George Galloway on Terriers: He Should Know Better
Posted By Ryan O'Meara Date: 17/08 Posted Under: Breed Specific Legislation, Canine Columns, Dangerous Dogs, View From The EditorAs a rule, I happen to quite like George Galloway. He’s an exceptional debater. To get into a discussion with him, you usually need to know your stuff or you will no doubt come off second best.
So I was left puzzled by his recent attack on dogs.
Lacking logic and empathy, Galloway claims the only ’sensible’ way to prevent dog attacks is a complete ban on Staffordshire Bull Terriers, for ALL Terriers to be banned and for all dogs to be muzzled at all times in cities.
Logic? Well the Spaniel is the breed type most responsible for causing people to seek hospital treatment for dog bites so why it just the Staffie that’s drawn all of George’s wrath? And since when did dogs only attack people in cities?
So if logic is out of the window, what about empathy?
Mr Galloway has made a name for himself standing up for persecuted people, particularly Muslims, both in the UK and overseas. He his often at pains to point out the folly of those who seek to attack an entire group based on the extreme, misguided actions of a few. So why then does he not practice what he so vehemently preaches?
To simply call for the complete annihilation of an entire dog breed, a fantastically popular and fundamentally GOOD dog breed because of a tiny, tiny minority of unpleasant incidents - most often caused by poor ownership - just seems extreme for the sake of being extreme.
How, I wonder, would Mr Galloway react should a fellow politician call for separate check in lines for Muslims at airports? The irony of his ultra hardline, illogical stance on dogs is baffling and out of character for someone of his standing and political style.
One must wonder, are these really his views or has he a made a grave error of judgement expressing an opinion in the hope of courting popularity amongst people who are, frankly, anti-dog?
Link: Here George Galloway debate dangerous dogs (courtesy of www.couchtripper.com)
If you feel compelled to save breeds from specific legislation such as that proposed by George Galloway - you can sign this petition
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/reopenindex/
Author DetailsRyan O'Meara is editor-in-chief of K9 Magazine, the lifestyle magazine for dog lovers. He lives in the East Midlands with his own two dogs, Mia and Chloe. - See this author's webpage
Popularity: 9% [?]
Friday, August 17th, 2007 at 3:12 am and is filed under Breed Specific Legislation, Canine Columns, Dangerous Dogs, View From The Editor. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
This would be your point of view, though, wouldn’t it? You’re the editor of a magazine about dogs so of course you’re going to disagree, just like editors of gun magazines would come up with all sorts of arguments as to why everyone should have a “right to bear arms”. When you love something it’s a lot harder to adopt a neutral perspective - for instance I love playing online poker, so the suggestion that it should be more tightly regulated annoys me even though it might actually be a good idea.
I think the muzzle proposal, like anything, needs to be looked at from a neutral point of view. I’m neither a dog lover nor a dog hater, and I can see some sensibility in muzzling: If all dogs were muzzled in public then no humans would be bitten in public, so how is that a bad thing?
You accuse him of making an illogical argument, when you yourself have written “How, I wonder, would Mr Galloway react should a fellow politician call for separate check in lines for Muslims at airports?” as though that somehow shows a hypocricy in his calling for dogs to be muzzled!
The difference is that dogs are not people. They are animals. You can’t seriously equate his muzzle suggestion with subjugation of the Muslim community.
I don’t disagree because I’m an editor of a dog magazine, I disagree because I have a level of expertise and knowledge about the cause of dog attacks and dogs in general, Mr Galloway evidently, does not.
So given the net result of terrorist attacks and dog attacks is injury and death of humans - why can’t we compare the two?
Muzzling in public is the very definition of persecuting the large majority for the actions of a tiny minority. So again, why would it be any different to politicians insisting that ALL Muslims travelling on trains had to go through different security checks? After all was it not the case that the ONLY suicide bombers to have been active in Britain were ALL Muslim?
Of course I use the analagy to highlight the inequality in Mr Galloway’s argument. The fact is, he’s wrong for suggesting what he did and his lack of knowledge on the cause and effect of dog attacks could not be better highlighted by his argument that guns are heavily legislated against so dogs should be too.
What a ridiculous comparison. Guns are designed to kill and wound, dogs are not. And when a gun is the cause of injury or death we tend to (rightly) focus on the person who pulled the trigger. We don’t put the gun in jail. Besides which, guns are banned but we still see people killed by them every week so if that doesn’t prove that mass banning doesn’t work, I don’t know what does.
Muzzling dogs in public is not the answer. Ellie Lawrenson, killed in the home of her grandparents. Cadey Lee Deacon, killed at the pub of her grandparents. Most serious or fatal dog attacks happen in the home. So what good is it going to do muzzling all dogs in public other than, as any behaviourist will inform you, create a generation of supressed dogs who are MORE likely to attack people when their muzzle is off.
I think the point is often missed when people like Mr Galloway express their ’solutions’ on a subject which they very, very clearly do not know much about. His calling for ‘all Terriers’ to be banned would be the equivalent of me calling for a national public register of all paediatricians ‘to protect our children’. It’s misguided and highlights a real lack of credibility on the subject. How many West Highland Terriers have attacked or killed people? Add to that Jack Russells, Cairn, Border, Kerry Blue, Irish, Airdale, Patterdale - I could go on and on.
The bottom line, both Mr Galloway and I share the same ultimate goal. We both wish to prevent and stop dogs from attacking people. The main difference is that I know about dogs and so do the Kennel Club and so does every other recognised dog expert who understands that calling for breed bans is ridiculous and won’t solve the problem. It tends to be the case that those who do call for breed bans tend to be anti-dog but like to paint the dog owning community as a bunch of apologists who don’t know what their talking about. The reality is actually the opposite. The dog community DO understand the problems and as a whole would not feel it appropriate to propose solutions to problems upon which they clearly have no expertise.
Dog attacks is a people problem, NOT a breed problem. Anyone who thinks otherwise is more than welcome to back their claims up with some hard facts on the subject. I’m happy to wait to see this supporting evidence that breed bans are the answer. In the meantime, dogs will continue to bite people whilst idiots are allowed to own them.
In my opinion the majority of dog attacks are due to poor training and socialisation. All dogs are capable of biting but by making them all don a muzzle is merely treating a symptom, not the root cause of the problem. Surely it would be more appropriate to adopt a pro-active stance which would ensure that the education of potential owners was a priority for dog ownership?
Dogs as a breed or as a whole should not be penalised for the incompetence of their owners; surely that is comaparable to being blamed for your great-grandchildrens mistakes; ridiculous, isn’t it?
I concur absolutely that dogs are animals but am continuously puzzled why people are so surprised when they behave as such! This displays a complete lack of understanding of basic animal behaviour.
Decisions should never be made in haste, especially when based on half-truths and hearsay.
I would suggest that Mr Galloway research this matter further and base his future suggestions regarding this issue on fact.
It is so sad when you see a politician resorting to clever sound bites promoting ignorance and bigotry, without reference to any organisations that have any expertise on the subject. Many organisations who have such expertise are campaigning hard to put the blame on bad ownership of dogs not on ‘bad dogs’. Blaming all dogs of a certain breed or breeds for dog attacks because of limited, emotive and sensationalist reporting by tabloid newspapers is wrong - dog attacks are not limited to certain breeds nor is the problem created by certain breeds, it is created by ignorant and irresponsible dog OWNERS. The long term answer to the problem is therefore to educate ALL dog owners and ensure they understand their responsibilities to their dog and to society, and stick to them.
Mr. Galloway’s attitude is no different to that of those people who blame certain races of people for the problems of the world - it is ignorant, has NO BASIS IN FACT OR SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, and politicians in civilised countries really should have more integrity than to promote such biggotry without gaining any knowledge of the facts behind the headlines. They have a responsibility to find out the truth about their subject before they speak on it - the attitude of Mr Galloway, and others like him, only promotes public fear of perfectly harmless and well adjusted pet dogs of certain ‘tainted’ breeds. It does nothing to address the problem of dog attacks, and nothing to educate dog owners or non-dog owners as to how such attacks can be avoided.
George Galloway must have been looking around for something controversial to comment on, hence why he came out with this ridiculous suggestion! As Ryan O’Meara writes it is a person problem rather than a canine one. Why not ban cars to prevent drunken drivers from jumping into one on the way home from the pub to prevent anyone ever being run over by a drink driver again?
The only way to deal with the issue of dog attacks on humans is to promote the training of dog owners to such a level that they are going to be totally responsible dog owners. Some people may indeed think that they are responsible dog owners but then they may have a dog that is in dire need of training to make it safe around people and other animals including other dogs.
The scariest thing about all this, is that an elected Member of Parliament can make such comments in the first place. Worse still is that some of these MP’s become Government Ministers and bring in atrocious laws such as the Dangerous Dogs Act which surely must rank highly amongst the world’s worst legislation ever introduced!
Get your facts right Mr Galloway, this is especially important if you are an elected representative of the people, the last thing we need is anymore ill thought out draconian anti-dog legislation being enacted, epsecially when people such as him (MP’s) are lobbied by those with specific anti-dog agendas.
“…given the net result of terrorist attacks and dog attacks is injury and death of humans - why can’t we compare the two?”
You’ve just proven yourself to be a fool. How dare you compare dogs to human beings?
I would throttle every dog in the world to save a single human life - animals are not comparable to humans and you betray your bias by implying they are.
As a side point, I love how your reply to me was longer than your original article; you must have a lot of spare time.
My time is well spent when it’s correcting the views of people who simply have no basis for their anti dog views. Why do people like you speak in terms like ‘throttling every dog in the world’. Trust me, if you ‘throttled’ my dog you’d cost yourself at least ONE human life. Read the post again, I didn’t compare dogs lives to human lives ONCE. And you even quoted the point - nevertheless, I’ll quote it again for you:
“…given the net result of terrorist attacks and dog attacks is injury and death of HUMANS - why can’t we compare the two?”
Following yet?
I dont think that Ryan O’Meara will ever have enough time when it comes to promoting responsible dog ownership issues? Great article Ryan, keep up the good work pointing out irresponsible anti-dog related attacks such as Mr Galloway’s and keep on putting pen to paper!
I really have to say that the phrase “anti-dog” makes me shake my head in cringing embarrassment.
When have I ever expressed anything “anti-dog”, anyway? Sure, I value the life of a single human over the lives of every dog in the world, but that’s not to say I hate dogs, it just means I love humans immeasurably more than animals.
Surely, even as the editor of a dog lover magazine, you must concede that the welfare of people is vastly more important than the welfare of animals, and that someone making the perfectly sensible suggestion of muzzling is not ipso facto somehow “caninophobic” (there: I’ve coined it for you).
As for the rest of your reply: You state “I didn’t compare dogs lives to human lives ONCE”. You’re correct. Actually you did it twice. You brought up the completely erroneous issue of the subjugation of Muslims in a weak analogy as though the two issues had anything to do with each other. If you didn’t mention Muslims in order to make a moral comparison then why did you mention them at all? The only other explanation would be that you’re a bad writer, and I can’t imagine that to be the case.
I’m also not sure what you mean when you write “Trust me, if you ‘throttled’ my dog you’d cost yourself at least ONE human life”. Are you implying that you would attempt to murder me in the entirely fictitious event that I was to kill a pet of yours? If so, then surely you’ve just contradicted yourself and you do indeed consider the life of an animal equal to that of a human being.
So we’re clear.
You were the one who introduced the notion of ‘throttling’ dogs.
If you throttled MY dog, yes I would go out of my way to ensure you endured the same. I love my dogs as my family. Most dog owners do. That does not say I value a dog’s life as equal to humans (personal opinion, many people do and that’s fine) but I value the life of MY dog’s higher than any person who would seek to hurt or kill MY dogs. Seems simple enough to understand.
Again, I urge you to point out anywhere where I have suggested human welfare is not more important than animal welfare. Please show me where I have said this. This website is about educating people on how to avoid dog attacks. A subject I, as someone who understand the subject on which I am commenting, feel comfortable in discussing on grounds of facts rather than subjecture.
In answer to your question on where you have expressed anti-dog opinion, how about we begin with your opening gambit:
“I can see some sensibility in muzzling (all dogs, as per Mr Galloway’s proposal)”
Do you believe ALL dogs would be happy, content and comfortable to be muzzled? Or would you concede this to be a view that is very clearly anti-dog?
If I suggested all cars be made out of rubber and restricted to no more than 20mph in order to protect some humans from some (bad) drivers, those views would - rightly - be described as ‘anti-car’.
I ask you but one thing, bring some stats and facts to the discussion to support your ‘neutral’ stance on this issue. Would muzzling all dogs in public stop or even reduce the number of people killed or injured in dog attacks?
You have written “If you throttled MY dog, yes I would go out of my way to ensure you endured the same.”
Bearing in mind that I would never dream of killing a dog, and only introduced the notion as a dramatic device to illustrate the extent to which I value human life more than animal life, you’re really going to town on this. You’ve proved your bias even more clearly: in plain English you have stated that you would wish death upon someone who was responsible for the death of a dog. No more needs to be said about that. Your position is clear.
Now, let’s deal with your blatant twisting of my words: You cite what you call my “opening gambit”, and you insert, on the end of a direct quote, in parenthesis, seven additional words which were never typed by me, in order to change the context of what I originally said:
“I can see some sensibility in muzzling (all dogs, as per Mr Galloway’s proposal)”
I am not George Galloway, and I am not here to fight his corner, so please forget the “as per” you have added to my quote. I never advocated the muzzling of “all dogs”. I said that if all dogs were muzzled in public then no person would be bitten in public. This is an undisputable fact. Whether it is a good idea or not is a different matter and I am not advocating it because I am not in a position to do so. I am merely stating (unbelievable that I need to repeat this) that I can see some sensibility in it.
Your conclusionary question to me is almost too ridiculous to answer, but I will answer it regarless. I must be a masochist.
“Would muzzling all dogs in public stop or even reduce the number of people killed or injured in dog attacks?”
Er… yes. Assuming some dog attacks happen in public, and assuming that a muzzle prevents a dog from biting a person, then how could it be possible that muzzling dogs in public wouldn’t stop public dog attacks? This really isn’t hard to grasp.
Whoops. Thought you’d say that. Thanks for not letting me down.
Muzzle every dog in public tomorrow, dog attacks will increase the following week. The net result of muzzling all dogs will be an increase in dog attacks.
Sadly I put the question down because I knew you would think in the terms you did. You have failed to understand dog behaviour at all.
Unless you muzzle EVERY dog for EVERY moment they are in contact with humans in the home and in public you will create an increase in dog attacks on people. Don’t take my word for it, feel free to ask 100 dog trainers and behaviourists, more if you like.
Sorry but you’ve demonstrated you do not have any comprehension as to the cause of dog attacks.
Why you can’t spot that it is dog owners who will determine whether dog attacks increase or decrease, I fail to understand.
In every other comparible scenario your logic would be laughed at. As I said earlier, make cars out of rubber, ensure all flights of stairs are stacked with foam, ensure no household products contain toxins, ensure nobody but qualified professionals are allowed to operate electrical items - do all of these things and you will save human lives. I don’t value the life of a Ford Fiesta higher than a person but I don’t see your logic carrying through that for every Ford Fiesta involved in an incident where a person is killed or injured that you would call for legislation on the brand of car or the car in general. Are you not seeing this?
And just to help you out with your quest for stats.
You have a greater statistical chance of being killed by lighting in the UK than dog attack. Still, let’s not let that stop us calling for a whacking great sledgehammer to crack this particular nut eh? Even if the sledgehammer is aiming at the wrong nut in the first place.
Can we stop dogs attacking people full stop? No, not without banning all dogs. Can we reduce dog attacks? Yes, but not if we follow the ‘reasoning’ of people who actually don’t understand the effects of what it is they’re calling for.
I’d be more impressed if you’d predicted what my reply would be before I made it, not after - but kudos on having read page 1 of “how to seem to debate”.
Let me say it again, since you were too busy trying to find anything at all to pick apart in my reply rather than reading the reply as a whole:
“I never advocated the muzzling of “all dogs”. I said that if all dogs were muzzled in public then no person would be bitten in public. This is an undisputable fact. Whether it is a good idea or not is a different matter and I am not advocating it because I am not in a position to do so. I am merely stating that I can see some sensibility in it.”
Do you get it this time? You’re projecting your disagreement with George Galloway onto me when my point of view is not his. That’s bad form on par with shooting the messenger. As I have said more than once (and to most people - especially those who write journalistically as a profession - once should be enough) I am not advocating what Galloway proposes, I am merely open to it, and can see sense in it.
Anyway, the hour is late, and the breakdown of grammar and punctuation in your last post suggests you’re both tired and irritated, so I’ll sign off for now and check back another day to see what else you can come up with.
OK, we’re down to the spelling and grammar exit strategy.
I understand, I’ve seen that one used many times, it’s a classic grasping at any straw tactic used by people when the core issue of what is being debated is running away from them.
You maintain that you are ‘open to’ and ’see sense’ in a proposal that will cause more people to be attacked by dogs and is derelict of logic or sound reasoning. That’s fine.
We disagree. We can leave it at that.
Who says human life is more important than a animals life? Humans of course. God made all living creatures and believe me I’d sooner ban and muzzle the low life humans on this earth (if I had the time there are that many)before I ever muzzle my sweet, trusting, loyal dog.
I agree with Ryan, if anyone tried to hurt MY dogs I’d defend them with my life. It’s the owners that need sorting and all the indiscriminate breeding that a lot of them do.
You quote this
animals are not comparable to humans
No, they’re a damn sight better than humans, they don’t care if we’re poor or rich, fat or thin, wear designer clothes, live in a mansion, have the latest gadget, in a foul mood etc etc. They just give us unconditional love, maybe that’s why GOD called them DOG. I’m sorry but give me animals over most humans anyday.
My opinion