Last week the “pit bull” test case decision was released in Ontario. The full decision is here, but essentially the Ontario Supreme Court made two important assertions:

• that the term “pit bull” is constitutionally vague (it is a term used to describe a multitude of dog breeds), and


• vets cannot determine the breed of a dog since it violates the standard of fairness because it doesn’t allow for a fair hearing

A brief summary of the legislation:

• Pit bull type dogs born after November 26, 2005 are ordered to be destroyed or transferred to a research lab.
• Peace officers are entitled to enter your home without a warrant and remove your dog (of any breed) simply based on a belief that you contravened the legislation. Search and seizure without a warrant = a huge violation of individual rights.


• All pit bull type dogs, or any dog that resembles a pit bull, are required to wear muzzles and be on a short leash at all times (last summer Ontarian Tom Tilley was saved from a bear by his unleashed, unmuzzled pit bull Sam who leapt between Tom and the bear--maybe Tom should be charged with violating the law?).


• Reverse onus: dog owners are required to prove that their dog is not a pit bull type dog. There is no way to prove the breed of a dog other than if it has pedigreed papers.


• No ability to cross-examine the alleged expert who is speaking about breed identification. The ability to cross-examine witnesses is a fundamental tenet of our justice system.


• Pit bulls are not allowed to enter, or even pass through the province (one of the Superdogs named “Tadpole”, an English Staffordshire Terrier, was not allowed to perform in the Ontario show).


• If your “pit bull” gets picked up by Animal Control there is no way to get the dog back.


• Animal control officers can now use “necessary force” on dog owners who resist handing over their beloved dogs.


• Animal control can either destroy impounded pit bulls, or transfer them to animal research facilities for vivisection.


• Any violation of any of the restrictions can result in immediate apprehension and destruction of your dog and jail time for the owner.

Breed specific legislation is opposed by organizations from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention to all major breed clubs, the American Kennel Club, the Canadian Kennel Club, the Humane Society, etc.

Michael Bryant, the AG and force behind the pit bull ban, was proud that “only 2 out of 117 provisions were affected” by the recent court decision. Unfortunately for the AG, who apparently forgot most of his legal training, his joy is hollow. The legislation uses the term “pit bull” throughout, and since that term is now deemed too vague to be enforceable, his prized legislation is currently without teeth (pardon the pun). In fact, the legal mess that is his legislation is confusing to legal professionals and the public alike.

Although I’m not risking my dog’s safety in order to test the legal limbo in Ontario right now, anyone who owns a “pit bull type” dog which is not an American Staffordshire Terrier or a Staffordshire Bull Terrier could theoretically ignore the legislation. In the next few weeks, the court will address how the decision will be enforced. The judge could either rewrite the legislation (Michael Bryant’s preference but would be appealed) or send it back to the legislature (results of this action are questionable in the current political climate in Ontario).

Winnipeg banned “pit bulls” in 1990. In a 2002 study, researchers found that bites by many other breeds had increased drastically since the ban was implemented. In 1989 there was one reported bite by a Rottweiller/Rottweiller cross and in 2001 there were 37 reported bites by Rottweillers/Rottweiller crosses. And yet Michael Bryant trumpets the supposed success of the Winnipeg ban. He has a great ability to speak confidently in the face of absolute evidence to the contrary.

The breed of the dog is not a constant variable in reported dog attacks. Common factors related to dog attacks include:

• neglected and/or unsocialized dogs (haven’t been exposed to other dogs and people and taught how to politely interact with them)


• unneutered dogs (neutering changes a dog’s behaviour and reduces aggression)


• dogs traveling in packs (2 or more)


• unleashed dogs (dogs need to be under their owner’s control at all time in public)


• dogs on chains (goes along with lack of socialization and brings out a guarding-related aggression)


• and, of course, owners who go out of their way to make their dogs aggressive.

Anyone with either a science background or who has read the extremely popular book “Freakanomics” can dissect the arguments against pit bulls quite easily. In studies that highlight the number of dog attacks by breeds (some of which show that “pit bulls” and “pit bull” crosses are overrepresented) the figures are often used as evidence of a greater propensity for violence in “pit bulls”. However there are other variables at work. For example, pit bulls currently hold the “bad dog” label (previously held by Dobermans, German Shepherds, and Rottweillers) and are frequently owned by young, irresponsible owners who want a dog with a “tough” reputation. If Husky dogs became the new sensationalized "tough dog" we would see more reports of attacks by neglected, abused, unsocialized Huskies.

However, young male gang members are not the only ones who choose to own pit bulls. Many people and families choose to own pit bull type dogs for entirely different reasons. Pit bull breeds are excellent and patient with children, incredibly loyal and friendly, and score higher than most other breeds on canine temperment tests. In fact, they score higher than Golden Retrievers, the current “family sweetheart”.

So why do we hear about so many pit bull attacks in the news in comparison to other dog attacks? Well grasshopper, the same reason that you hear more about individuals who die in murders, home invasions, bar shootings and robberies than individuals who die of old age or from smoking cigarettes on the news. The media loves to feed moral panics, and increases their audience by covering the sensational stories. “Cocker Spaniel Bites Child” has a little less impact than “Two Pit Bulls Maim Elderly Woman”.

Common myths about “pit bulls” include:

• the “locking jaw”
  o Ah yes. If this were true pit bulls would be a different species. And what would happen if a “locking jaw” pit bull were to breed with a regular lab? This myth wins the award for ridiculousness.


• pit bulls can “snap” at any moment
  o Pit bull breeds are the same as any other breed of dog. If a dog suddenly turns violent it is either the result of a brain defect (quite rare) or because the guardian of the dog was not adequately supervising the situation their dog is in.


• it’s “in their blood” to be aggressive towards humans
  o Pit bull type dogs have a tendency toward dog aggression just as some dogs have a greater prey drive, or some dogs have guarding instincts. That’s why it’s important that owners of pit bulls are educated and responsible. Dog aggression is entirely different than human aggression, which has to be taught to a dog. Many pit bulls “fail” at attempts to train them to be human aggressive because their love for humans is deeply entrenched.

At some point Michael Bryant transitioned from being a successful lawyer, presumeably a person who found facts and evidence to be important, to being a politician who twists facts, research, and even legal judgments to suit his platform. The result? Destruction of many amazing and innocent dogs, heartache for many families who own pit bulls, extreme expense to both the Crown and the organizations and individuals fighting the ban, and legislation that does nothing to protect public safety.

I find it so frustrating that ridiculous legislation can only be overturned if it violates an individual’s Charter rights. Why shouldn’t laws be based on sound scientific research and fact, rather than political fervor and moral panics?

For more information about pit bulls and pit bull rescue, visit www.hugabull.com, www.goodpooch.com, www.badrap.org (among many others).

Miss USA is bringing the upside-down-fake-boob look back. Thank god. I was getting sooo sick of looking at fake boobs that were made to sorta resemble real boobs.

cautiously optimistic

The other night (via one of my volunteer positions) I came across a 17-year-old girl who had been the victim of a robbery. She was home alone when a man broke into her home and stole several expensive items from the family home.

By the time I spoke to this girl she'd gone through the fear, shock, and vulnerability that always accompanies such an incredible violation. I admired how quickly she was ready to kick that low-life burglar's ass. Not only did he rob the house of the tv, dvd player, and other valuables, the loser stole a computer this young girl had worked many hours for (at minimum wage). She hated that he could view not only hundreds of priceless photos but also her heartfelt electronic journal on the laptop. To her, the thought of this was even more painful than his lingering presence in her home.

Being careful that her older brother and parents would not hear her, she confided in me. As tearful as she was, she was glad that the robbery had happened to her and not any other member of her family. She went on to explain how each one of her family members would have been broken by the ordeal but that she was the toughest one--she could take it. I thought to myself that each of her family members probably wished they had been the one home alone, ordered to lie on the floor and listen to a thief strip their nest.

Academics debate whether humans are altruistic or whether noble actions are ultimately self-serving. I think this drive to protect our loved ones, to want to take the fear and pain in their place, cannot be accounted for by philosophy or explained away by evolutionary psychology. I'm not often optimistic about human nature, but I think that almost every one of us would take a tremendous amount of hardship so that someone we loved wouldn't have to.

I remember reading about something really bizarre awhile back...Norway was wrapping one of their (treasured?) icebergs with insulated bubble wrap in attempt to slow the melting. Similarily, Swiss scientists were covering a massive glacier with styrofoam. No, it wasn't an April Fools Day joke, it was just another example of the bitterly ironic, fucked up world we live in. They probably melted 10 icebergs while producing huge amounts of bubble wrap and styrofoam...but most of us are inclined to be blind beyond the ends of our own noses. Life is not as hopeless when we're wrapping icebergs in saran wrap like busy little housewives.

I also remember reading about a new glass designed to hinder rapists' attempts to drug women's drinks while in clubs. The glass was double-walled and hollow so that the contents could not be spiked. Not only would women get shafted on the quantity of their drinks (tragic in and of itself), but it's sick that such an invention would ever be necessary.

more navel gazing

The other night I went out for a few drinks with an old friend, B. We sat at the bar and caught up, reminiscing about the old days when we got into a lot of trouble together. Skinnydipping after the bars closed, boy-swapping, and 4am taps on the window were par for the course. Surprisingly I've never been annoyed with B and we've never fought--we have a fun friendship that is lighthearted and yet not insignificant. I look forward to more rabble-rousing now that she is living in Vancouver.

It was fun to go out and scope out the Friday night Yaletown scene, but also depressing. It was a certifiable moldy sausage-fest. Groups of men in their 40s hung off their tables, hungry and leering and every woman who walked by. It felt like we were surrounded by zombies, soul-less creatures operating on autopilot: MUST GET LAID BY 20-SOMETHING WOMAN. I wanted to tell them that they should be home in the suburbs, mowing the lawn or reading in bed instead of slobbering over girls young enough to be their daughters. But who am I to judge? Better to just duck and dodge as if we were in some real-life zombie video game. Duck, and dodge. Duck, and dodge.

I guess I'm already lonely. Soon I'll be living by myself and no one will notice if I don't come home at night. I realize now how good it felt to be someone's partner, even if I didn't always recognize how good it felt to need and be needed at the time. In my depressive state-of-mind today I'm dreading the loneliness that comes from hanging out with people I don't like only because there is no one else available, being brushed off by friends who are infatuated with their current amours, and feeling disappointed when people appear and disappear without explanation. That stuff is a part of life, but it was easier to deal with when someone was at home waiting for me.

i'm a realist, not a pessimist

It bothers me when people deal with hardships by saying "it was meant to be", or "karma will get him/her". I'm a strong believer in Ockham's Razor: "entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity", or, more simply, "the simplest explanation is the best one".

Assume, as I do, and probably as Ockham did too, that there is no god. Therefore it wasn't "meant to be"...you just made a shitty choice, and now you have to deal with the consequences. There is no "karma", some people are dealt a good hand, others are dealt a bad hand. And no, there is no "god" dealing the theoretical cards, but rather life. Life doesn't care if someone is cheated on, or cheats on others; if someone is robbed, or robs others. It doesn't all even out in the end...and that's ok.

Why do we need these little platitudes? It seems as if they inhibit useful introspection and self-examination. I refuse to use them to comfort anyone. Now "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger"...that's a cliche I can relate to.

romantical

Two of my special friends from undergrad used to say the word "romantical" instead of "romantic" because they just didn't know they were pronouncing it wrong. The funniest thing was that one of them must have learned the word from the other one, but we couldn't figure out who imagined the word first.

It was my four year anniversary today. I'm not at all romantic. I can't even say the word romantic without feeling like a goof, so I say "romannic". I bought Rob a card (because making an anniversary card is just way too corny for me) with 2 goldfish on the front. Inside it said "I'm glad you're here with me". See, that's tolerable. I almost bought a card with a monkey in a banana-shaped car on the front. Inside it said "You drive me bananas". I thought, "how unromannic...I love it". I knew that Rob would be hurt if I gave him a card with a monkey and a banana on it, so I chose a more "heartfelt" card. Isn't that what real love is all about? Awww.

Gag.

they're all a bunch of boobs

Is this trend towards "plastifying" ourselves ever going to end? Or does the move toward plastic surgery and other "upkeep" procedures go on ad infinitum...until being attractive means looking inhuman? What happened to natural beauty? You don't have a chin? It doesn't matter--force some botox into your lips and put on some frosted lipstick and no one's the wiser. Eyes too far apart/close together? Load on the eyeshadows and mascara and when people look into your eyes they'll think "sex" instead of "ugh". It's at the point where a naturally "ugly" person can spend enough time and money to actually become hot. Check out the hotornot website where naturally attractive people consistently get lower scores than women who are decked out like porn stars. You're right, I'm indignant--it breaks all the rules of "survival of the fittest". For eons we've let evolution weed out the trolls-- it seemed to be working, right?

Maybe I'm so cynical because I live in a fairly materialistic and appearance-oriented part of town. The other night a few friends and I went out for some drinks. At one point I looked around and thought I must have missed the "Barbies only" sign on the entrance to the lounge. It wasn't the tanned skin, tiny thighs, blonde hair, sparkling white teeth, carefully applied eye-makeup, or breasts that looked too big for their bodies that bothered me. It was the deliberate combination of all those features women are told are beautiful and sexy into one package that was indistinguishable from the one beside it. Clones. Creepy, well-dressed, giggling clones.

"The Beauty Myth" is still the monster under all of our beds, but I cannot feel sorry for the women buying into it with such gusto. At some point we're no longer the victims and became active participants in the race toward "perfection". There is an unspoken competition to look the most similar to a certain ideal, and in the process everyone ends up looking exactly the same. By investing in certain procedures (such as breast implants) it's an obvious statement that you wish to be admired and valued for your looks above everything else. How awful, and how sad.

I get just as incensed when men put themselves down for their beautiful manly features...hairy arms, a bit of chub overlaying strong muscles, full eyebrows. It scares me to think that men will latch on to this beauty ideal as desperately as women have. Despite metrosexuality, most men still haven't achieved the slave-status that women have.

I don't tan or wax my arms, I despise the upkeep of hair-colouring/hilighting and heavy porn-star make-up, pedicures creep me out, and 90% of the time I feel really ugly. But I'm smart enough to know that if I spent the time and money to look like the ideal of beauty, that I would still feel unhappy with my appearance. And I think I would feel as if I was cheating on both my genuine self and my familial ancestry.

So next time one of you Barbies see me staring you down with a furrowed brow, don't be thinking I'm jealous. I'm concerned, and a little bit angry--did your mothers and grandmothers work so hard so that you could choose between silicone or saline?

Tomorrow morning we get to sign up for our courses. I can't believe I wasted so much time perfecting my schedule when I'm probably going to end up with Christie, Wexler, and umm...maritime law. That will be useful when I start my career as a nervous, philosophical pirate.

woe canada

I love Canada a little less today than I did a year ago. I'm embarrassed about the direction we're heading, and I'm a little bit broken-hearted that the ideals and values I considered profoundly Canadian seem to be mere illusions--superficial semblances of something I thought went deeper into the core of our country.

15 billion dollars spent on the military recently. I'm not going to play the hippy card and claim that we shouldn't spend anything on our armed forces (for PEACEKEEPING), but 15 billion dollars? Imagine what that money could have done for healthcare and social programs. I can't. Because 15 billion is a number so big, my puny little primitive human mind can't wrap itself around the sum. Where did that money come from, anyways? Was the previous government just saving it for a rainy day? Did someone get lucky when doing the laundry and find a spare 15 billion dollars they never noticed was missing?

But that's not the embarrassing part. It's that a former arms lobbiest is now Canada's Minister of Defense. How come the politicians involved in such blatant contradictions, many of them former lawyers, don't recognize this "minor" conflict of interest? A dumb rhetorical query to be sure--I'm sure they do recognize the ethical conundrum and choose to exploit their power rather than act with integrity. Shameful.