Tuesday, September 23, 2008

OPP discover elaborate indoor marihuana grow op in Apsley

Crime should be dealt with and I will never debate that. Michael Bryant was in charge of cleaning up crime in Ontario while he was Ontario's Health Minister, but had he of put into action with the same exuberance as he did the Ontario Pit bull ban, we might have seen some results. Instead, he was on a mission of ridding the province of the Pit bull breeds. Crime was not a priority on his list as it should have been.

People do crimes and what they use as weapons is secondary. Guns and dogs when used by the wrong people help them with their activities, but they are not the danger. The criminals are.

To ban dogs or guns will not stop the criminals to obtain them illegally and that is a well known fact.

While the average citizen wouldn't have a clue how to get an illegal weapon or train up a dog for the wrong reasons, desperate, greedy money hungry criminals knows the in and outs of obtaining whatever necessary for them to protect their illegal activities with no barriers.

This story in the Toronto Globe and Mail demonstrates to what actions and extents a hard core criminal will go to extremes for their thirst for greed.

My question is why does the average citizens have to suffer by having their sport taken from them or their dogs when they are not used in the wrong hands. Guns and dogs are respected and with dogs, a part of their family no matter the breed.

OPP discover elaborate indoor marihuana grow op in Apsley
Sept. 23 /CNW

On the morning of September 23, 2008, OPP Central - East Drug Enforcement Section (DES) officers, along with OPP Tactical Rescue Unit (TRU), executed a search warrant at 832 Lasswade Road in Apsley.

A male suspect was found to be living in and guarding an indoor marihuana grow house that was fortified. The suspect was also in possession of five long guns and a large quantity of ammunition. One of the shotguns was located near the area where the suspect was sleeping.

Police also seized and destroyed 932 marihuana plants ready for harvesting and processing. The plants, once processed, would have had a street value of $932,000.

This indoor grow op was located just down the street from where police raided a location on September 9, 2008, where a male suspect was found to be living in and guarding a marihuana grow site and in possession of two, loaded 12-gauge shotguns and two pit bull guard dogs.

In that case, OPP destroyed 11,076 marihuana plants worth $11 million dollars.

"This marihuana grow op was located by the OPP Drug Enforcement Section's Central - East Team, based on information received and follow-up observation," said Detective Staff Sergeant Ken Watson, Central DES Program Manager.

Marihuana grow ops continue to be a significant risk to the public and police in Ontario as police are seeing elaborate booby traps intended to kill or maim, along with persons guarding the grow sites both indoor and outdoor armed with loaded firearms.

"With marihuana production being a multi-billion dollar business in North America, groups will go to all extremes to protect their illegal drug activities. There are also groups known as "pot pirates" who will go to all extremes to steal marihuana which makes the situation even more dangerous for the public and law enforcement agencies," adds Watson.

OPP Drug Enforcement Section continues to be vigilant in investigating marihuana grow ops due to the dangers they pose to police and public safety.

"Our drug enforcement members are very aware of the dangers associated with marihuana grows," said Detective Staff Sergeant Ken Watson.

Police also seized $5,600 cash, a 2006 Honda Accord and approximately $20,000 in grow equipment. The OPP have arrested a male suspect in his early 30's, who is being held at the Peterborough County OPP Detachment until a bail hearing is scheduled. - The investigation is continuing and an update will be forthcoming when available.

For further information: Acting Detective Staff Sergeant Ken Watson,
Program Manager, Central - Drug Enforcement Section,
Phone: Office: (705) 735-4750, Cell: (705) 790-1990

Monday, September 22, 2008

Pit bull law should be overturned


Pit bull law should be overturned

An Ontario Court of Appeal is hearing arguments this week that literally are a matter of life and death. However, because these aren't human lives, many people might not even know it's going on. That, however, doesn't lessen its importance.

The case in question is an effort to have the Ontario government's 2005 legislation that forbids the owning, breeding or selling of pit bulls overturned. Lawyer Clayton Ruby is arguing -- correctly -- that the ban is "unconstitutionally vague,'' and should be sent back to the legislature.

"It is too broad and needs to be struck down,'' he said in court Monday. "It is unclear what was intended to be captured in this legislation.'

In 2005, the province introduced legislation that forbids the owning, breeding or selling of pit bulls. Existing pit bulls were exempt under the ban, but they had to be spayed or neutered and muzzled and leashed in public. The province brought forward the legislation after a string of pit bull attacks.

Ruby also argues the government overreacted and based its decision on a single report -- written by a dog catcher from Ohio.

"They aren't dangerous,'' Ruby argued. ``In Canada, pit bulls are way down the list of dangerous dogs. They make wonderful family pets ... you can't identify how dangerous a dog may be to the public in advance and legislate it.''

In late March, the provincial government claimed victory after the controversial law survived a constitutional challenge. But Ruby, who sought leave to appeal that ruling, argued the legislation is too broad because it bans all dogs that look like pit bulls, thereby painting too many breeds of dogs with the same brush.

Ruby is not only bang on in his arguments, in particular the vagueness of the legislation and the fact it would ban an entire breed of dog because of the actions of a few. Interestingly, the fight against this legislation has received support -- at least quiet support -- from some unusual sources, namely the people required to enforce these laws.

Several humane societies, including the one in nearby Peterborough, have in recent months shipped pit bulls puppies to Quebec in order to avoid having to put them down.

When those who are supposed to enforce laws act against the spirit of the law, you know you have a problem. But while Ruby fights to force the government to legislate sensibly (would that we could all do that more often) the real criminals in cases of pit bull attacks -- the owners -- continue to wander free and unscathed.

While pit bull attacks over recent years have been disturbingly vicious in several cases -- and we don't argue with the need to put down animals that do attack people or even other animals -- the reality is that many more pit bulls live as beloved family pets than commit horrendous crimes.

However it boggles the mind that the government could decide to legislate against an entire breed -- in effect pit bull genocide -- because of the actions of a few dogs. It is similar in concept to the federal long gun registry -- penalize all gun owners for the acts of a few -- but in this case the government decided to kill innocent animals, not just fine innocent hunters. It is all about appearing to do something rather than actually doing something -- and in this case it is costing lives.

Ironically, the Liberal government got it right with its street racing legislation -- yank the owner's licence and tow the car immediately -- which firmly put the blame on the driver, no matter whose vehicle it is.

Similar legislation would also be appropriate in dealing with owners of all violent dogs: charge them with a crime, get the dog away from them, and stop them from owning dogs for a period of time, say five years. At the end of that time, put limitations and restrictions on them owning dogs, including requiring them to be subject to random checks on how they are caring for their animals. Of course this approach is sensible and addresses the problem -- bad dog owners -- rather than being sensational and making it appear the government is actually doing something.

Maybe the Liberal government doesn't care about legislation that is immoral and ineffective because it's not as if a lot of voters care. But we think people should care and we hope Clayton Ruby can force the government to take back its cruel and inhuman legislation and replace it with something that makes sense. He certainly has our support.

Article ID# 1207316

When is Freedom of Speech not upheld in Canada

Canadians are proud that they are a country to express their views openly and honestly without any discrimination or back lash from government or the police. We don't fear jail, torture or any injustices as some other countries do.

Personally, I've never given this freedom much mind unless I hear how men and women have been jailed and on death row due to speaking out in battle torn countries, where they must take care to what they say. Fearful people ready to be shot or hung because they disagree openly against their leaders and laws. They build an underground railroad ready to fight and die to make changes...but not in Canada. We are the land of the free...or...so I thought.

I've built this blog to express my opinions and beliefs about BSL (Breed Specific Legislation) and why I believe it to be wrong. I put the blame on Michael Bryant, who didn't care about statistics and educational advice from experts in the fields. His sole purpose was to make Ontario a province of the Pit bull breeds extinction and has spoken and encouraged with his faulty logic to other countries and provinces to do the same. Him, Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party banned together when they held the most seats in Parliament and ruled in the ban making it the very first of it's kind in North America, while the other parties apposed it and stated there were other options that could be considered. The majority won of course and millions of innocent dogs fell to their death. Murdered without cause all because of breed.

You must wonder, she's told us all this already and what does this have to do with freedom of speech?

After a lengthy illness and not seeming to pull myself out of it, in August my brother and Mom decided to kidnap myself, Shasta and even my cat, Enok to give me a time to totally relax without any real responsibilities other than day to day living. It took me a good week to finally let go and just enjoy myself. We went camping, fishing, (though I confess I didn't catch anything), but it was relaxing, beautiful and the bombardment of raccoons, exciting.

Back at Mom's, it was shopping if we wanted or just looking around. If I felt like staying in, I did that too. Shasta made friends with the dogs that came out every day at the same time of night and I loved watching her enjoy herself even though she was the only one leashed and muzzled. Before our holidays, I felt guilty that she was all work and no play, so to watch her finally have fun socializing gave me a feeling of gratitude.

We didn't return home until September, but even then Mom stayed here for three weeks with me and I really enjoyed our company together. Even though we got a lot accomplished with my apartment, it didn't seem like work with the three of us working together, Shasta included.

During this time, I decided to get on my Facebook and let all know I was back and what I had done, but to my surprise my Facebook was closed down due to offending the Liberal party, especially during an up-coming election.

It takes a lot to get kicked out of Facebook. I know this as I wanted Facebook to warn a young female teenager that was posing sexily with her full name, address and telephone number the dangers of lurkers and sex addicts. I couldn't because she didn't do anything wrong as to the rules of Facebook. It had to be specifically directed towards me in order for me to place any kind of complaint or warning for them to even look into.

My freedom of speech on Facebook was dismantled without warning. I never received a warning and with a blink of an eye, I was gone.

It makes me grin that I, 5 foot 0 inches, 90 pounds, disabled woman, am a threat to the Liberals that they would find me and have me gone all because of my views. That what I speak on could possible make a difference in the election that they needed to silence me in a venue such as Facebook.

I wonder, perhaps it's time for Shasta to join the Facebook world and express herself. What do you think?! ;)