THE GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER – 4th JULY 2005
Tyson is probably dead by now. I refer not to the heavyweight boxer but to a pit bull terrier of the same name who, unlike his brutal human namesake, has never torn off anybody's ear.Indeed he has never torn off any body's anything. He is an elderly dog of pacific disposition. Yet he is, in the ghastly legal phrase, to be "destroyed" on the orders of the West London magistrates court.
He has been convicted of not wearing a muzzle in public.
It was the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 that stipulated that pit bull terriers, whatever their conduct or character, must wear muzzles - thus proving the truth of the old adage about giving a dog a bad name. Unfortunately, from the point of view of the owners, not to mention the dogs, the government of the day had difficulty in finding a name that properly defined the breed it wanted to penalise and prohibit. The act applies to "the type known as the pit bull terrier”.
The home secretary who introduced the legislation was Kenneth Baker - a type known to Spitting Image as a slug sliming its way through life. Perhaps the parliamentary draftsmen were conscious of that when they attempted to refine their original definition. So a pit bull terrier became a dog with "characteristics" that "substantially conform to the American Dog Breeders' Association standard”.
Just to demonstrate his respect for legal precision, Baker announced that his decision had been vindicated by the men and women who protested against it. Not only did they give their dogs aggressive names. They brazenly exhibited their tattoos on television.
As a result of that slapdash approach to legislation, all sorts of dogs - which are no more pit bull terriers than Kenneth Baker was a success - are subject to the pains and penalties which the act provides. They are encompassed in the requirement that male dogs must be neutered. Their owners are forbidden, by law, to give them away or sell them but are (shamefully) offered money as an inducement to have them destroyed.
The second part of the act applies to dogs of every sort. It stipulates that an offence has been committed if a dog behaves in a way that causes fear that an injury might occur. The indignation I feel when I recall how many basically friendly dogs have been impounded by the police is at least matched by my anger at the discovery that Blackfriars crown court refused to reprieve Tyson on the grounds that, although he was not a danger, he might become one at some future date. How would the judge react to the claim that, although he is presently in possession of all his faculties, he could not be reappointed' in case he turns senile?
Both reactions are, I admit, in part the product of guilt. No, my dog Buster has never caused me to be prosecuted under the Dangerous Dogs Act. The offence he committed and of which I was convicted was a breach of the regulations intended to preserve the tranquillity of royal parks. My crime, of which Buster was entirely innocent, was not opposing the Dangerous Dogs Act in the House of Commons,
The circumstances of its introduction should disturb even those degenerate readers who do not like dogs. It. was the result - produced by reflex - of one of those tabloid newspaper campaigns that serious and sensible politicians resist. Unfortunately, Kenneth Baker was at the Home Office. When a child was hideously mauled by one dog he decided that the outcry required emergency legislation - passed through all its stages in record time - imposing penal restrictions (and possibly the death sentence) on all dogs that looked like the offending animal. And the shadow home secretary (who was me) merely recommended that the opposition abstain.
There is a long and ignoble history of politicians buckling under the pressure of newspaper campaigns. The most famous were led by W. T. Stead, a journalist who, as well as exposing the scandal of child prostitution, bullied the government into sending General Gordon to Khartoum and, in conspiracy with dissident naval officers, invented a story about the British fleet being outgunned by the Germans. The irresponsible newspaper campaign has been going on long enough for ministers to realise that it is always better to resist than to capitulate.
As far as the Dangerous Dogs Act is concerned, it is still possible for parliament to make amends. Surely this libertarian government is in favour of allowing potential dog owners to make as free a choice of breeds as they will soon be able to make of hospitals. The village in which I live is far more concerned about the extension of opening hours at the local pub than by an imaginary canine menace. If the prime minister really believes in "only doing what works" he should at least amend unnecessary legislation that works very badly.
Re-produced by kind permission of The Guardian