Difference between revisions of "User:Quertenu8"
From NexusWiki
Redirect page
(→Leave those pit bulls alone Full Comment National Post: new section) |
(→Debating free speech with the Supreme Court Full Comment N: new section) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
<div itemscope itemtype="/BlogPosting"><p>Contrary to <em>Post</em> columnist that, “Anytime you read a story in which animals end up dead or needing to be euthanized after being attacked by a dog, or children being wounded … you’ll be right most of the time if you guess the attacking dog was a pit bull,” (“Killer on a leash,louboutin shoes,” Jan,karen millen dresses. 3) there is no statistical proof that a pit bull is a public-safety hazard ― no more so than any other type of dog.</p><p>According to Dr. Julie Gilchrist of the U.S,christian louboutin uk. Center for Disease Control, a leading researcher on dog bites, “If anyone says one dog is more likely to kill ― unless there is a study out there I haven’t seen ― that’s not based on scientific data.”</p><p>What most likely determines whether a dog is dangerous is the humans, not the breed. In the wrong hands, any powerful breed can pose a risk, even if the animal has not been mistreated. A new client had called me in tears because her newly adopted shepherd sent her to the emergency room after he suddenly attacked her. Had this dog been a pit bull, chances are that story would have landed in the press ― and that dog on death row.</p><p>Early socialization is important for pit bulls, as it is for all breeds. They are terriers and thus can be tenacious. And, like all terriers, they can have a high prey drive. Prey drive issues are common in a variety of breeds ― shepherds, huskies, Jack Russells, etc,christian louboutin heels. ― but breed can show it. Owners of any powerful breed ?always go the extra mile.</p><p>What is not typical in pit bulls is aggression towards humans. Aggressive pit bulls are not typically family dogs,louboutin shoes, but “resident dogs”: Dogs chained in a yard, kept in a warehouse, or basement, with no regular positive human interaction. Under such conditions,karen millen dresses, any breed runs the risk of developing fearful or aggressive tendencies.</p><p>For the average pit bull kept as a family pet, things are very different. According to the American Temperament Test Society, among the 15 most popular dog breeds, only pugs and labs rank higher than pit bulls in temperament tests. Pit bulls even beat out golden retrievers.</p><p>Pit bull-type dogs are among the most common in North America. In some areas, especially the inner city,This has alarmed th, estimates run as high as 30% to 40% of the canine population. Yet less than 0.0004% of the pit bull population has been involved in fatal attacks. The truth is that they are a profoundly people-oriented animal,christian louboutin sale,and with the cost o.</p><p>Large numbers of pit bulls arrive in rescues, or are seized in cruelty cases, near death from having been starved, shot, stabbed,christian louboutin sale, covered in cigarette burns, beaten and scared. Even in these deplorable conditions, it is remarkable how often they will feebly wag their tails and lick their rescuers’ hand.</p><p>These facts have not stopped places like Ontario from passing breed-specific legislation (BSL), which has resulted in the deaths of countless harmless puppies and dogs.</p><p>When then former Ontario attorney-general Michael Bryant spearheaded the push for BSL in 2005, the McGuinty government never had to prove it had a sound case. It did not consult with the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the Humane Society, animal welfare groups, the Canadian Kennel Club or the Canadian Association of Professional Pet Dog Trainers, all of which opposed the ban,senior vice-preside. Instead, unsubstantiated statistics and media sensationalism were good enough to sign the death warrant on thousands of dogs who had done nothing except been classified as pit bulls by visual identification alone.</p><p>So why do people experienced with pit bulls see them so differently than those whose only experience comes from media hype? Perhaps because a National Canine Research Council study found that an alarming number of media reports cited pit bulls as the dog involved in attacks,karen millen sale, when no such breed was ever identified in the police or animal control reports.</p><p>These dogs have become the target for irrational fear and hatred, which says a lot more about us, than it does about them.</p><p>National Post</p><p><em><strong>Heather Morgan is a Toronto dog trainer, musician,christian louboutin shoes, mother and an adoptions moderator for .</strong></em></p></div> | <div itemscope itemtype="/BlogPosting"><p>Contrary to <em>Post</em> columnist that, “Anytime you read a story in which animals end up dead or needing to be euthanized after being attacked by a dog, or children being wounded … you’ll be right most of the time if you guess the attacking dog was a pit bull,” (“Killer on a leash,louboutin shoes,” Jan,karen millen dresses. 3) there is no statistical proof that a pit bull is a public-safety hazard ― no more so than any other type of dog.</p><p>According to Dr. Julie Gilchrist of the U.S,christian louboutin uk. Center for Disease Control, a leading researcher on dog bites, “If anyone says one dog is more likely to kill ― unless there is a study out there I haven’t seen ― that’s not based on scientific data.”</p><p>What most likely determines whether a dog is dangerous is the humans, not the breed. In the wrong hands, any powerful breed can pose a risk, even if the animal has not been mistreated. A new client had called me in tears because her newly adopted shepherd sent her to the emergency room after he suddenly attacked her. Had this dog been a pit bull, chances are that story would have landed in the press ― and that dog on death row.</p><p>Early socialization is important for pit bulls, as it is for all breeds. They are terriers and thus can be tenacious. And, like all terriers, they can have a high prey drive. Prey drive issues are common in a variety of breeds ― shepherds, huskies, Jack Russells, etc,christian louboutin heels. ― but breed can show it. Owners of any powerful breed ?always go the extra mile.</p><p>What is not typical in pit bulls is aggression towards humans. Aggressive pit bulls are not typically family dogs,louboutin shoes, but “resident dogs”: Dogs chained in a yard, kept in a warehouse, or basement, with no regular positive human interaction. Under such conditions,karen millen dresses, any breed runs the risk of developing fearful or aggressive tendencies.</p><p>For the average pit bull kept as a family pet, things are very different. According to the American Temperament Test Society, among the 15 most popular dog breeds, only pugs and labs rank higher than pit bulls in temperament tests. Pit bulls even beat out golden retrievers.</p><p>Pit bull-type dogs are among the most common in North America. In some areas, especially the inner city,This has alarmed th, estimates run as high as 30% to 40% of the canine population. Yet less than 0.0004% of the pit bull population has been involved in fatal attacks. The truth is that they are a profoundly people-oriented animal,christian louboutin sale,and with the cost o.</p><p>Large numbers of pit bulls arrive in rescues, or are seized in cruelty cases, near death from having been starved, shot, stabbed,christian louboutin sale, covered in cigarette burns, beaten and scared. Even in these deplorable conditions, it is remarkable how often they will feebly wag their tails and lick their rescuers’ hand.</p><p>These facts have not stopped places like Ontario from passing breed-specific legislation (BSL), which has resulted in the deaths of countless harmless puppies and dogs.</p><p>When then former Ontario attorney-general Michael Bryant spearheaded the push for BSL in 2005, the McGuinty government never had to prove it had a sound case. It did not consult with the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the Humane Society, animal welfare groups, the Canadian Kennel Club or the Canadian Association of Professional Pet Dog Trainers, all of which opposed the ban,senior vice-preside. Instead, unsubstantiated statistics and media sensationalism were good enough to sign the death warrant on thousands of dogs who had done nothing except been classified as pit bulls by visual identification alone.</p><p>So why do people experienced with pit bulls see them so differently than those whose only experience comes from media hype? Perhaps because a National Canine Research Council study found that an alarming number of media reports cited pit bulls as the dog involved in attacks,karen millen sale, when no such breed was ever identified in the police or animal control reports.</p><p>These dogs have become the target for irrational fear and hatred, which says a lot more about us, than it does about them.</p><p>National Post</p><p><em><strong>Heather Morgan is a Toronto dog trainer, musician,christian louboutin shoes, mother and an adoptions moderator for .</strong></em></p></div> | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Debating free speech with the Supreme Court Full Comment N == | ||
| + | |||
| + | <div itemscope itemtype="/BlogPosting"><p>This week, in the case of Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Whatcott, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the right of human rights commissions to censor (what they regard as) hateful speech. For the benefit of readers who have not read the decision, here it is reduced to Q&A’s. I ask imaginary questions; the Court gives imaginary answers,karen millen uk. Some will object that the Court would never say such things,christian louboutin heels. I say it already has.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> Dear Supreme Court, is there free speech in Canada?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> It’s not absolute, you know.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> Well, yes, we know that, but is there limited free speech?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> There must be. The Charter says there is, and the Charter wouldn’t lie,louboutin shoes. We support the Charter.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> Spiffy. So can I go and say whatever I like?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> Yes, of course. That’s what “free” means. Unless you cross a line. Like anti-gay activist Bill Whatcott. He said some nasty things, you know.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> Is that the line, saying nasty things?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> Oh no, you can say nasty things,louboutin uk. It’s a free country.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> So where is the line?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> When you cross it, we’ll let you know.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> Does it have a name?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> We call it hate speech.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> What is hate speech?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> It’s speech we hate.</p><p><strong>Q:</strong> But speech you don’t hate needs no Charter protection. What do you say to people who argue that unless the Charter protects speech you hate it protects nothing?</p><p><strong>A:</strong> Let them say it, we say. It’s a free country.</p><p>Some colleagues were dismayed after the Whatcott decision came down. But National Post writer Jonathan Kay looked at the bright side,karen millen uk, emphasizing the fact that the Supreme Court specifically gave a pass to speech that is merely rude or impolite. “Given the mania for censorship sweeping many other developed nations, especially in Europe, the Supreme Court judgment in Whatcott was far from a worst-case scenario,” Kay wrote. “It signals that political correctness has its limits in Canada.”</p><p>You could have fooled me, but it’s true,Unlike most parties. For example, it seems ethnic jokes aren’t being outlawed. Well, thank God for small mercies. I never much liked ethnic jokes, but then I never looked at them as the symbolic remnants of what used to be a fundamental freedom.</p><p>You’ve come a long way,karen millen outlet, baby, is one way of looking at what happened in Canada in the last half century. When I stepped ashore in the last days of December, 1956, same-sex practices between men were against the law. It wasn’t a crime to be homosexually inclined, but to do something about it, such as engaging in a homosexual act with another consenting adult, could land one in jail. The law remained on the books and was enforced, if somewhat sporadically, during the first 12 years of my life in Canada (as were similar provisions in most other parts of the world.) Such laws cut across cultural and religious lines, indicating either that the collective consciousness of mankind was homophobic (as we might say today) or that it sensed something unsavory about homosexuality (as people did say back then). The two, of course, aren’t mutually exclusive.</p><p>The law didn’t interfere with me personally, as I would rather have had sex with a porcupine than with another fellow, but I joined those CBC colleagues (yes, I was a CBC staffer for 23 years) who were pushing for its repeal. It was in the spring of 1969 that Pierre Trudeau’s Bill C-150, the amendment to decriminalize homosexual acts, which Trudeau introduced as Justice Minister in 1967, received its third reading in Parliament. I remember it, because it was one of the few times in my life that I participated (in a minor supporting role) in political action. Our aim, which we accomplished, was to secure assent to the law in the summer of the same year.</p><p>Back then, the liberal position was that homosexuality wasn’t a sin but an illness, and while making a sin a crime was one thing, making an illness a crime was like recommending jail for someone with gallstones. Those who defended the status quo made frequent references to Sodom, and Trudeau, who coined the phrase about the state having no business in the nation’s bedrooms, was described correspondingly as a Sodomite,christian louboutin shoes.</p><p>Human Rights Commissions,and transferred the, had they existed back then, could have had a field day prosecuting participants on both sides of the debate. Some of the arguments used to push for decriminalization were as politically incorrect as the moral and religious injunctions offered for retention,christian louboutin uk. (Imagine a “progressive” debater arguing that those seeking libidinal congress with their own, rather than with the opposite sex, aren’t bad people, only crazy,christian louboutin heels. Chances are he’d be on the wrong side of the Supreme Court’s hate-speech line before he could say “Bill Whatcott.”)</p><p>But in 1969 Canada’s Human Rights Commissions, as we know them today, were still in the future. So were most other rules, restrictions, taboos, and shibboleths of liberal totalitarianism. The brave new world of political correctness, already clamoring at the gates, was still outside the walls of a fort that looked impenetrable. The traditional freedoms to which Canada was heir had withstood sieges and onslaughts before.</p><p>That was 40-plus years ago. The siege has been continuous ever since,And the amount of p. The walls are still standing, but if they don’t protect Whatcott,karen millen dresses, they protect no one. The enemy is now inside the gates.</p><p>National Post</p></div> | ||
