Time to go Brindi
“Brindi” the dog has been avoided as a story/topic by yours truly for its sheer inanity. There is simply more to worry about than a single dog. However, the animal has become a case in point regarding the caring priorities of some. I mentioned on the air that many people care more about animals than the civil rights of Black Nova Scotians or the plight of seniors who, in our culture, mainly sit warehoused and drugged and unloved in nursing homes and are visited only to the meagerest degree to alleviate the guilt of healthy, younger, offspring.
There are many things to fuss over and “Brindi” isn’t one of them.
Today, I relented and did the topic as I saw it not so much as about the affairs of a single dog but rather as more about how this animal has arrived as a symbol for how many folks emotionally operate: people care more about dogs than other people. On every level, this is wrong no matter how hard some bizarrely try to justify it: “people make their own bed, whereas animals are innocent”, etc.
My position, to the consternation of doggy do-gooders, was to end it. Down with the dog I say.
We heard on Friday that a decision on whether or not to euthanize the pooch will be heard at the end of the month. The owner was found guilty of letting the dog run at large, owning a dog that attacked another, and not complying with a muzzle order. For all that the prosecution (the city) is calling for the dog’s destruction and a one dollar fine.
Some say the dog is reclaimable and that under the loving hands of a dutiful trainer that the dog won’t bite anyone, or another dog. But, can that be guaranteed? What are the repercussions if a trainer leaves the dog to someone else, or doesn’t take care of it? What is the responsibility of the city when complaints against this animal have been registered? Once a dog mauls a child it is too late. How can the city look at itself in the mirror if yet another attack takes place when they already know the history of this particular dog?
Collective rights and collective responsibility toward them trumps personal grievance. The dog owner in question dealt with due process by abrogating it – failing the system. She was warned, edicts were placed on the animal owner, and rules were broken.
Because the system cannot euthanize bad pet owners, their pets instead have to pay the price.
That is the biggest shame.