Dangerous Dogs

Dahn Batchelor's Opinions

This is a letter I sent to the Premier of Ontario on August 30th 2004. After he read it, he wrote me back and said that he would pass it on to the Attorney General of Ontario. Within months, the Attorney General brought in a bill befor the legislature banning pitbulls in Ontario. The bill became law the following year.

Dear Sir:

Ontarions are facing and have been facing for a very long time, a very serious problem with respect to dangerous dogs.

The universally recognized dangerous dogs are; Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Husky breeds, Staffordshire, Bull Terrier, German Sheppards, Tosa Inu and Dobermans.

In 2000, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that 25 breeds of dogs were involved in 238 fatal dog bites from 1979-1998. More than 50% of the deaths where the breed was known were caused by Pit Bull type dogs and Rottweilers.

I don’t have statistics for Canada or Ontario however it must be apparent to you as it is to everyone else that we really do have a very serious problem in Ontario as it relates to dangerous dogs.

I think it is time to get rid of these dogs by phasing them out.

The United Kingdom has taken steps to solve their problem. In 1991, their parliament passed the Dangerous Dogs Act.

1.—(1) This section applies to—
(a) any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier;
(b) any dog of the type known as the Japanese tosa; and
(c) any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose.
(2) No person shall—
(a) breed, or breed from, a dog to which this section applies;
(b) sell or exchange such a dog or offer, advertise or expose such a dog for sale or exchange;
(c) make or offer to make a gift of such a dog or advertise or expose such a dog as a gift;
(d) allow such a dog of which he is the owner or of which he is for the time being in charge to be in a public place without being muzzled and kept on a lead; or
(e) abandon such a dog of which he is the owner or, being the owner or for the time being in charge of such a dog, allow it to stray.


3.—(1) If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place—
(a) the owner; and
(b) if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog,is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection.

I think it is time to bring in legislation to solve this problem. If not, then many more people in our province will eventually be maimed and killed by these dogs.

On your website, you have said, and I quote;
Our government is working with Ontarians to deliver real, positive change. We’re listening to Ontarians about where they want to go — and we’re leading the way there.

I think if you bring in legislation that prohibits the breeding of dangerous dogs in Ontario, your government will deliver a real, positive change to Ontarions.

Do you have the courage to bring in such legislation? If not, then your statement that you are listening to Ontarions is a farce. If another child dies because of an attack by a dangerous dog, that child will have died because we don’t have legislation in Ontario that can prevent these needless deaths.

Do we have to adjust to the alien's ways?

I believe that it is advantageous for all Canadians and citizens of other countries to accept immigrants to our countries. The immigrants bring their culture with them that adds to the mosaic of our countries.

But I get quite annoyed when I read about demands that many immigrants and other minorities make on those of us who have lived here all our lives and who insist that we adjust ourselves to their demands.

Here is a case in point. In November 2006, in the city of Montreal, a Hasidic school (a very orthodox Jewish school) made demands upon a local YMCA which was next door to them, that the Y frost four of their windows so that young men in the Y would not stare at the young women who were exercising in the school. Finally, the Hasdic school gave the Y money to pay for the frosting of their windows.

It is beyond me as to why the Y succumbed to this kind of abuse from a neighbour. It’s like your neighbor telling you that you have to frost your bedroom window so won’t see your neighbour’s wife when she is undressing in their bedroom. If I were being abused like that, I would tell the jerk to get some blinds.

In 2001, some Hasidic Jews in Montreal strung up fishing line along utility poles so that they could create an extended eruv. (an area where they may carry on activities which otherwise would be prohibited on Saturdays)

I don’t care whether they choose to carry on activities normally prohibited to them on Saturdays but if they wish to do that, they should restrict those areas to their homes or any other place that is theirs and not do so in the public domain. It’s like your cat peeing on your neighbour’s lawn as a gesture to your neighbours that your cat has enlarged its territorial domain beyond your own property.

Some ultra-Orthodox Jews in Montreal recently made demands on the police force in that city that only male officers should interview
female suspects or witnesses of that sect because the male ultra-Orthodox Jews may not want to talk with the female officers.

Pure unadulterated RUBBISH

These people aren’t the only ones who make foolish demands. When Baltej Singh Dhillon was accepted into the RCMP, he faced a choice — serving his country or wearing his turban. He chose to fight for his religious rights. In 1990, the federal government finally removed the ban preventing Sikhs in the RCMP from wearing turbans.

How long will it be before Sikhs while working in our mines, on construction sites or serve in our armed forces begin making the same demands? The problem as I see it is, if Sikhs can wear turbans while serving with the RCMP, how long will it be before another minority citizen insists that he wear a headdress of his own choosing while serving in a police force?

A number of years ago, a Moslem schoolgirl in the United States demanded that her school not play Christmas carols in her school. She said that she was not a Christian and that the carols offended her.

More utter unadulterated GARBAGE

Probably the worst offender of this kind of nonsense is the Quebec government. They made a law that prohibits store owners from printing English words on their signs. They also passed a law that said that instruction in the kindergarten classes and in the elementary and secondary schools shall be in French only. That would mean that all the thousands of English speaking students would not be taught English at all, a language that is universally excepted all over the world.

The Supreme Court of Canada denounced that law by saying that it was inconsistent with s. 23 of the Charter and was of no force or effect.

Section 23 of the Charter is entitled Minority Language Educational Rights and provides the citizens of Canada, whose first language learned and understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province they reside in.

I do not concern myself about accepting a world of differing cultures and languages. It’s the world we live in. I do however have concerns about immigrants and religious zealots who would throw their cultures, beliefs and languages in our faces and then treat us as if it is we who are the aliens who must succumb to their demands.