www.goodpooch.com/MediaBriefs/GPpitbulls.htm
http://www.pitbulllovers.com/american-pit-bull-terrier-myths.html
http://www.fataldogattacks.com/
Now that we have concluded that the breed isnÂ’t dangerous, what the hell is up with Ontario?
Attorney General Michael Bryant and a handful of other ignorant McGuinty collectivists are whatÂ’s up.
Mr. Bryant is supposedly responding too 2 high profile reported attacks by “Pit Bulls” in 2004 . These attacks supposedly are what made this Nazi (I would call one who blames all of a certain problem on one race, and seeks to destroy that race a Nazi) go on a rampage against an entire dog breed.
The irony is, when presented with photo’s of different dog breeds by Janet Chernin of the Dog Legislation Council of Canada, he was unable to distinguish AmStaffs or American Pit Bull Terriers from other “similar looking” breeds. Ironically as well and once again for consistency, one of the two high profile attacks that sparked this absurdity didn’t even involve a “pit bull.”
More debunking Bryant here: http://www.dogwatch.net/fight_ontario_ban/michael_bryant.html
http://www.dogwatch.net/fight_ontario_ban/index.html
See if you can find the “Pit Bull” here: http://www.arrf.net/The Truth About BSL.htm
And an articleÂ…
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1125315169569_7/?hub=Canada
Besides the inhumanity and absurdity of all this, the legislation points to the bigger problem of the McGuinty collectivists. Side note: each period of oppressive government regimes earn itÂ’s own nickname (Stalinist, Maoists, etc.), so this one should be no different.
The bigger problem is that the McGuinty collectivists are willing to sacrifice individual rights and freedom for some sort of “greater good” or “collective ideal,” and are willing to lie and misrepresent information to do so. This is what is happening when a government decides to pass a law that allows them to search and seize without a warrant or due process, and eradicate another living creature en mass, thus violating the right of the animal to exist, and the rights of the individual. Such an act sets a dangerous precedence, and it points to the ideals of officials in the McGuinty Government. It says that they are willing to sacrifice inalienable rights for the sake of their “ideals.” It is unfortunate that such violations never come to question when the threat effects only a small minority; in this case bulldog owners. But this dangerous precedence has the propensity to grow like a cancer, stripping the individual of rights more and more for some sort of “greater good.” This is what happened with Hitler, with Stalin, and with many dictatorial governments; it is a wonder when people will learn that sacrificing individual rights for an ideal is never for the “greater good” of anyone in the long run.
Hitler eradicated millions of Jews. Thousands of a dog breed have been seized and euthanized due to this ban. I donÂ’t propose that dogs are humans. But, considering that research has shown that dogs are among higher order mammals that are least self-aware and self-conscious, one could consider this murder. Despite your personal beliefs, it is an atrocity just the same. The ban has only perpetuated myths and cruelty to the breed in Ontario. You can read about one case here, among other cases of animal cruelty (warning, it is graphic and might make you get sick or cry): http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/sadreality/4.php
So what should the penalty be for the likes of Bryant and the other Mcguinty collectivists who would support and cause such an atrocity?
The only answer that I have is that I am going to find a way to fight this. I will be contacting some different organizations, like these folks here: http://www.dogwatch.net/index.html to find out what I can do. I do a lot in Ontario, being here in Michigan. Until recently, I have grown very fond of the province and its people. But as a result of my last trip over and the effects of this legislation, I can see that this unfortunately has to stop. I know that I can’t risk my dog or myself, or the lives of the many people who would be harmed if something serious were to ever happen to us as a result of this legislation. I know that I don’t want to support an economy that would kill my dog and persecute me over a collective agenda, if simply someone were to call and say that I had a “vicious dog.”
So, I will be doing what I can to fight this. I suggest, at least for the sake of the animals and for the simple prevention of a domino effect, that ALL OF YOU do the sameÂ…
You donÂ’t want to wait until such a cancerous ignorance shows up on your doorstep.
Paul Janulis