I read this morning that the government plans to introduce legislation forcing all dog owners to take out insurance against the possibility of their pet attacking someone. Dog attacks are rare, but the government says that legislation is necessary to curb the growing trend for using dogs to intimidate people. The people who do that form a tiny minority in a very restricted area of the social spectrum. Bad though the practice undoubtedly is, we’re mostly talking gang culture here, and the aggression is largely internecine. It seems to me that certain pretty obvious projections are not being made.
The sort of people who engage in this activity are not the sort to abide by the law and take out insurance. They’re also the ones the police find most difficult to get at. So, the people who would be punished for breaching such a law would be mostly those who don’t give rise to the problem in the first place.
There are many elderly people, and others on low incomes, for whom their pet dog is a most treasured companion. They already have difficulty staying warm and well fed in the winter, so any further burden of expense would be intolerable. Many would have to give up what little company they have.
We already have a serious problem with people abandoning dogs because they are expensive, inconvenient, or simply no longer welcome. Adding further expense would only exacerbate that problem.
It seems obvious to me that such a law would not address the stated issue, but simply punish the innocent. And so I have to question why the government would make such a proposal. Could it be further evidence, if such were needed, that politicians are congenitally dumb? Could it be that the media is misrepresenting the proposal for the sake of sensationalism, because that’s what the media does? Or could it be that the insurance industry is behind it, engaging in their selfish and sordid little machinations in order to make more money? I’m struggling to think of another reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
well although it could be a little of all those reasons. Yet also it is easy to pass the buck... the gov. feels the need to do something because of the issue and does not necessarily think of how it may effect the people.... just so they can say they did something....who cares what the people that the act may effect feel. happens every day here. :-)
Yes, we get the same. We call it the 'knee jerk' reaction.
Animals are always being put forth as the "sacrificial lamb" owing to the cruelty, fear and ignorance (as you pointed out) of humans. There are laws here after Michael Vick was convicted, which didn't punish the dogs or take them away from owners who weren't using the dogs for malicious purposes. Instead strict laws were enforced to nab those who condoned dog fights or cruel training for selfish needs. The same stupidity can be observed of slaughtering all wolves when a farmer's sheep is killed. However, somehow, some people come up with alternatives that can benefit both the animals under attack as well as the humans. I'll light a candle for not only the innocent animals being punished, but those who would condemn and hurt dogs in any way. As a strong animal advocate once said about the ignorance of humanity, "Lord, forgive them for they not know what they do." Just keep on fighting the good fight!
Thank you so much ladies (I was going to call you 'weird sisters' after Macbeth, but my sense of humour is always getting me into trouble!) Yes, a candle for both sides. I like that. Are you reconstructing your blog, by the way?
You know I actually call us and other witch's the "wyrd sisters' so for me it's a compliment. And yes, we're still under broom construction. It's going to have a very different feel than the current, but still the same "wyrdness" ; )
Ah, but you don't 'win us with honest trifles to betray us in deepest consequence.' You don't, do you? (Slap?)
Post a Comment