Posted on 03/23/2007 3:06:31 PM PDT by kanawa
TORONTO — The bulk of the Ontario government’s controversial ban on pit bulls has survived a constitutional challenge.
But two key elements were struck down in a ruling issued today by Superior Court Justice Thea Herman.
Herman declared the definition of a pit bull terrier unconstitutional, and also struck down a provision that allows the province to use certificates from veterinarians to prove a dog is in fact a pit bull.
Attorney General Michael Bryant says the province got “99 per cent” of what it wanted out of today’s decision.
Lawyer Clayton Ruby, who led the challenge, said in a brief statement his side has claimed a “substantial” victory, but vowed to file an appeal.
Ruby argued the ban is unconstitutional and too broad because it bans all pit bulls, even though animal experts say the majority of the dogs are friendly family pets.
“People should continue to leash and muzzle their pit bulls; pit bulls are banned are in Ontario, and that has been upheld by the Ontario Superior Court,” Bryant said in an interview.
“Pit bulls remain banned, the purebred definitions of pit bulls are banned, anything substantially similar to those purebreds are banned.”
The law forces pit bull owners to muzzle, leash and sterilize their dogs or face a $10,000 fine or up to six months in jail — or both. Dogs can’t be bred or brought into the province.
Ruby argued statistics suggest there are other dogs more dangerous than pit bulls.
He cited a Canadian study that found that since 1983, 23 fatalities from dog attacks in which 55 dogs were involved. Only one dog involved was a pit bull breed, an American Staffordshire terrier.
In court documents, Crown lawyers argued the ban is necessary to protect the public from potential pit bull attacks.
They said attacks by pit bulls are more deadly than from other dogs and pit bulls often attack viciously without being provoked.
Well, if Liberty is the first, then we better scrap all forms of ID, port-of-entry security, etc., 'cause they're all infringing on our precious freedoms!!
But then, as someone else said, if you're not safe, you're not really free, are you?
Freedom trumps Safety because there is no point in being secure if you are a slave. And no I am not an Anarchist so I do not suggest we ban all ID because even the founders knew that government must govern to a certain extent. However dogs are considered personal property and when the gov interferer's in what people can or CANNOT do with their own money, well that is where we differ.
If someone is not hurting anyone there is no need for the state to intervene and curtail their freedom. This is exactly what breed specific legislation does. Now if someone has a dog, whatever the breed, and treats it badly and turns it into an anti-social animal that attacks others, then there is need for the state to ban that person from owning a dog. It is a case of banning bad owners, not picking on innocent pets because they happen to resemble some mythical breed called a "pitbull". Supporters of the nanny state who are out to ban the mythical "pitbull" are nothing more than autocrats and a serious threat to liberty.
Only a galah, a totally irrational person would argue that a person's harmless pet should be banned because it looks like something that some people refer to as a "pitbull". However, a rational person would argue that a person who treats a dog badly and turns it into something anti-social should be banned from owning dogs. They would also argue that a person who happens to own any dog, whatever the breed, that has a propensity to attack should ensure that that dog is properly housed so that it does not get the opportunity to attack. If the owner fails in this duty, they should be banned from owning dogs. People who want to ban a dog for no higher reason than its alleged breed are only hurting many innocent pets and their owners.
Who says the arguments were based solely on the animal's appearance?
There's lots of legal/statistical evidence we didn't hear, maybe some of it is quite damning towards pit bulls - consider the mere fact that the ban wasn't tossed outright.
Pressure to ban the alleged "pitbull" can be traced to publications by senior members of PETA. End of story. In Australia we have far more chance of being killed by Pseudechis australis than any savage dog. However, do people advocate banning Pseudechis australis? Of course not! In Australia people have been killed by dingoes. Is anyone advocating banning dingoes? Of course not! How about directing energies at the real things that harm people, such as pedophiles, rapists, murderers, drug dealers, drunken drivers, dangerous drivers etc and leave people and their innocent pets alone!!
That is never ever going to be the case.
Don't bet! Hefty fines and prosecutions make a difference. Anyone who cares for their dog will not leave it to roam the streets where it can harm others and others can harm it.
I don't have much use for pitbulls but the social cowardice you are desciribing is an extremely recent development and as such bears little claim to conservatism.
History demonstrates that people change. Afterall, it was once common to empty chamber pots in the street and to hang children as young as seven years of age.
It's grimly humorous that one of the first acts of the newly elected Liberal government was to ban sushi.
Faced with public outcry and mockery they were forced to review the law
and eventually repeal the ban.
vis-a-vis your comment here's an excerpt from one of the articles....
"Public health officials admitted they haven't had even one case of sushi-related poisoning or parasite infestation, but said this was a pro-active measure."
lol-grr
"And I challenge any of the breed's defenders to climb into, or put their children into, a cage with one that they don't know."
That is a retarded argument.
I would not climb into any cage with any animal I did not know....much less put a child in with any unknown animal.
Exactly, my female pitbull loves kids and is super gentle with them. My brother had to get rid of his cocker spaniel after it attacked their baby .....twice.
Most "pitbulls" love people.....which is why even after cases of severe abuse, the pitbull is one the easist breeds to place with new owners. They just want to love you.
Those who say they hate the breed are usually those who have never met one and prefer to live in a media influenced state of fear.
Here's a big problem...
The judge...
"Dog ownership is not a right. The impact of these restrictions on individual dog owners is not, in my opinion, disproportionate to the objective of protecting the public."
This what happens when property rights are not enshrined.
Well said! The anti-dog sentiments expressed by some people do nothing more than appeal to the base instincts of pathological personalities hellbent on abusing people's beloved pets. Let us not forget that psychopatic behaviour often manifests in abuse of animals.
Sorry to tell you, sir, but I was bitten quite badly by a golden retriever when I was a little girl. He showed no signs of aggression before attacking me. ALL dogs are animals with instincts, and sometimes they attack.
Sorry to hear about this my FRiend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.