Update:  Great editorial in the Mississauga News today.


[...]
Oddly enough, Bowser’s master, 21-year-old Danny Truong, finds himself trying to prove the impossible – that his dog is not something that, technically, doesn’t exist.

Confused? So are many residents when asked about the law that prohibits ownership of pitbulls, a slang term for a number of cross-bred animals that carry some of the traits and genetic lineage of dogs such as those of the Molosser canine family.

The legistlation refers to bull terrier breeds and dogs that have “an appearance and physical characteristics that are substantially similar” to those breeds.

Both the legislation and its definitions are vague, about as clear as mud, leaving residents and law enforcers alike to wrestle with its application and to prove the unprovable.
[...]


Update: Danny's got a Facebook Page:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=7406&post=26375&uid=61941358224#/group.php?gid=61941358224


Remember I said I was in court last Friday?

The Mississauga News came down to cover the story.  I was a bit crabby about that (sorry Julia) because I hoped that the City would see the light before the screaming started.  Oh well, it's their party and they can cry if they want to.

Another innocent dog owner has been tagged by the Mississauga Christmas 'Pit Bull' Program. 

This time, a bargain-basement neutering-only clinic took it upon themselves to:

a)  Try to determine the ancestry of a mutt;
b)  Call Mississauga Animal Control to rat out the owner because of an alleged  illegal 'pit bull'.

Seriously, does the term 'prohibited dog' bother anybody else, or is it just me?

It is of some concern that almost every person charged in Ontario has belonged to an ethnic minority or has lived with a member of an ethnic minority.

Danny never thought his dog was a 'pit bull'.  None of his friends at the dog park, where he's been a regular since Bowser was little, ever said they thought he looked like a banned dog.  They're all furious and are writing testimonials for him.  His regular vet never mentioned it.  He's been all over the place, his dog is trained, socialized to play with other dogs, and is friendly with people.  He walks him every day.  Most of all, he loves him.  Bowser is the first dog Danny's ever owned.

People have a right to know whether or not they are breaking a law, in other words, to understand a law.  I defy anyone to accomplish that to any degree of certainty with DOLA. This law is not based on behaviour, it's based on appearance alone.  It's all guesswork and vagueness and the subjective opinions of unaccredited people based on unmeasurable qualities - which is why this law is completely rigged against a dog owner right out of the gate.  The government could never, ever win any other way.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  The only owners of short-haired dogs who are safe in Ontario are the owners of the extremely rare banned purebreds.  They are the only ones who know exactly where they stand.  The rest are easy meat for any wannabe gunslinger or ignoramus on the street who thinks he knows his stuff.

Welcome to the Formerly Democratic Republic of Ontaristan, where we say one thing and do the opposite.  Of course, bilge trickles down and it doesn't get much more rancid than the effluent that oozes from Queen's Park these days.

Public safety, my ass.  What about our safety?  Danny's safety?  Oh, I forgot, dog owners are second-class citizens in this place now, especially if their dogs are mutts - like 90% of the dogs in Ontario.

They still have time to come to their senses in Mississippi Mississauga and face the fact that Bowser is not a 'pit bull' within the meaning of the law - enforcement of which is entirely optional, anyway.

If not, this case will go to court to prove that.  I guess Mississippi Mississauga will blow, oh I don't know, fifty grand or so of the taxpayers' hard-earned money trying to take a good dog away from a good owner who loves him because he might vaguely resemble another mutt in another part of the province that had an irresponsible owner many years ago. 

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

I didn't vote for McGuilty the first time, let alone the second time he ran for office, even though I am extremely liberal in outlook.  In case nobody's noticed, these guys are not liberal in any sense of the word, despite their name.  I didn't trust McGuinty.  If I were still in St Paul's I would not have voted for Bryant - didn't trust him either.  Yet both were elected and worse, re-elected.  Now everybody is whining about the nannying and the secrecy and the fiscal mismanagement and the overall failure.

Hey, where have you been?  They started at pathetic and have descended into abysmal.

Unless you're a fan of discrimination - then they're world-class.