# The "McGuinty" Government: Collectivism, and the Legislation of Murder



## Cruentus (Sep 8, 2006)

*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 Ontario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 General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 isnt dangerous, what the hell is up with Ontario?

Attorney General Michael Bryant and a handful of other ignorant McGuinty collectivists are what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 article
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 it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 don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 same

You dont want to wait until such a cancerous ignorance shows up on your doorstep.

Paul Janulis


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Sep 8, 2006)

In South Bend, Pit Bulls aren't quite illegal, but you have to pay a $250 a year for a special license.

While working as an animal control officer there, I bent the rules and only told people about that if they had an aggressive one.  And outside of the illegal dog fights, I only met one like that.  That instance was because the dog was being abused and we were just looking to fine the hell out of them.

Keep us posted on what you find out and what actions are being taken to fight this.

Jeff


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Sep 8, 2006)

My sister had a pitbull that was a great family pet.....so i was aware of the whole pitbull ban thing.

I don't recall ever hearing about 1000's of pitbull's being seized or euthanized.....and i watch the news and read the paper everyday.

here are some rules about pitbull ownership
*
"Acquiring Restricted Pit Bulls
Pit bulls kept legally after the ban will be known as "grandfathered" or restricted put bulls. 
A person who did not own any pit bulls on August 29, 2005, will be able to acquire one restricted pit bull. 
A person who owned one or more pit bulls on August 29, 2005 will be able to acquire more restricted pit bulls so long as the effect would not be to leave the person with more pit bulls than he or she owned on August 29, 2005. 
Pounds and humane societies are able to adopt out restricted pit bulls, provided that the transfer of the pit bull to a new owner would not lead to a violation of the restrictions on acquisition. "*
so it's not really as bad as you think.
No one came by to collect my sister's dog to destroy it.

The definition of what constitutes a pitbull is somewhat lame:
*2. Is my dog a pit bull? 

Under the amendments to DOLA, pit bull is defined as: 

A pit bull terrier 
A Staffordshire bull terrier 
An American Staffordshire terrier 
An American pit bull terrier 
A dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics substantially similar to any of those dogs. 

3. Who decides whether or not a dog is a pit bull? 

The amendments provide that in a Part IX proceeding the onus of proving that the dog is not a pit bull will lie with the owner of the dog. In offence proceedings, the amendments provide that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a veterinarian's certificate attesting that a dog is a pit bull is evidence of that fact. Part IX proceedings and offence proceedings are heard before the Ontario Court of Justice. *

this has nothing to do with the former Paul Martin Gov't, Provincial Gov't sets provincial law.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 8, 2006)

Shawn, it unfortunatily is as bad as I think.

The media doesn't report the mass Euthanization of the breed any more then they do here. Any Puppy born after the cut off date is Euthanized by law. Shelters are required by law now to Euthanize any bulldog that comes through there doors instead of being able to adopt them out. Because of this, thousands of dogs have been Euthanized or sent to labs to be test subjects.

Sure, some like your sisters were "grandfathered" in; but understand that one phone call can result in your sister's home being searched and her pet confiscated. The burden of proof then is on her to prove that her "pit bull" isn't restricted, and shouldn't be put down.

I have a friend who lives off 110 acres in Ontario and who had 4 Rhodesian Ridgebacks with pedigree papers. Someone made an anonomous call that he was breeding pit bulls. The cops with the "humane" society ransacked his home when he was gone, and confiscated the dogs. 2 of the dogs were killed in the process; he got the other 2 back when he proved that they weren't "pit bulls." 

He is persueing legal action because of this right now, along with many others who could share similar stories. Yet, it is not surprising that this isn't covered by the media. Attorneys like Clayton Ruby have taken some of these cases.

It is as bad as it seems; the difference is that because, once again, the mentality that "if it is not effecting me then it must not be a problem" prevails.



> this has nothing to do with the former Paul Martin Gov't, Provincial Gov't sets provincial law.


 
It is my understanding that the McGuinty Government follows the same part lines as Paul Martin.

It is my understanding that they are related in their ideals; that it is O.K. to overstep the rights and freedoms of the individual for a "collective good." 

It is percisely this dangerous ideal that allows atrocities like this to occur, and it is percisely this ideal that lays the groundwork for an oppressive government system, as been proven in the past.

This is why the good people of Ontario and Canada, like yourself, need to be aware of these issues, and need to fight against such problems with at the very least the use of your voting power.

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 8, 2006)

Whoops.

In my original post, I said:



> The breed is not only inherently dangerous, but it consistently proves to have a better temperament then most other breeds of dogs.


 
I obviously meant to say: "The breed is not only NOT inherently dangerous, but it consistently proves to have a better temperament then most other breeds of dogs."


----------



## Kacey (Sep 8, 2006)

Paul - 

I agree with you. Denver has (regrettably) a pit bull ban as well - as the result of which, (I assume) someone left a pit bull puppy (or mix; he was only 7 or 8 weeks old) in the park near my house.  He was adorable, very sweet, and very submissive to my adult dog (a retreiver mix).  I would have loved to have kept him, but I couldn't, because of the risks you described - I could hardly have kept him in the back yard and never let him out his whole life, although my dog happily adopted him as a baby brother and was in the process of training him in less than a day... but I ended up giving him to someone who drove him to a friend in another state, because I couldn't so much as get him shots.  Here is another site with correct information about pit bulls of all varieties.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 8, 2006)

Kacey said:


> Paul -
> 
> I agree with you. Denver has (regrettably) a pit bull ban as well - as the result of which, (I assume) someone left a pit bull puppy (or mix; he was only 7 or 8 weeks old) in the park near my house. He was adorable, very sweet, and very submissive to my adult dog (a retreiver mix). I would have loved to have kept him, but I couldn't, because of the risks you described - I could hardly have kept him in the back yard and never let him out his whole life, although my dog happily adopted him as a baby brother and was in the process of training him in less than a day... but I ended up giving him to someone who drove him to a friend in another state, because I couldn't so much as get him shots. Here is another site with correct information about pit bulls of all varieties.


 
"Bad Rap" is a good site as well.

Your story is really a shame; I am greatful that you found a good home for the puppy, but what a shame that you couldn't even take care of it or get it medical care in your area without risk of being prosecuted or the animal Euthanized.

It is important that we all take up this issue in our local area's as well. Michigan BSL (breed specific legislation) is on a decline right now, thank goodness.

What happends is scummy politicians look for an "issue" to politicize and grandstand over, so they can convince the public that they are "doing something" while in office; going after a dog breed tends to be an easy way to do this. To our advantage, this is why BSL always turns into a media fiasco with much grandstanding involved, rather then a quite peice of legislation that the public doesn't hear about.

We need to be aware of this, and do our part when something comes up in our area.

BSL is fustrating, but at least all the states and provinces leave it up to the local governments to decide. A province-wide ban like Ontario's is a frightening thing, and I would hate to see other provinces or states follow suit.

Paul


----------



## Kacey (Sep 8, 2006)

I agree - there was a court challenge to Denver's ordinance, claiming that it was in violation of the state constitution, which had the ordinance in abeyance for about 18 months; unfortunately, the courts found in favor of the city, and the ban was reinstated.

BSLs are the thin edge of what could become a very large wedge... that's what *truly* scares me.


----------



## Lisa (Sep 8, 2006)

Winnipeg also has a pitbull ban in place, Paul.  We were athe first Canadian city to do so in 1990 after an attack left a young girl badly disfigured.  

Here is an article regarding the banning of this breed.  Specifically I like this quote:



> "We have to get at the people [who keep vicious dogs]. If you take away the pit bulls, they will move onto another breed. You have to look at stopping individual people who have proven themselves to be irresponsible owners from keeping dogs."



I believe there is a lot of truth in that statement.  Blame the owner, not the dog.  The dog is the sum of his environment.  We own a Dalmation.  Now many people see a Dalmation and think 101 Dalmations and aren't they cute.  Well, yes they are.  They are also very intelligent and loyal animals and can become "vicious" if you approach the ones they love the wrong way.  Our Dalmation almost took a meter reader out one winter because he had a balaclava on.  She is fiercely protective and would never let anyone in the back yard if the kids were there.  Should we ban her too?

Paul Martin and the Liberals are all about the "Take it away and it won't be a problem anymore" mentality.  Look at our gun control laws.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 9, 2006)

Lisa said:


> Paul Martin and the Liberals are all about the "Take it away and it won't be a problem anymore" mentality. Look at our gun control laws.


 
Yes, which is very unfortunate, and a recipe for disaster. I always looked to Canada in general as a good example of a socially conscious government that still maintains individual rights until those clowns came along.

As to Winnipeg; great example to bring up, btw. Bryant used the city as an example of "success" of BSL. This is because [paraphrase] "PitBull Attacks went down after the legislation was passed." This is like saying that if we kill or ship out all children under 12 years old in our city, then we won't have problems with pesky children under 12. Of course "pit bull attacks went down" when you eliminate them.

What they failed to mention, however, was that dog attacks in general went up after the legislation was passed, as did deaths from dog attacks. A child was killed by an unruley German Shepard that year, if I remember correctly.

This doesn't say that a Pit Bull Ban causes other dogs to bite more; it just says that the breed of choice by irresponsible owners is what you will top the charts for dog attacks. If irresponible owners chose Pugs more often, you would see a rise of attacks from Pugs.

The Winnipeg example is evidence that it is the irresponsible owners themselves that need to be legislated, not the breed.

But Bryant and McGuinty chose to ignore the facts, and go with the sensationalism instead.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 9, 2006)

Side note:

Your example of your dalmation is a great one also.

In dog training circles, Dalmations are known in general for genetically having volitile temperments (very much unlike pit bulls). Yet, you are a responsible owner. You know the limitations and strenghts of your companion, and you know how to handle him and not put him in a situation where he or someone else might get hurt.

So of course your Dal shouldn't be banned; Because in the hands of someone responsible like yourself, he probably is a great pet.


----------



## Lisa (Sep 9, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> Side note:
> 
> Your example of your dalmation is a great one also.
> 
> ...



She is absolutely a wonderful pet.  Dal's have very skittish tempers and are not like their cartoon characters except that they are highly intelligent.  When we adopted Emmylou, she was almost too smart for our own good.  It took a full two years for her to mature and it took a lot of time and effort on our part to get her to be the dog she is.

Some things we did with her was not let the kids maul her or pull at her.  Her kennel was her domain, where she went to be alone and no one was to bother her when she went there.

I have heard horrible stories of Dals that were wild and hard to control but with a lot of time and effort, Emmylou has been a wonderful addition to our family these past 13 years.  She is slowing down now, can't hear anymore and is going somewhat senile.  I know our time with her is limited now but I couldn't imagine our years without her but I am going off topic here, sorry.


----------



## Don Roley (Sep 10, 2006)

Lisa said:


> Paul Martin and the Liberals are all about the "Take it away and it won't be a problem anymore" mentality.  Look at our gun control laws.



It is easier than trying to get to the real problem in many cases. Knives in the UK, throwing stars in many areas and swords in Australia all show situations where politicians make moves to restrict things rather than point out that the majority of people do not abuse these things. Somebody does something stupid with them and the politicians have to prove that they are doing something about the problem. And it is easy to pass a law banning a type of dog. It is impossible to legislate intelligence or being a good person.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 13, 2006)

The Latest:

I joined a "stop BSL" yahoo group that is comprised of many Ontario residence who are fighting the new legislation in there province.

But get this - before I went to the Bruce Penisula for the week, I called customs because I was concerned about the new law. I told the customs agent about my situation, informed him what kind of breed my dog was, and asked what was ment by "importing" my dog. I asked if I would be allowed to stay for the week, or cut through to New York with my dog.

The Agent stated that importing implied that I would be leaving the "merchandise" behind; so that I could bring my dog in just as long as I don't leave him behind, and as long as I complied with the other laws (leash, muzzle, etc.). 

I am being told by members of this BSL group now that the Customs agent, which is federal and not privy to the provincial laws, was wrong. I am being told that "import" means simply bringing the dog into the province, period. If caught even cutting through to Buffalo, I can have my dog seized and Euthanized. I am also told that the assumption is that if he is a "pit bull," then he is viscious and will be killed unless I can show papers proving that he isn't (and of course, even with papers, mine is). 

I am also being told, as I have mentioned before, that ANY dog reported as vicious can result in someone having their property searched and the animal seized without a warrent. So, let this be a warning to ALL large breed dog owners, especially those who own working breeds like Rotts and Shepards. You could have your dog seized and killed too in Ontario.

So, there is some confusion between what Customs has said, and what the people at the BSL group has said (and they have stories of people who couldn't bring their dogs through as well). So, I wrote the Attorney Generals office of Ontario to find the exact answer.

I will keep you all posted as to what they say.

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 26, 2006)

Update:

What customs had told me was wrong, and could have cost me my dog's life, among other things. 

Read the correspondence from the Ontario Attorney Generals Office below:

Dear Mr. Janulis: 

Thank you for your correspondence of September 13, 2006, regarding the _Public Safety Related to Dogs Statute Law Amendment Act, 2005_.  

The _Public Safety Related to Dogs Statute Law Amendment Act, 2005 _primarily amends the _Dog Owners Liability Act _(DOLA).  As you know, the legislation bans pit bulls, places restrictions on existing pit bulls and toughens the penalties for the owners of any dog that poses a danger to the public.  The new legislation came into force on August 29, 2005.  You can find a copy of the DOLA, as amended, and its regulations at:

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90d16_e.htm

Individuals who owned pit bulls in Ontario prior to August 29, 2005, are legally allowed to keep their existing dogs.  However, those owners are required to comply with new requirements such as leashing and muzzling their pit bulls and having their dogs spayed or neutered.  Pit bull owners had until October 28, 2005, to comply with the leashing, muzzling, and sterilization requirements.   

Except for some narrow exceptions allowing temporary entry for dog shows, importing pit bulls into Ontario is prohibited.  Pit bulls not legally resident in Ontario prior to August 29, 2005, are subject to seizure.  Individuals found to have imported a pit bull into Ontario will be in violation of the law and may be subject to fines and/or jail.  There are no exceptions for tourists, including those simply passing through Ontario with their pit bulls.  To be clear, it is this Ministrys view that individuals merely traveling through Ontario with pit bullseven for short periods of timewould be in contravention of the DOLA.

The Ministry cannot provide opinions as to whether or not individual dogs are included in the definition of pit bull set out in DOLA.  The legislation specifically indicates that a pit bull is (a) a pit bull terrier, (b) a Staffordshire bull terrier, (c) an American Staffordshire terrier, (d) an American pit bull terrier, (e) a dog that has an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar to those of dogs referred to in any of clauses (a) to (d).  Section 1(2) of DOLA provides that when making determinations as to whether or not a dog is a pit bull within the meaning of DOLA, the courts will be able to have regard to the breed standards for Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers or American Pit Bull Terriers as established by the Canadian Kennel Club, the United Kennel Club, the American Kennel Club or the American Dog Breeders Association.  

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/dola-pubsfty/dola-pubsfty.asp
Thank you for contacting the Ministry in regard to this issue.  

Policy Division
Ministry of the Attorney General

So, what this means is that the legislation encompasses 2 parts:

1. "pit bulls," which is anything that looks like a pit bull (recall the link to that pit bull test that I provided in a previous post to realize how many different types of dogs that encompasses)

2. "dangerous dogs" 

So, if you have ANY dog that is a pit or could be MISCONSTRUED as a pit bull (Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Bull mastiffs, lab mixes and other mixes, etc.) and if you don't have papers proving the breeds identity to not be a "pit bull" you CANNOT TAKE YOUR DOG INTO ONTARIO, EVEN TO JUST TO PASS THROUGH. Doing so will risk your dog being seized and euthanized or sold to animal research labs where they get to torture your pet.

If you have any large breed dog that could be misconstrued as "vicious," you are at risk as well. If 1 person thinks your dog might be a threat and makes a phone call, your dog will be considered vicious until you can prove otherwise. You risk your dog being seized and euthanized or tortured in a research lab just as well. And no, it doesn't matter even if your just passing through Ontario.

I will be writing many more letters. But for all of you, I recommend boycotting Ontario as much as possible until this legislation is repealled. You should especially do this if you have a dog, and especially if it falls under the legislation.

Why support an economy that would kill a member of your family if they got a hold of him/her?

And people who live in Ontario (most of who are good people from my experience) need to use their voting power and voice to fight this attrocity.

Paul


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Sep 27, 2006)

There are many reasons I want to say bye bye to the McGuinty government......the main one is, McGuinty is a flat out liar....and admittedly so.

That being said, now that this legislation is in place.....nothing short of a miracle would get another party to change it.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 27, 2006)

BlackCatBonz said:


> There are many reasons I want to say bye bye to the McGuinty government......the main one is, McGuinty is a flat out liar....and admittedly so.
> 
> That being said, now that this legislation is in place.....nothing short of a miracle would get another party to change it.


 
I agree, and that is unfortunate because it's damaging to your freedom.

Yet, many people are fighting for a miracle. And since this legislation is so poorly written and so extreme, I am hoping that the next government will have the wherewithall to throw it out.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Sep 27, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> I agree, and that is unfortunate because it's damaging to your freedom.
> 
> Yet, many people are fighting for a miracle. And since this legislation is so poorly written and so extreme, I am hoping that the next government will have the wherewithall to throw it out.


 
I couldnt agree more.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 27, 2006)

Update:

I just got word from someone in an Anti-BSL group that *John Tory of the Progressive Conservative Party* (the opposition party) is committed to reversing this legislation if elected.

I would say that this looks relatively promising...


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 27, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> Update:
> 
> I just got word from someone in an Anti-BSL group that *John Tory of the Progressive Conservative Party* (the opposition party) is committed to reversing this legislation if elected.
> 
> I would say that this looks relatively promising...


Paul, 

Correction, what was formerly known as the "Progressive Conservative Party" in Canada has been renamed the "Conservative Party of Canada", as a result of an attempt to rebrand and revitalize the party prior to our last federal election.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 27, 2006)

Flatlander said:


> Paul,
> 
> Correction, what was formerly known as the "Progressive Conservative Party" in Canada has been renamed the "Conservative Party of Canada", as a result of an attempt to rebrand and revitalize the party prior to our last federal election.


 
Thanks for the correction. I just got the email today informing me of Mr. Tory's stance, where it was called "progressive conservative party" in the e-mail, so I was just regurgitating the message.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 27, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> Thanks for the correction. I just got the email today informing me of Mr. Tory's stance, where it was called "progressive conservative party" in the e-mail, so I was just regurgitating the message.


You know what, this could be my mistake.  Ontario's Conservatives (at the provincial level) may just be the Progressive Conservative Party, as there is no genuine connection (other than philosophical) between the provincial and the federal parties.  I'll check.

ETA: It is.  Please accept my apology, Paul.  I should have been more diligent.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 27, 2006)

Flatlander said:


> You know what, this could be my mistake. Ontario's Conservatives (at the provincial level) may just be the Progressive Conservative Party, as there is no genuine connection (other than philosophical) between the provincial and the federal parties. I'll check.
> 
> ETA: It is. Please accept my apology, Paul. I should have been more diligent.


 
No problem, dude. In all seriousness, thanks for clearing it up (keeping in mind that being from the states, my knowledge of Canadian Government is limited, so therefore I can be easily mislead if I'm not careful!  ) .


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 27, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> No problem, dude. In all seriousness, thanks for clearing it up (keeping in mind that being from the states, my knowledge of Canadian Government is limited, so therefore I can be easily mislead if I'm not careful!  ) .


Thanks for your understanding, Paul.  And I doubt you could be easily mislead about much.  Though, it does suck that you'll be billed for the duty on the email.  Man, the Canadian government taxes everything.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Sep 27, 2006)

Things might be looking up......I like that John Tory fella.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 27, 2006)

Flatlander said:


> Thanks for your understanding, Paul. And I doubt you could be easily mislead about much. Though, it does suck that you'll be billed for the duty on the email. Man, the Canadian government taxes everything.


 
Damn...and the exchange rate sucks for us right now, too! :lol2:



> BlackCatBonz: Things might be looking up......I like that John Tory fella.


 
artyon:


----------

