We thought they were not involved in the decision or the outcome of the case in ANY way. After all, they posted a lot of news releases to this effect, and SPCA members repeated it on countless FB groups, blogs, and online newspaper comments, anytime people wanted to know why the "charity" (we use the word loosely) would not help get this dog off death row.
BUT NOW ----- it's time to pull off the veil. We really knew it all along.
Bill:
In follow up to our conversation yesterday, I would like to request that the Crown Attorney in
the Rogier/Brindi case make a further submission to the court to suggest an alternative
sentence to euthanasia.
The Nova Scotia SPCA would be willing to assist HRM in making alternative arrangements for
Brindi; such as adoption to home in which her needs could be met, and the community could be
assured of public safety.
It is the Society’s belief that Brindi could be safely placed. Brindi has demonstrated over the
last 18 months that she can live peacefully and happily with a responsible owner.
Please feel free to contact me directly to discuss further.
Best Regards,
Kristin Williams
Executive Director
Nova Scotia SPCA
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Nice, eh?
So they would not argue against euthanasia when Brindi's desperate owner begged them to -and you will recall, she was NOT charged for six months, therefore, nobody tried to say that she was so irresponsible and guilty, too much to have the right to get her wrongly seized dog back.
Let's remember something right away: The SPCA are NOT animal experts, trainers, or behaviorists, and they are NOT qualified to make such statements. Sean Kelly used this fact to back off of helping Brindi and her owner many times at the start of this whole cluster bang....
Second, the idea that Brindi's stay at the pound has any bearing on how she can live with a responsible owner is a total joke and typical SPCA logic. WHO ARE THEY KIDDING? They cannot have it all ways, but they seem to get it every time. It so happens that we already KNOW Brindi is perfectly capable of these things by virtue of having done it before for a year, with her owner. And very very happily living with two cats as well, even sleeping with them.
Second, the idea that Brindi's stay at the pound has any bearing on how she can live with a responsible owner is a total joke and typical SPCA logic. WHO ARE THEY KIDDING? They cannot have it all ways, but they seem to get it every time. It so happens that we already KNOW Brindi is perfectly capable of these things by virtue of having done it before for a year, with her owner. And very very happily living with two cats as well, even sleeping with them.
Side note: We haven't had the time or the stomach to detail here what the SPCA has been continuing to do to Janice Bingley but we know that the dogs have been up for adoption permanently, long before charges were laid - correction, charge - and now the hearing on that charge is scheduled for July!
By the way ...after Brindi's owner was finally charged, the AC officer Hamm invented the story that he didn't charge her earlier because he "felt sorry for her" because he took her dog, and she didn't need financial hardship (of a $300 fine? Instead of over $30,000 for court and legal fees=? LOGICAL! The judge bought it, too! Oddly, the fine is the ONLY penalty offered by A300 and the city swears she was guilty and irresponsible yet did NOT want to punish her with charges?? Not make money on fines and label her guilty`? MORE LIKELY, Hamm didn't want her to have the chance to go before a judge too easily, certainly not without great expense and not in the first month or two! The judge might have actually released her dog! He's no fool, as an ex-cop. But other people are if believe his story. We heard on the stand the man showed he literally has no idea what is written in the by-law. Yet he knows how to get around it AND the Charter just fine.
The SPCA has a lot in common with Tim Hamm in this regard. But we digress.
It's just so interesting that a group that has kept an animal in a substandard short-term facility for 19 months, fiercely denying all the harm to her health (even with cancer scares, dental disease, and pancreatis accumulating by the month), now wants to have its opinion considered on the question of how to best meet Brindi's needs.
How can the SPCA in Nova Scotia possibly purport to know what that even means, when their current president is known to be responsible for teaching Brindi bad behavior such as jumping up on people to demand (not receive, but also demand) a treat? Something that Brindi was strictly NOT allowed (let alone taught) to do in her life with her real owner! How can these people expect the right to have a say, even if they were qualified to have one???
How can the SPCA in Nova Scotia possibly purport to know what that even means, when their current president is known to be responsible for teaching Brindi bad behavior such as jumping up on people to demand (not receive, but also demand) a treat? Something that Brindi was strictly NOT allowed (let alone taught) to do in her life with her real owner! How can these people expect the right to have a say, even if they were qualified to have one???
THIS IS A TRAVESTY OF ANIMAL CARE AND ANIMAL PROTECTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND IT MUST BE PUT TO A STOP.
SOONER OR LATER IT WILL. IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME: We would simply prefer the time to be now, for Brindi's sake, and her owner's, who is a person with a lot of education and skill to offer to this province.
The law makes animals property, and property is the sacred core of individual and corporate rights in any capitalist system - unless it's a dog, somehow! The "property owner" rights are somehow non-extant in this case. They are automatically value-less.
SO is the idea that dogs themselves are the center of a billion-dollar industry; if people believed dogs were nothing more than property, Hollywood would not be spewing out dog movie after dog movie all year round. Yet these highly valued box office smashes are discarded by the thousands daily and if they happen to offend in the least possible way, it's off with their heads!!
OR, off with their owner's head, if the dog happens to turn out to be a sweetheart that everybody likes!! How impossible it is for a human to compete with a sweet dog! No way for Francesca to endear herself as well to the powers that be, even if she were as cute and lovable as, say, Minnie Mouse! Tough luck...
Kristin Williams on the other hand could probably pull it off. After all, she used to work at an amusement park, didn't she?
ON the other hand,
1 comment:
Yes!!! Exactly!! It's good to see someone actually write this truth, thank you. I have been following this for so long and I couldn't believe the nerve of the SPCA to advocate for the HRM determination to kill Brindi. They never supported who they were suppose to support, Francesca and Brindi. Now where do they get off assisting(as ususal)HRM to rehome Brindi? They are the reason Brindi's health has gone downhill. One thing that convinced me that the NS SPCA are liars...is the picture of Brindi's birthday party, she's sitting amongst staff and their family members and a baby two feet away. Get this...without wearing a muzzle!? Is this not the reason the AC seized Brindi, marked Brindi as a dangerous dog? Yet, the NS SPCA would gather around Brindi for a group picture, to use to futher hurt Ms.Rogier. Whom they didn't any compassion to invite her to her own dogs birthday party. Oh yeah they are getting paid $414,000 from the HRM.
Post a Comment