[29] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of the Justice of the Peace directing the destruction of Ginger under s. 4(8) as mandated by the Act is reinstated.

[30] I recognize this decision will be difficult for Mr. Huggins, and the result perhaps incomprehensible to him. Like pet owners generally, he is undoubtedly very fond of Ginger and sees her as the friendly dog and docile pet his mother portrayed at trial. The legislature has decided, however – as it is entitled to do – that pit bulls are inherently dangerous animals that pose a risk to public safety by their very presence in public places. The language of s. 4(8) is clear and unambiguous about what is to happen when a pit bull contravenes its provisions, and must be given effect.

“R.A. Blair J.A.”
“I agree D. O’Connor A.C.J.O.”
“I agree Janet Simmons J.A.”

- from R. v. Huggins, 2010 ONCA 746

I've been thinking about Ginger to the point of distraction today. I'd only heard about the outcome of the November 4 court decision this morning. The judge has sentenced Ginger to death to put it plainly.

Ginger is a Pit Bull in Toronto who got into a dog fight and was sentenced to be euthanized. Her owner, Phillip Huggins, appealed and got a stay of execution. Now, the Crown has convinced a judge to reinstate the euthanasia order.

There's no point in blaming the other dog in the dogfight, Buddy, since it's impossible to determine which dog started the fight. It's one owner's word against the other's. And even if that determination could be made, so what? Like all animals, dogs sometimes get into fights. Unlike wild animals, however, dogs can only fight through the carelessness or intent of their owners. If a driver gets into an accident, is the person forced to destroy the car? Would that even make sense?

But making arguments in defense of Ginger based on the justification of her actions or even her owner's actions is moot. The courts don't care about right or wrong. They only care about interpreting the law and the judge makes it clear "The legislature has decided, however – as it is entitled to do – that pit bulls are inherently dangerous animals that pose a risk to public safety by their very presence in public places."

Except that Ginger isn't a risk to public safety anymore than a cat who gets into a cat fight is a risk. Anyone who's met her, knows she's obviously in love with people. She may or may not like some other dogs but she did get her canine good citizen certificate which requires her to be exemplary around people and to maintain proper composure around other distractions (including dogs).

None of this matters in the eyes of the law or to the people who support the law. The intent of the law and the intent of those who support the law is to eradicate Pit Bulls in Ontario.

Ginger never had a chance in court.

Killing Ginger only amounts to a cruelty to satisfy the vindictive urges of paranoid bigots who label all Pit Bulls as dangerous - the same type of personality which labels all Muslims as terrorists or all feminists as man-haters. It's an extremist, intolerant and uneducated view which has no place in a modern, civilized culture - which begs the question: just how civilized are we in Ontario?

Apparently, not as civilized, nor as compassionate, as Calgarians who have offered to take Ginger if our courts allow it and if Huggins is okay with it. Still, either through death or exile, Huggins will lose a cherished family member.

And Ginger? I'm sure she will continue to be a good and happy dog, living moment to moment, oblivious to the shadow of the killing monster we call our "justice" system looming over her.