Things are heating up in Mississauga. A series of unusually accurate news articles (link goes to series, not in chronological order) written by John Stewart has appeared about a case that is generating some attention.
Here's a quick recap of the story:
On Christmas Day, a gate was left open and a pup decided to go exploring. Nothing too unusual there, it happens.
His owner, a 20-year-old woman, was worried sick.
The pup was picked up by Animal Control and
reunited with his tearful young ownerslated for death because some keener thought he was a 'pit bull'.Officials are on record as saying that if she just hands the mutt over so they can kill him, they won't charge her with having an illegal 'pit bull'.
She would rather not have her mixed breed pup, bought at a fleamarket killed so she plans to fight them.
The AC drones are gloating over the fact that she can't afford a lawyer and that she can't win a case against them so she may as well just fuggedaboutit. From the stories, it appears they haven't actually charged her with anything yet.
Enter some decent people. Public outrage is at a simmer and it may reach a boil pretty soon. People are having petitions signed, writing letters, planning a protest and I say good for them.
Thanks to the aforementioned articles, especially the initial story, the good citizens of Mississauga are learning why this law must be struck down.
They have said things such as "but he's a friendly pup" and "he hasn't done anything, just got out of the yard" and so on and so forth.
Well, yeah. Did they think this law was supposed to catch bad owners with ill-behaved dogs? Did they think that nice young women with goofy pups would be safe? The pups in Sarnia were only seven weeks old and considered a 'threat'. Nobody is safe.
Reality bites, doesn't it? Or is it unreality?
This law has nothing to do with the behaviour of the owner or the dog. It's all about the physical appearance of the owner the dog. That's it. Just looks.
I wonder why Animal Control doesn't want to go to court? Is it because it's impossible to prove that a mongrel dog is a 'pit bull'? This law is so vague and poorly written that even officials can't figure it out. (Seriously, if you want a laugh, call your local AC office and ask for a copy of their 'pit bull' checklist - only 30 or so breeds would match - makes a great party game.)
As for the widely used bully tactics (and I'm not talking about dogs) isn't threatening someone with a negative outcome if they don't do something extortion? If I tell my neighbour that unless he gives me his barbecue I'll launch a civil suit against him over his hedge, what else would it be? Legislated discrimination and legislated extortion brought to you by that coxcomb Michael J Bryant and yea-sayed by his toadies in the Legislature.
Even Robert Charney, lead counsel for the Ministry of the Attorney General's constitutional department said in open court on June 28 in Toronto that "There's no such thing as a 'pit bull'". I expected applause from the packed room. He also said that "the purpose of the law was to get the purebreds. We only put in the substantially similar clause in case someone had a purebred and lied about it".
Sure. And I've got a bridge for sale...
You may wonder why this strange line of reasoning occurred to Charney.
Did he panic because he sensed that the jig was up? The judge had asked about the intent of the Legislature (she had already struck 'pit bull terrier' as unconstitutionally vague, remember?).
She questioned (correctly, in my opinion) whether the law was still useful now that the nonexistent breed had been taken out because she already knew that:
1) There are hardly any of the purebreds named in the law living in Canada (opens as pdf) let alone Ontario; and,
2) It's easy to identify a purebred dog.
There's no need to use tortuous language, pathetic checklists, bizarre comparisons, reverse onus or unverified certificates scrawled on the back of beer-hall napkins by invisible veterinarians.
Purebred dogs are registered. Registered means that there is a record of the dog's vital statistics and the dog's owner on file with the kennel club. Purebred dogs are identified. If you have the correct information you can just call the registry for verification.
When Charney started weaving his web (just as Bryant had done two years before) I realized that there is nothing these people won't do to save face and that they don't care who they leave swinging in the wind.
They play dirty. They will stoop to any level to prove they are right.
More than 2,000 dogs dead in Ontario, 2,000 dog owners grieving, thousands more living in fear since this law was enacted.
"Is the gate open? Is someone at the door? Can I trust the dog-sitter? Can I leave my dog at home when I go out, will he be here when I get back? Can I trust my neighbours? Should I take my dog for a walk, is it safe? What if he barks at somebody or jumps up? What if his leash breaks? What if another dog attacks him - he'll be blamed? What if I'm in a car accident and the police come? What if I'm unconscious? What wlll happen to him?"
A thousand questions, a thousand fears, that is what's going on in Ontario. Thousands of anxious, distracted, depressed dog owners who have done nothing wrong have been disenfranchised and criminalized - made unequal before the law. And the negligent few, the ones supposedly targeted, are carrying on unchecked - as they always have.
I don't give a tinker's dam about lawyers' games or technicalities of language, that's not enough to justify this witch hunt.
A law should be fair and just. It should achieve its goal in the least oppressive manner possible. It should be clear and enforceable and based on accurate information. Most of all, it should be constitutional.
This law fails on all counts.
It should have been overturned last year.
In fact, it should never have seen the light of day.
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.
