Facebook is on fire tonight. A dog named Ginger up in Ontario was attacked at 6am up in Ontario when she was being walked by her owner's mother - she was leashed and muzzled - the dog who attacked her was not leashed - and during the fight her muzzle came off and there were wounds inflicted on the other dog and on both owners while they were trying to break up the fight. Ginger herself received wounds to her eye that were permanent and affected her vision permanently.
Ginger has the look that the Ontario government had decided looks like a pit bull - so it was decided that she needed to be killed - the other dog, and the other dog owner was never charged with any offence - even though it was the other dog who started the attack and it was the other dog who was unleashed. Because Ginger was a "pit bull" - it was Ginger who's had to suffer.
For the past 5 years Ginger's owner has been fighting to keep her alive - through appeals, and court appearances - and the final appeal was reserved - and the decision came out today - Ginger must DIE.
The court transcript very clearly states:
"...First, Ginger is a pit bull...."
"...once a dog is found to be a pit bull, and to have bitten or attacked another domestic animal or a person, or to have behaved in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals, the court is mandated to order that the pit bull be destroyed in the manner specified in the order.
In my view, as expressed above, the intention of the legislature is clear: when it comes to pit bulls, one bite or attack, or one menacing act as contemplated by s. 4(8) mandates the court to issue a destruction order. The legislature did not contemplate a debate over whether the dog’s conduct was an act of aggression, or whether it occurred in circumstances of play or provocation or self-protection or the
protection of humans or their property.  For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the summary conviction appeal judge erred in her interpretation of s. 4(8) of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act. Her order is set aside and the order of the Justice of the Peace reinstated."
So - that's what it says in the court transcript - you can read it at http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2010/november/2010ONCA0746.pdf - I have to say I'm quite disappointed with the arguments put forward if they were the only ones that were fought with.
To me - the way the way you'd win the court case is to say that Ginger isn't even a pit bull - how did the government know that Ginger was even a pit bull so that they could kill her? Pit bull isn't even a breed? That's ridiculous! Why are the lawyers in Ontario even allowing the courts to call these dogs pit bulls? I don't understand that. In this day and age - why are they allowing courts to call dogs pit bulls so that they can then put in court transcripts - "Ginger is a pit bull".
Ginger may have the appearance of a "pit bull" - but she also has the appearance of about 99 other breeds of dog - black lab, shepherd mix, rottie mix, pointer mix, and the list goes on. Only the dna can tell the truth - my rottweiller Daisy is 25% pomeranian according to her dna - I wonder what the Ontario government would say about that?
Here in Nova Scotia we have the glorious case of a dog named Zeus - who was also destined to die because of an over-reaching nim-commpoop government official - and the case went to court - and in that case justice prevailed - because it was fought on the idea that the term pit bull was so vague and in-determinable - that it was ridiculous to even try to define it.
What happened to the stories in Ontario like Tidus from a couple years ago - who won his case - he was another dog who had been deemed a "pit bull" by the Ontario government by the Ontario government and was sanctioned to die - but he was allowed to live - because he was deemed NOT A PIT BULL!