My late stepfather used to say that bullshit baffles brains.
No kidding.
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2008/october/2008ONCA0718.pdf
15:00 Update: Now that I've recovered from the shock, here's my take on what this decision means to citizens. I am not a lawyer but I do know something about this issue.
This decision gives the government unlimited power to ban any kind of property and throw the owners into jail without having to justify it. If they can ban purebred dogs (and any that vaguely look like them) on a whim, they can ban cows, horses, birds, cats and any other domestic animals. If they can create a new breed of dog and even rename purebred dogs as 'pit bulls', then they can create a new breed of any kind of animal - a 'dobbin', a 'bossy', a 'songbird' - you name it, they can create it then ban it.
This is very alarming. If media outlets report a 'series of attacks' by brown dogs the government can ban brown dogs. They don't have to define what they mean by brown, they don't have to have anything more than a handful of personal anecdotes to support their decision. The Crown doesn't have to prove that targeted owners have dogs that are brown because they just reverse the onus and make citizens prove their pets are not brown.
If this sounds easy, think about brown. Is it tan, fawn, red, auburn, liver, black, grey? How about blue? Is it brindle? What about partly brown as in spotted or pied? How about a double coat - white on the guard hairs, tan on the undercoat? How much brown constitutes brown? What does substantially brown mean?
This decision gives enormous, and in my opinion completely unwarranted, weight to media reports, since that was a large part of the evidence the Crown submitted as 'proof' that 'pit bulls' were dangerous and was the primary justification for the enactment of the law in the first place. Those of us on the right side of this issue know that media reports about dogs, and especially bite incidents, are frequently inaccurate, that they make sweeping (and unfounded) generalizations, that they often repeat folklore, that the details are regularly retracted.
This decision allows a slang term, in this case 'pit bull', to be used as a legal description of a shape of something that is genetically identical across shapes. Why not 'wiener dog', 'shepherd', 'retriever', 'mutt'? There is no reason why not with this decision. In fact, why not just cut to the chase and ban 'dogs'? This decision allows that and in fact, seems to argue for it as pointed out by Marjorie (below).
This decision gives equal weight to the testimony of untrained civic workers and that of credentialed scientists. It assumes that someone with an academic degree, even if their area of expertise is unrelated to the matter, is as qualified as someone whose area of expertise is directly relevant. That's what happened in our case.
For example, using this reasoning, someone who has driven a Corvette is as qualified to testify about the mechanical function of Corvettes as someone whose life's work has involved studying the mechanical function of Corvettes.
It means that a report in a newspaper about the perceived danger of a shape of dog, or make of car, or colour of house, or type of food, has the same credibility as rigorous scientific investigations and documented facts regarding that shape, or make, or colour, or foodstuff.
It means that citizens who own property are open to reverse onus, warrantless search and seizure, restrictions on mobility, presumption of guilt in the absence of any wrongdoing, public humiliation and discrimination - just because the government decides to enact that on a particular day without having to have a reason for it.
It means that a risk can be transformed into a threat on the whim of a government legislator.
Ultimately, it means that we are not living in the country we think we are living in because in my Canada, this kind of discrimination based on fiction could not happen.
17:20 Update: Thank you Marjorie, this is too good to leave buried in the comments:
Update 18:15: Big trogfest over at the Grope and Flail (h/t Anon for the link). Get over there and comment (I did), let the Voice of Reason reign.
And talk me off the ledge over here, will ya? I don't know if I can take this any more. Thirty thousand (documented) years of true friendship about to go up in smoke because some fanatical, half-baked, irrational wankers want to impose their personal beliefs on the rest of us.
I need a drink.
Reading this ruling reminds me of that experience. When there isn't a single, reputable expert who supports breed banning, you have to wonder who the complete assholes are who fancy themselves so knowledgeable, they can disregard every reputable expert?
The decision makes it clear the author(s) doesn't have a clue about the issues being argued. You can't define a 'pit bull' so how can there be any verifiable claims related to bite statistics, propensity, behaviour, enforcement, compliance, etc., etc. What about something as simple as muzzling? I would kick my dog's teeth out before I would arbitrarily muzzle it. It's abhorrent! A cage around the face of an innocent animal?!? Anyone who thinks that's an okay way to keep an innocent, harmless animal should be barred from animal ownership, in my books. If your dog is aggressive, you're to blame (either for making it that way, or not correcting it). As someone who has corrected aggressive behaivour in countless dogs over several decades, including dogs called "pit bulls", I know it can always be done. Aggression is a learned behaviour, therefore it can be un-learned or never acquired in the first place!
How about the continued acknowledgement that 'pit bulls' haven't been involved in very many serious biting incidents in Canada, yet the repeated use of incredibly flawed (and now virtually discounted) U.S. reports, as though they hold more weight than Canadian data. WTF?
Reading it, as an experienced dog trainer, I thought it was comical. It was absolutely no different than me writing a decision about a legal case (having very little legal knowledge), and having judges review it. What they'd be thinking (and the way they'd be chuckling at my ignorance) is exactly how I feel, reading this ruling. Idiots. No. Wait. Arrogant idiots. As far as I'm concerned, this proves I have the authority to dictate laws on any subject known to man. I don't need to have any specific knowledge or expertise. I don't even have to listen to actual subject matter experts. I'll do what I want, for my own selfish reasons (career, laziness, stupidity, whatever), and be damned with reality.
I thoroughly agree that the arguments made in the ruling more correctly suggest that all dogs should be banned, since they didn't understand that everything they wrote was scientifically-baseless in reference specifically to 'pit bulls'. If a tiny percentage of (dogs) might, maybe, one day, attack (and god forbid the victim might be an adorable child...never mind that such attacks are most likely CAUSED by that adorable child's parents, who put him/her in jeopardy to begin with, either by not properly supervising the child, or improperly raising/supervising the dog), then all (dogs) should be banned. If one kind of car can be driven irresponsibly, then every car of that make should be banned, and then every car should be banned. If we can't prevent every single car crash, then we must ban all cars.
Just this morning, some clown and his vicious German Shepherd almost took a chunk out of my dog, on a walk. He knows his dog is aggressive, but he can't seem to control it. My dog, perfectly trained, just ignores louts like that. And, for the record, the GSD's owner is probably twice my size, and my dog is easily 30% larger than his. It just goes to show that irresponsible owners of any sized dog are the problem (and should be the ones penalized), while responsible owners of any kind of dog, are the solution.
Chin up. It's always darkest before the dawn.