Remember those words?  They sparked the American Revolution.

Why is it that politicians these days ignore the majority of their constituents when formulating laws that affect those citizens directly?

Ontario's former Attorney General Michael Bryant liked to talk about all the correspondence he received while promoting his 'pit bull' owner scapegoating scheme - the much-ballyhooed 5,000 emails.

What he didn't tell people was that the overwhelming majority of those letters, faxes, phone calls and emails were undoubtedly opposed to his murderous plot.

He liked to talk about how he consulted with 'experts' prior to presenting the law for First Reading (which was, of course, already written and in the Box until an opportune time to unleash it on dog owners in the province presented itself).

The thing is, many of those experts don't remember that meeting.

He talked about the Committee hearings as if there had been support for the insanity there.

Funny, the testimony is available in Hansard and it clearly shows that the overwhelming majority of witnesses were opposed to the 'pit bull' ban.  So does the file of written presentations and research materials for Committee - there are no more than a handful of hen-scratched letters in support of the ban among all those papers. I looked for them.

Every expert person and organization opposed the plan.  Even the City of Kitchener, which has the dubious honour of pioneering breed banning in Ontario, opposed the idea of adding purebred dogs to the legislation and advised the government to put more thought into it.

The only people who supported it were a few individuals who had no experience with dogs, didn't understand what 'breed' means and in the majority of cases, just didn't think they liked the way 'pit bulls' looked or had a personal anecdote about an encounter with a purported 'pit bull'.  There were a couple of people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and suffered serious injuries from dog attacks but that's hardly enough evidence to penalize every owner of a short-haired, boxy-muzzled mutt in Ontario.

Bryant used media reports to shore up his case, because there is no credible evidence to support something as irrational, un-Canadian and pointless as slating a shape of dog for extinction.  The whole thing is based on fiction.

Unless, of course, you are being influenced by, or are a fifth columnist for, the animal rights/liberation/protection movement which has the goal of rendering domestic animals extinct.

*

I've focused on the situation in California lately because what happens in California won't stay in California. 

The Dead Pets Act, AB1634, has undergone so many amendments, including last-minute amendments, that it is unrecognizable when compared with its first iteration.

Initially, it mandated the surgical sterilization of every dog and cat in California by the age of four months - with very few exceptions.  It allowed a local town clerk to decide whether or not someone could breed dogs and what kind of dogs they could breed.

Due to recent changes, it now reads like a badly-written municipal bylaw.  The nut of it is that if a dog owner is cited three times (cat owners twice) for what amounts to a bylaw infraction (running at large, unlicensed, nuisance barking), then their dog must undergo radical, invasive surgery as a penalty.

Who's driving this bus?

I'm told that so many people opposed AB1634 last year that the fax machines in government offices broke down.

Its author, Levine, no longer holds public office.

AB1634 lay dormant for a year but reared its deaths-head again this summer in what appears to be a desperate bid to pass something, anything, regardless of its utility.  Due to all the amendments, the way the Bill looked this past Friday wasn't the way it looked last Monday.

*

What's with these politicians who ignore their constituents?

They are elected to represent all citizens equally in a fair, objective manner.  It's called public service for a reason - it's not about them.

Some of these people act more like royalty - unaccountable, secretive, insufferably arrogant and entitled to their entitlements. 

They believe that they know what's best for people.

They believe they can tell citizens what kind of dogs they should own.

They believe they can tell citizens how to look after their pets.

They believe they can decide when, and whether, a pet should be subject to surgery.

They believe they can enact sweeping, harmful legislation such as Ontario's 'breed' ban or California's intrusive AB1634 in order to address the tiny minority who are either already criminals or are a nuisance that can be controlled with enforcement of existing legislation.

They misrepresent information.  They ignore facts.  They hold their hands over their ears and hum when experts try to educate them.

They are not representing the people who put them into office.  It appears they are representing well-financed lobbyists and campaign contributors whose slick sales tactics obscure the real agenda.  That's not the way it's supposed to work.

I'm getting pretty tired of taxation without representation.

How about you?

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

The Government Does Not Belong

in the Dog Houses of the Nation