Principles: who are they kidding?

Last week, we posted a letter to the Chronicle-Herald from the group, Humane Halifax, which pointed out connections between reporter Pat Lee and various "animal advocates" and SPCA members, suggesting a lack of objectivity, if not a serious bias, in Ms. Lee's March 10 article about "re-homing" Brindi, a scheme put forward in public by the SPCA as well as these "advocates" (among them, a former SPCA president).

Today a friend in Alberta sent us a link to the March issue of the SPCA newsletter. On the very last page, it says:

The team for this edition: Kim Humes, Kristin Williams, Kelly Welsh, Pat Lee, Adina MacRae,Tammy Acker, Kelly Messom


Come on, now! How can Pat Lee possibly be objective when she also writes for the SPCA newsletter?! The answer: she can't.

This is an appalling example of a lack of regard for professional ethics, not to mention another instance of collusion among various local circles to conspire to punish Brindi's owner for her outspokenness, by taking her dog away forever. It's even more nauseating that Joan Sinden would rave glowingly about Ms. Lee's article to the point of saying she hopes it earns her a journalism award. Yes, she's "really outdone herself", but not in that way.

Then there is the other twist of logic put forward that was picked up in an editorial published two days later by Opinion Editor Bev Dauphinee, with the nonsensical statement, "Maybe it's time to [for Rogier] to stop fighting for a principle..." and, presumably, let her dog be taken from her. Principle? The only principle involved in Brindi's sad situation that we can see seems to be "might equals right", and that is the one most closely held by HRM staff and officials. For her owner, it's always about getting her dog back home, where she rightfully belongs. Of course, some have suggested that she should also be reimbursed for the money she's lost on this affair, money that other dog owners never have to spend, even if their dogs bite people. That would be a principle all right, the principle of fairness.

For the SPCA, it seems to be about something else entirely - the principle of PR. It would be nice if they'd stop fighting for that. Somehow, the Herald publishes letters from and about them - positive opinions - with great frequency. There was the one by Kristin Williams a few weeks ago that distanced the group from any decision made about Brindi, then there was this one, published yesterday, March 20:

Negative publicity

I am not sure I can express my utter disappointment when I opened The Chronicle Herald and saw the story about the pest control technician getting bitten by a dog at the SPCA (March 16). Is this all you had for news in metro that day? You should be ashamed for making this such a huge story.

It is very unfortunate that this man was bitten by a dog, but did anyone consider the damage this story could do to the SPCA? The SPCA is a wonderful, amazing organization that strives to save the lives of animals. This is the last type of publicity it needs when it is trying to find loving homes for abandoned and abused animals.

This poor dog has been at the shelter for eight months and still needs a home. Not to mention all the other animals that have spent too many days on the streets being neglected, and then living in close quarters in the shelter. After spending eight months in a noisy, busy, unpredictable environment, it is not difficult to understand the stress these animals are under.

The shelter staff are absolutely wonderful and the dogs get walked and have as much outdoor time as they possibly can; this, however, is far from the time, attention and love they need from a forever home. By publishing this story, you are putting fear into the public, possibly deterring people from adopting an animal that desperately needs a loving home. You should be supporting the SPCA, not drawing negative attention to it based on this one isolated incident.

Andrea Rosvold, Halifax

The idea that the newspaper should not have published this story is very interesting. The story was news. To withhold it from publication for the reasons suggested would be pretty questionable. The very fact that the dog has been in the shelter for so long is very worthy of attention. It is public tax money that pays for the pound service, and the people have a right to know what is happening with the money and as a consequence of that money. Also, it is not true that the dogs in the pound get walked; the article stated that very plainly, with Kristin Williams placing the responsibility for that decision squarely on the shoulders of HRM animal services.

No other letters about this "isolated" (but serious) incident have appeared to date.

Speaking of SPCA PR, we recall an interesting and little-known story. In early 2009, a member of the SPCA's own "arm's length" compliance committee was attacked for suggesting that the committee have a look into the SPCA's conflict of interest in keeping Brindi behind bars. This committee member, who lived on the south shore, was solely acting out of concern for Brindi. She had no previous connection to Francesca Rogier. Yet the committee chair sent her a letter accusing her of being "biased" and threatened to report her to the SPCA board of directors!! After this, the woman decided to quit the committee. Others have also quit the SPCA because of Brindi or related issues, including at least one member of the "shelter committee" created by Sean Kelly before he was elected president.

Maybe for these local figures, it's just business as usual. But it's a foul business.