Can't enforce pit-bull law, Ruby says
This article is from the Globe and Mail.
Can't enforce pit-bull law, Ruby says
But Bryant disagrees that the court ruling effectively quashes provincial legislation
OLIVER MOORE
A judge's ruling yesterday that the term pit bull is unconstitutionally vague has left the Ontario government's restrictions on those dogs impossible to enforce, said the lawyer fighting the province.
Although Attorney-General Michael Bryant called the ruling a victory that left "99 per cent" intact the law he championed, lawyer Clayton Ruby believes the law will have to be rewritten.
"There is no longer any legislation that is meaningful," the defence lawyer said last night. "Any lawyer looking at this ruling would say you can't enforce this legislation at present."
Mr. Ruby had argued before Madam Justice Thea Herman of Ontario Superior Court that the government's definition of a pit bull was too open to interpretation. When the law came into effect in 2005, it applied to four types of dog, as well as any other animal deemed substantially similar to those dogs.
The judge ruled yesterday that restrictions were valid on purebred Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and American pit bull terriers, as well as dogs with substantially similar appearances and physical characteristics.
But she ruled the ban on "pit bull terriers" was too vague because it did not refer to a specific type or breed of dog. She also ruled that a veterinarian's certificate could not be used to identify whether a dog was subject to the ban.
And, in what Mr. Ruby called the crucial part of the ruling, the judge questioned the very wording of the legislation.
"The words pit bull are all over that law," he said. ". . . without the words pit bull, which she says are unconstitutionally vague, there is no legislation left."
Offering a different interpretation, Mr. Bryant claimed victory, pointing out that only two of 117 provisions in the legislation were struck down.
"This means that the law continues, which means no more pit bulls in Ontario," the Attorney-General said. "No pit bulls sold, bred or imported into the province of Ontario. People should continue to leash and muzzle their pit bulls."
The Ontario government cracked down on pit bulls after a number of attacks on humans and other dogs. Beginning in October, 2005, dogs meeting the government definition of a pit bull had to be sterilized and had to be leashed and muzzled in public.
The restrictions have long been criticized by owners, breeders and animal-rights groups, who blame bad owners for dogs that attack people.
4 comments:
I think they mean animal welfare groups.. Animal rights groups are all for BSL, PeTA supports BSL. I'm a little disheartened about the ruling, I was really hoping that the judge would declare the whole thing unconstitutional. But I'm glad we did get a little victory, any bit helps.
An introduction to animal rights:
The term "animal rights" has been arbitrarily taken over by a few outspoken people recently, and perverted into a synonym for PETA. It is not, and it angers to me to no end that these ignorant people keep spewing that nonsense.
There are millions of animal rights supporters who don't belong to PETA or any other organized group. Abraham Lincoln stated he was an "animal rights" supporter and far be it from me to rewrite history.
Animal rights generally means animals have a right to exist free of human interference.
In animal rights, keeping an animal in your possession is considered unethical, with the exception of existing domestic animals that have been selectively bred by humans so they can no longer exist on their own in the natural world.
Even in animal rights, domestic animals will still have to be cared for by caring humans until there are no longer domestic animals left. The goal is the day only whole, natural, wild animals are left to live self-directed autonomous lives on their own terms, without having to play "steppin' and fetch it" to please some human.
Compassionate humans can play a huge role in protecting the natural environments of wild animals, so they can co-exist on this planet with us.
Most animal rights supporters have domestic pets they adopted from shelters, even though they don't agree with animal ownership in general because REAL animal rights supporters would never be okay with needless harm coming to any individual animal or human for that matter.
Actually, now that I think about it, it's easy for anyone to pick out a real animal rights supporter. If the person would choose anything less than heroic measures to do everything in their power to save the life of any animal, pet or livestock, young or old, inasmuch as is humanly and practically possible, that person is not a true animal rights supporter.
As long as animals are owned by humans, there will be wide scale animal abuse, where everything from poor nutrition or apathy, to police dogs killed in a job they didn't choose, to abandoned animals euthanized in shelters, to outright human malevolence, will forever put animals at the mercy of their "owners".
That's just the way it is. Some people are fine with that. Animal rights supporters generally are not.
I hope that didn't sound rude, but I'm so tired of reading increasingly popular, but wrong, views of animal rights. I hope this helps people better understand that animal rights supporters don't condone harm to any animal, no matter what PETA's latest press release may say.
Well Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous, I don't know since you weren't so kind as to put your name. If you give me your sources to this information - I would like to look it up myself, since I'm not keen on just believing everything through word of mouth. And my definition is based solely on experience. I would be happy to "educate" myself. I'm not opposed to learning new ideas.
And yes, you did sound rude, but given the fact that this is the internet and I cannot adequately judge a person's true emotion when not in their presence, I'm going to let that slide a little.
IMO I don't think Animal Rights or Animal Welfare is too much of a long stretch as far as name is concerned as long as it isn't radical groups such as PETA that give the name Animal Right's the bad name.
If a group is doing all they can to SAVE animals and PROTECT them, isn't that what we all are trying to do?
Perhaps I'm mistaking the two and misunderstanding.
An example would be, I love and try all I can to help animals to my best ability...but I also eat meat and wear leather shoes.
Does that change the fact that I want what's best for animals such as farm animals that are produced for just that source? What I am against is the way some of these animals are slaughtered inhumanely and I'm hoping Canada can get Bill C-373 off the ground and made law to stop this and other unhumane cruelty to all types of animals whether they be pets, wildlife or stock animals.
Sharon, the reason some people come on here as anonymous is because I permit people to comment on my blog that aren't on Blogger, so that is why I get many comments from anonymous people, just to clear that part up. :)
Post a Comment