We have all noted the many discussions on the Dangerous Dogs Act since the killing of one of our citizens and several other incidents relating to "dangerous dogs." As a registered, full-breed pot hound, it's only fair that I come to the defence of my canine colleagues, man's best friend. It should be noted that, as a dog it is quite possible that my bias may become evident. I'll try, nonetheless, to keep the bone I pick purely professional. In this discussion it is necessary first and foremost to clearly define the word "dangerous," especially as it relates to dogs. Trinis' distorted understanding of dangerous usually involves big, powerful and ugly; this translates to mean pit bulls, Rottweilers, Dobermans and Alsatians. But this simple definition is misleading as one of the biggest dogs, the Great Dane, is excluded as dangerous. However, since all dogs, by definition, can bite, this means they are all potentially dangerous.
Secondly, how do we define a pit bull, considering the myriad breeds of pit bulls we have in this country?
We have pits mixed with everything under the sun, as is the case with Rotts and Shepherds and just about any and every breed of dog in this country. It is extremely difficult to get a pure-bred anything in this land of douglarisation. But the Dangerous Dogs Act seems to be merely a distraction to the other more pressing issues. Clearly, there are several other more important bills to introduce, all of which are much more significant than the Dangerous Dogs Act. As I look around, dogs have killed two people in this State for this year. The young woman in Edinburg 500 was evidently a result of negligence on the owner's part. And the owner should be charged. In the other incident, in Barataria, while we understand the value of life, the value of people's property is also protected under the Constitution.
Meanwhile, the murder rate for this year at this writing is 141. Those murders were all committed by people killing people. Several of them were committed by close relatives. Hence it is quite clear that what we need more than a Dangerous Dogs Act is a "Dangerous People Act." Yet no one is pushing for this.
As with dangerous dogs, we need to define dangerous people. Some sub-sections of the bill can begin by addressing who I think fall the under dangerous people category: Dangerous parents, preachers (priests, pundits and imams), lawyers, teachers, politicians, former independent senators, judges, magistrates, doctors, lewd and suggestive dancers, nurses, limers, prison officers, police, soca artists, drivers, public servants, union leaders, to mention but a few. We can then move to introduce a "Dangerous Communities Bill." Of course it would be hypocritical of me to not mention at the top of my list Laventy and Morvant, followed by Marabella (by the train line), Cunupia, Pinto Road, Arima (by the train line), Temple Street, Arima, Maloney, etc.
Least the Government be considered bias, a "Dangerous Jobs Bill" must be introduced. This list must include: URP foremen, Cepep foremen, PH taxi drivers (an oxymoron), gang leaders, as distinct from community leaders and drug dealers. Dangerous organisations and behaviour can be placed under one section. Under organisations: MATT, National Food Crop Farmers Association, Maxi-Taxis Association, unions, the construction sector. Under dangerous behaviour the bill must include: Liming, drinking, smoking, gambling, horning, texting, putting on makeup and having breakfast while driving, on the phone while crossing the road, and, last but not least, resting one's eyes in Parliament. Doctors and nurses have killed more people than dogs for this year. Yet no one is lobbying to put doctors to sleep. I am!
Rudy Chato Paul, Sr
Via e-mail