A warning to single-issue advocacy groups: never hyperbolize. It's amazing
how petty that can make you look, in context. The leader of the group in question knows exactly which multiculti pieties
tug at the heartstrings of good liberal Canadians, too:
"For this type of racial profiling, it amounts to nothing more than canine ethnic cleansing," she told the committee on its first day of hearings.
Ew. That's just...offensive. They're dogs.
Not a minority ethnic group. Dogs.
Yet I can't say I agree with the province's decision. In principle, anyway. I don't like dogs, and would be just as happy for the two or three dozen dog owners in my building to live somewhere else. (Personality may go a long way, but I think they're still dirty, dirty creatures.)
However, as long as owners are responsible - in the case of aggressive breeds, taking the appropriate precaution of not letting them run free, say - I can't argue with whatever choice of pet someone chooses to keep on their private property. It's unfortunate that the safety concerns leading to this legislation punish responsible as well as irresponsible owners, but irresponsible owners of tiny, harmless breeds simply don't pose the same threat. To make a half-hearted analogy, I favour unrestricted gun ownership, but I wouldn't necessarily extend that to legalizing the private ownership of surface-to-air missiles. The relative risk of irresponsible use is too great.