It's time to post one of my all-time favourite statements from the Bench.  I originally put it up in August 2006 and again in August 2007.

I'm a little overdue in reminding myself why I got involved in this 'pit bull' thing in the first place.  In my view, it has little to do with dogs or 'pit bulls' and a lot to do with treating people equally under the law.

If only the dogsbite nutters and other low-information flying monkeys could stop repeating canned nonsense and take a good, long look at what's really going on, things would be a lot better for everybody.

Enjoy.

"I regard it as a salutary doctrine that cities, states and the Federal Government must exercise their powers so as not to discriminate between their inhabitants except upon some reasonable differentiation fairly related to the object of regulation. This equality is not merely abstract justice. The framers of the Constitution knew, and we should not forget today, that there is no more effective practical guaranty against arbitrary and unreasonable government than to require that the principles of law which officials would impose upon a minority must be imposed generally.  Conversely, nothing opens the door to arbitrary action so effectively as to allow those officials to pick and choose only a few to whom they will apply legislation and thus to escape the political retribution that might be visited upon them if larger numbers were affected. Courts can take no better measure to assure that laws will be just than to require that laws be equal in operation."

--Robert Jackson, Railway Express v. New York

h/t Lawyers Guns and Money

Assaults

Uttering threats

264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat

(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;

(b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or

(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.

Punishment

(2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

Idem

(3) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(b) or (c)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 38; 1994, c. 44, s. 16.

Think good thoughts for the folk who are suing Aurora CO over its panic policy-making.

There's a good article in the Denver Post today which presents some facts that prove that 'pit bull' bans are nothing but 'pit bulls**t'.

Let's hope the folk in Aurora get a judge who can look past the hyperbole and snake oil to understand the core issue.  That's obviously the trick.

Florence Vianzon Sasek hopes she can take Isis outside for a walk through her Aurora neighborhood again without strapping a pink leather muzzle over the dog's mouth.

Isis, a 5-year-old American Staffordshire terrier mix, can't ride in the car without being enclosed in a locked crate and is not allowed to roam her backyard without supervision.

Today, Vianzon Sasek's lawsuit challenging the city of Aurora's pit-bull ban goes to trial in U.S. District Court in Denver before Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel.

The case was filed on her behalf by the American Canine Foundation, a Washington state-based group focused on protecting the rights of dog owners and promoting responsible dog ownership.

Here's the rest.

I think he's got it!  By Jove he's (nearly) got it!

From my great-grandmother's home town:

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.

Those exact words were spoken by Mr Charney, lead counsel for the government's team, at the Ontario Court of Appeal yesterday. This followed an argument that was a jaw-dropping adventure in obfuscation.  If his head felt anything like mine during his bafflegabbery, I'm surprised it didn't explode.  His ears became increasingly red while he tried to evade direct questions from the bench, which was funny to watch.  I'm really tired of the back of that guy's head, I tell you what.

He's the one who announced that there's no such thing as a 'pit bull' at our Remedy hearing in July, 2007.

He also said yesterday that he didn't like his own argument - on that point we can agree.

The day before, he gave us another great zinger:  "We're making this up as we go along."  No kidding.

He is a good lawyer, they say, and very senior at the Attorney General's office.  Your tax dollars at work.

Charney shouldn't tease, though.  I thought he was  prepared to come clean and admit he's been working for the wrong side all along but it was just a momentary lapse.  It must be tough to have to defend a law that is based on propaganda.

Our evidence and basic arguments have not changed.  You can view my original notes from 2006 starting with this post, Day One.  At the top you'll see a link to Day Three and at that post, to Day Two. They are out of order.

We pointed out various ways in which the Superior Court judge had erred and argued technicalities and subtleties as well as broad-brush principles in an eloquent, clear and persuasive manner.  Let's hope it was enough.

*

The Court of Appeal is quite different from Superior Court.

There are three judges and they ask questions and chat back and forth.  It's a very pleasant atmosphere and oddly, seems more casual than the lower court.

The government's schtick doesn't bug me as much as it once did and not just because I'm totally used to hearing it.  It's because it sounds almost quaint now that most of it is so outdated.

They keep on about 'pit bulls' attacking without warning signs, doing more damage, being dangerous, etc - all the mythology that was debunked four years ago here in Ontario by people who knew what they were talking about.  To hear it repeated this week was a trip down bad memory lane.

Think of what's changed since this Bryant nonsense started in late 2004.

Holland repealed its 15-year-old ban.

Lower Saxony changed its law when it was found that 'pit bulls' were the same as other dogs.

More studies have been done into canine behaviour.  More bite studies have been done.  More data have been collected.

The Vick dogs - what a great thing that was for us because it hit the mainstream media, hard.

We had the Ontario law found partly unconsitutional.

Many places have rejected banning dogs and have brought in generic laws instead.

A lot more has happened that's affected public opinion regarding 'pit bulls' in North America as well as the body of evidence.

We want the whole section of DOLA struck down, not just bits and pieces.  Our wonderful lawyers, Clayton Ruby and Breese Davies, explained all that and made many excellent points.

The justices were paying atttention and asking the right questions.  The government lawyers were typically disorganized and weren't answering direct questions from the bench.  I doubt that will win them many Brownie points - at least I hope not.

All in all, I feel pretty good.  There are always times during these hearings when I feel like butting in, saying "No, that's not true and I have the scientific papers to prove it" or "What's your source for that statement?  The Star?"

I will try to post a few more details about what happened later but I wanted to put a bit of a summary up.

The bench reserved judgement, which I see as a good thing.  Usually, they give their decision right after the arguments have finished.  In about 10 - 15% of cases, they reserve it.

We have no idea when that decision might come out.

In the meantime, contrary to the nonsense in the Toronto Star, I feel as confident as possible.  We've done what we can to fight this law.  Whether it's been good enough remains to be seen.

Since we're Canadians, we're never very confident.  It's a national trait - believing that every job could be done better.  Whatever.

When a law is based on a lie and then irrational and circular rationalizations are presented ex post facto as 'reasons', you have to believe it won't stand up to judicial scrutiny once the facts are made available.  To do otherwise would be to lose faith in the justice system.

I'm not quite ready to lose faith in the Court - since it's the only thing that can protect me from the government.

When I know more or can put together some notes, I'll post further info.