The Business of Politics

To try to understand why Montreal and Quebec politicians are following in Ontario’s footsteps by passing failed, ineffective dog law that will make law-abiding dog owners into second-class citizens, break people’s hearts, ruin lives and kill unoffending dogs, let’s analyze the political game as a business case.

After all, passing a failed, proven ineffective law is akin to emulating Enron’s accounting techniques.

First - In business, one must justify why a new product, division or plant is required before it will be considered.

Why is the proposed new dog law required?

There should be existing law respecting dogs and dog behaviour; is it objective, clear, concise and enforceable?  Is the law being enforced?  If not, why not?

What experts were consulted for the dog law proposal?  Were they people armed only with opinions (which is what I heard Montreal used)?  Why were people with deep dog knowledge and proven data, true experts, not used?

No answers from Montreal or Quebec on that point.

Next – What is the cost of the proposal?

Business calculates the capital cost for launching a new product or building a new plant.

In politics, calculating the cost is more difficult because the jurisdiction doesn’t know how the cost to enforce the proposed law; the strength of the opposition to the proposed law; and, how many court challenges the jurisdiction will have to defend.

Enforcement of a subjective “breed” based dog law will require additional animal control personnel and lawyers (to go to the court cases).

These costs are paid from taxpayers’ dollars as they occur, not from a capital account for costs.

There is also the emotional cost to residents of an unfounded, unjust, inhumane, vague, shoddy, proven ineffective and proven fiscally irresponsible law that legislates law-abiding people into second-class citizenship based solely on the shape of the property they own - their dogs – and kills unoffending dogs solely because of their shape.

While animal control personnel and government lawyers are busy enforcing an unfair, ineffective law, people will continue to get attacked and bitten by untargeted dogs, possibly at a much higher rate, because the ACOs will be busy killing unoffending dogs.

This proposed law might open the jurisdiction to lawsuits by victims of bites by untargeted dog types because the proposed law does nothing to reduce dog bites and attacks by dogs of other breeds and types.

There will be no answer from Montreal or Quebec on this point as the financial and emotional costs are incalculable.

Next – Who stands to profit from the proposed law?

In business, the stakeholders are the ones who stand to profit from an effective solution to a challenge.  Owners of the business and creditors.

One would think in a municipal or provincial jurisdiction that the stakeholders would be the residents of that jurisdiction.

In the political game, who profits from passing a law that has failed in multiple jurisdictions?  Who are the stakeholders in this proposal?  What is the gain?

In human psychology there are primal drives - survival, food, shelter, procreation. Passing “breed” specific legislation (“BSL”) satisfies none of these, so let's rummage in what passes for politician’s brains and see what else it might be.

What is Coderre’s profit in this?  What is his motivation?  Is it the upcoming Montreal municipal election?  Coderre is radiating an air of arrogance and self-satisfaction, boasting that the law will be passed on September 26^th and implemented on the spot.  Is it all ego and political greed on Coderre’s part?

What of Coderre’s sycophants, his tame councillors?  If Coderre is boasting that the law will be passed, he must have enlisted a sufficient number of foot soldiers (aka cannon fodder) to vote in favour of it.  Have promises been made to them to guarantee their unwavering support?  If so, what promises?  If so, how much will these promises cost taxpayers?

Is there any return on investment (ROI), any form of dollar return to the taxpayers, on this proposal?  No, because there is only cost to the taxpayers/ stakeholders.

Does Montreal intend to sell seized dogs for research?  Does it have that right?  Is there any payback to the City from any for-profit shelters for dogs?  Or higher rates paid by the City to for-profit shelters because the killing rate will be much higher? 

I understand that the Montreal and Laval shelter, Berger Blanc, is a for-profit shelter.  Who exactly are the stakeholders in Berger Blanc?

No answers from Montreal or Quebec on that point.

Next – When business takes an action, it is transparent with its stakeholders on the W5 and HM (who/what/when/where/why and how/much).

Not so in Montreal.  The proposed dog law is available in French only, cutting numerous residents, potential residents, travellers and proposed travellers out of the knowledge loop and greatly disadvantaging them.

More on transparency - What’s with the Quebec government’s “distract and deflect” action, supposedly “leaking” the proposed province-wide BSL shortly after Montreal’s?  Trying to take some heat off Montreal?  Collusion with Coderre (a fellow Liberal) to advance or support his political ambitions?

No answers from Montreal or Quebec on that point.

Conclusion:

I tell you - having seen this whole screenplay run in Ontario - the only phrase that comes to mind is "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap".  

Whenever politicians act in this manner, there's a game afoot and people are just pawns in the politicians’ game.  The dogs are nothing more than collateral damage to the politicians.

Figuring out the game and the players should give all the answers.  To date, analysing Montreal and Quebec raises more questions than answers.

Ontario, Quebec, Montreal and Rampant Stupidity

Before anything else, I have a question.
Is Denis Coderre, Mayor of Montreal, setting himself up as a "law and order" candidate for a run at the Quebec provincial legislature, possibly leadership of the Quebec Liberals and a shot at being Premier?  Is he doing that by legislating law-abiding dog owners into second-class citizenship and killing unoffending dogs?
And is the Quebec Liberal government colluding with him in his ambition with the provincial "breed" specific law that allows municipalities to pass stronger laws (and kill more unoffending dogs)?
If so, let's hope Karma is a bitch.  With big teeth.

================================

Ontario has been killing dogs solely because of appearance for a number of years, with no improvement to public safety and hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars down the rabbit hole.  More on that later.

Now Montreal and Quebec have decided to fall down the same rabbit hole of ignorant, ineffective, unfounded, unjust, inhumane, vague, shoddy, and fiscally irresponsible law.

So-called "breed" specific law is bad law.  It is subjective law, based on one person’s opinion of a dog’s appearance.  One person’s “pit bull” is another person’s “Labrador Retriever”.  This subjective law would be unfounded, unjust, inhumane, vague, shoddy, proven ineffective and proven fiscally irresponsible.

Good law is objective.  It regards only the behaviour of a dog and its owner, not the appearance of the dog.  Objective law is sane, fiscally responsible and enforceable.

There is no such thing as a “pit bull”.  That is a slang name for a dog of a certain shape which encompasses numerous purebred and thousands upon thousands of crossbred and mixed breed dogs – also known as mongrels or “mutts”.  The four pure breeds named in the usual “breed” specific legislation (“BSL”) (which should more properly be called type-specific legislation) are so rare that I doubt many have met one. 

Law-abiding people are legislated into second-class citizenship under BSL.  Thousands and thousands of unoffending dogs are killed solely because of their shape, because of BSL.

BSL abrogates citizens' rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – lack of due process, profiling, and guilty without a trial.  It restricts the ability of law-abiding people to move about Canada as they wish.  All this is solely because of the shape of their dogs.

BSL ignores dog experts who know that BSL is bad law; that the behaviour of a dog and the dog’s owner should be the focus of the law, not a dog’s shape.  BSL ignores the experience of other jurisdictions that BSL is ineffective and fiscally irresponsible. 

Any visible minority or gay politicians who vote for a law that discriminates against others who have done no wrong are raving hypocrites.

If you are a religious person, please explain to me how you can justify killing God’s creatures when these creatures have done no wrong.

One fact is that a dog’s shape does not predetermine or predict its behaviour, just as a human's shape does not predetermine or predict the person’s behaviour. 

Another fact is that the owner is always responsible for his/her dog’s behaviour.  It is the human element that determines a dog’s behaviour, not the dog’s shape.  Dog experts have testified to this at hearings on BSL and have been repeatedly ignored by politicians and the media.

BSL has been repealed in many jurisdictions, most notably the Netherlands.  The City of Toledo, formerly a death camp for dogs of a politically incorrect shape, ceased to enforce its BSL.  There are many other jurisdictions that have repealed their BSL because of the facts.  State after state in the U.S.A. has prohibited BSL.

Criminals, by definition, will just switch breeds.  Will you keep banning breeds until there are no dogs left?

In summary:  So-called “breed” specific legislation is unfounded, unjust, inhumane, vague, shoddy, proven ineffective and proven fiscally irresponsible.  It legislates law-abiding people into second-class citizenship based solely on the shape of the property they own - their dogs.  It kills dogs solely because of their shape.  It does nothing to reduce dog bites and attacks by dogs of other breeds and types.

In fact, the concentration on “breed” causes bites and attacks by dogs of other types to go almost unnoticed.  These victims deserve justice as much as any other, but they do not receive it due to this idiotic focus on the shape of a dog. 

In the media- and politically-fuelled hysteria about the shape of a dog, most people miss that this type-specific legislation makes law-abiding people into second-class citizens, abrogating their Charter rights, and that it has killed many thousands of unoffending dogs solely because of the dogs’ appearance. 

Much as one judges a person by behaviour and not colour, you can behave logically and rationally by judging a dog and its owner by the dog’s behaviour or you can behave irrationally and illogically by judging a dog by its shape.

The only sane, fiscally responsible and enforceable dog law is one that focuses on a dog’s behaviour, not its shape, and appropriately punishes the owner for any bad behaviour of the dog.

Stop the insanity, educate yourself about dogs, and focus on enforcing the laws you have.