The Perpetrators Prosecute Other People

Well, the three-month deadline for the detention of property has long passed. Janice Bingley's dogs are property, and Nova Scotia provincial law (see section E, Summary Proceedings Act) clearly says no law enforcement agency can legally detain property beyond three months' time without permission for an extension from a judge. The SPCA has no such permission and could not likely get an extension, since animals are not evidence or otherwise required for any inquiry or court proceeding. There has been court ruling that Bingley's animals were subjected to cruelty (in distress) and thus are in need of detention. Some of these animals may not even be in the SPCA's possession, as it declared a few weeks ago it would adopt them out.
So it seems that even at this late date, the SPCA is still wearing blinders when it comes to the law. It is going to run out of luck any day now, we suspect. Provincial authorities may be slow, but according to correspondence we've seen, they are definitely paying attention.
We notice another thing: missing from this prosecution list are the ladies who were keeping cats in an abandoned house that the SPCA raided last summer. That's well over six months ago, way past the deadline for laying charges. We hear the SPCA told those women they may never own cats again - with what legal authority, we'd like to ask?

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Nova Scotia SPCA issues update on current active animal cruelty cases

Nova Scotia (Thursday, February 4, 2010) –Today, the Nova Scotia SPCA announced a number of animal cruelty provincial and federal charges served in ongoing cases throughout Nova Scotia:

1. Darren Gumbley, Annapolis County: 1 Criminal Code count 446 (1) b - failure to provide suitable food, water, shelter and care; one provincial offence 11 (2) - causing or permitting an animal to be or continue to be in distress. Plea date is March 1, 2010 in Annapolis Co. The case involves one dog and three cats. The owner allegedly did not provide proper care and medical attention for the animals.

2. Yassine Bekkour, Halifax (HRM): 1 Criminal Code count 445 (1) a - wilful neglect causing damage or injury to animals; two provincial offenses 11 (1) - wilfully causing an animal pain, suffering or injury; and 11 (2) causing or permitting an animal to be or continue to be in distress. Plea date is February 15, 2010 in Halifax. The case involves one cat. The owner allegedly struck the cat, resulting in severe trauma and a fracture.

3. Tom Jeffery, Yarmouth County: 1 Criminal Code count 446 (1) b - failure to provide suitable food, water, shelter and care; one provincial offence 11 (2) - causing or permitting an animal to be or continue to be in distress. Plea date is March 2, 2010 in Yarmouth Co. The case involves one dog. The owner allegedly did not provide proper care and medical attention for the animal.

4. Janice Bingley, Pictou County: 1 provincial offence 11 (2) - causing or permitting an animal to be or continue to be in distress. Plea date is February 22, 2010 in New Glasgow. The case involves 8 dogs and 14 puppies. The owner allegedly did not provide proper care and medical attention for the animals.

These cases will be prosecuted in provincial courts by the respective Crown Attorney in the county where the charges have been filed and served.

_________________________

Finally - who can ignore the obvious? Only Nova Scotia authorities, it seems. We can't help seeing that the SPCA is prosecuting other people for cruelty while it CONTINUES to commit cruelty and neglect to a dog named Brindi, a dog the SPCA shelter has been keeping confined since July 24, 2008, on behalf of a city that has no legal authority to impound her. That bird will come home to roost soon enough. Too bad it hasn't occurred to the SPCA that they are perfectly within their rights to decide to return Brindi to her lawful owner. That way, they would no longer be complicit in breaking the law - and can turn around and prosecute HRM for the same thing, as they no longer have any need to worry about their beloved pound contract. 

What better way to redeem its reputation and become the heroes - nothing to lose, everything to gain, folks!

___________________

We're also both disgusted and amused, though not very surprised, to see that notorious kisser of dogs Joan Sinden has broken her New Year's resolution so soon and allowed her muddled logic to lead to yet another libelous blog post. This time around, she's really done it. Joan cannot possibly back up some of her statements against Francesca Rogier, Brindi's owner, with any evidence, and they are very clearly intended to discredit/defame her. She's even got it wrong about Brindi: it's not true that "nobody" thinks this dog is dangerous. Quite clearly, HRM does, from the mayor to the prosecutor down to animal services! Why else would they have told a judge exactly one year ago that they are prosecuting Rogier in order to get the chance to ask him for a new euthanasia order? 

Joan has some curious opinions, and we noticed this one from January 20: 

In my dog training world - it's all sunshine and lollipops - ignore the bad and praise the good - if one of my dogs does something I don't want them to do - I don't give them any attention for it whatsoever, and soon enough - they figure out - that doesn't get them what they want - ATTENTION - so they stop that behaviour. And stuff I do want them to do - I praise that like hell and give them lots of attention. It's a no-brainer. 

A no-brainer? Hmmm. So we wonder what Joan would do when a dog does something against the by-law? Absolutely nothing? Is that what she thinks is "responsible ownership"? And yet Joan advocates taking a dog away from an owner for such violations, proven or not. We wonder about this wisdom also because clearly it would mean rehoming hundreds of dogs whose owners were convicted of by-law violations in HRM. It smacks of intolerance, and yes, it smacks of hypocrisy, as HRM has received at least one complaint about one of Joan's dogs. 


Now we hear through the grapevine that Joan herself may wind up in court soon. Perhaps that's unpleasant for her, but we can't help feeling it's high time the contentious blogger learns some lessons of her own about responsibility. She may think she's got nothing to fear, after she saw a judge ignore the law to reject Rogier's peace bond application against Joan's good friend Gail Gallant, but libel is a different matter. This time she may have committed it against a newspaper; not a good idea. No telling what can happen there. A certain Mr. Wayne Croft may want to sit up and take notice. 

__________________

Meanwhile, we've seen another report on the SPCA's ongoing efforts to punish alleged puppy mill owner Gail Benoit and her husband Dana Bailey for alleged cruelty - something like 15 years of efforts, six trials. Gail and Dana are now appealing to get their convictions overturned. The judge promised to issue a decision "as soon as I can", according to the Herald. 

At the same time, Brindi sits in the pound. She and her owner, who has been denied visits, must wait until February 23 to learn whether she will be convicted of alleged offenses dating back to summer 2008. No telling what will happen.