ADVERTISEMENTS - How well do you know your pet?

Give The Bark -- The Ultimate Dog Magazine

Introducing the New Havahart Wireless Custom-Shape Dog Fence

Fine Leather Dog Collars For All Breeds

Heartspeak message cards

Mixed-breed DNA test to find out the breeds that make up you dog.

Bulldog Leash Hook

Healthy Dog Treats

Free Shipping - Pet Medication

SitStay, Good for Your Dog Supplies

books on dogs

Pit bull ban upheld by Ontario court

Canadians are a bland and slow-witted people, prone to swilling beer, wearing plaid and playing ice hockey.


Of course that’s not true, but then neither is this: Pit bulls are dangerous and unpredictable dogs that have the potential to attack without warning.

That’s what the Ontario Court of Appeal said Friday in a decision upholding the province’s ban on pit bulls, enacted in 2005. It prohibits the breeding, sale and ownership of pit bulls and requires they be muzzled when in public.

The Appeal Court ruled Friday that the ban on the breed does not violate any constitutional rights.

“The total ban on pit bulls is not ‘arbitrary’ or ‘grossly disproportionate’ in light of the evidence that pit bulls have a tendency to be unpredictable and that even apparently docile pit bulls may attack without warning or provocation,” the judges said in their decision Friday.

Then they all put on their tuques, went to an ice hockey game and drank Molsons. Not really. The point is, you’d think a high court in a country so sensitive to negative stereotyping would give a little more thought and study to an issue rather just relying on stereotypes — namely the bogus one that all pit bulls are prone to unprovoked violence.

Yes, there are violent pit bulls (generally the fault of their owner) — just as there are nasty poodles and slow-witted Canadians, but blanket indictments based on perception aren’t progress. They’re the opposite — a step backwards. They get us nowhere. 

Lawyer Clayton Ruby, who challenged the law, called it a “sad day” in Ontario. “Kind, loving, gentle dogs are being killed across this province for no reason,” he said in a statement, according to the Canadian Press.

“The provincial government should focus their efforts and resources on identifying truly dangerous dogs rather than apprehending and killing dogs that pose no threat at all,” he said.

Ruby said he is considering an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Jean-anne Moors of Banned Aid, a coalition fighting the ban, said the group was “very disappointed” with the ruling.

“I have three so-called pit bull-type dogs who are all legal under the law,” she said. “Everybody’s looking at me as if I’m some kind of criminal when I walk down the streets with my dogs. They have no history of aggression.”

Moors said the law sets a troubling precedent because it’s not just a pit bull issue.

“If a government … can make such an arbitrary decision that a dog is a bad and dangerous dog and seize it under certain circumstances and destroy it … that’s a matter of concern to anybody who has a dog – period.”


Comment from MG
Time October 25, 2008 at 5:27 pm

[quote]Canadians are a bland and slow-witted people, prone to swilling beer, wearing plaid and playing ice hockey.[/quote]

I`ve heard that applies to their Politicians(Most) and Judges ONLY.

Maybe they were drunk when they came up with that Ruling.
Is that grounds for an Appeal?
After all that`s REAL beer they`re drinking in Canada.

Comment from Anne-n-Spencer
Time October 27, 2008 at 8:59 am

I really miss our trips to Ontario. We had some wonderful visits and vacations to some of the most scenic camping areas imaginable. We decided not to go back until they consider fixing this, because we’re not certain how they would treat any dog without “papers.”

Comment from Marie
Time October 27, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Grrrr. Where am I supposed to go when I decide I can’t stomach another stolen election?

Write a comment