Would you give up your dog if it meant you fared better in a rental application? (Supplied to SBS by author)

http://www.sbs.com.au/topics/life/culture/article/2017/06/19/comment-i-cant-get-rental-because-i-own-dog-so-now-im-homeless

Jack Hartigan, now 11, was attacked by the dogs while visiting the public housing property on his first play date in late 2010.

He suffered horrific injuries, and has sued the ACT’s commissioner for social housing.

It is alleged that the government had been warned about the two dogs and the danger they posed repeatedly, yet did nothing to ensure the property was safe.

On Thursday, barrister Vanessa Thomas, representing the commissioner, put her closing submissions to the ACT Supreme Cour

She said there was no duty of care owed to Mr Hartigan by her client.

Ms Thomas argued that her client, unlike Domestic Animal Services, had no power to remove the dogs, or prohibit them from being on the premises.

An eviction, Ms Thomas argued, would have been contrary to the central purpose of the commissioner’s role in providing public housing to those in need, and therefore did not create a duty of care.

“My client has a statutory obligation to provide housing to people in need and in my submission that extends to keeping them in housing when they are in need,” she said.

She argued the tenancy agreement held no prohibition on the woman keeping pets.

“There was no basis on which my client could require her to get rid of these dogs,” she argued.

Ms Thomas argued laws that gives landlords a duty of care to visitors only applied to the physical state of the premises.

She argued that the duty being claimed by the plaintiff was “novel”, and did not fit into any accepted category of duty of care, requiring the plaintiff to prove the characteristics of the relationship that proved such a duty.

Ms Thomas said that had not been done.

Further written submissions will be received from Mr Hartigan’s lawyer, John Purnell, SC.

Earlier on Thursday, Mr Purnell told the court that the knowledge of the dogs on behalf of Housing ACT was the central issue.

He said the government knew there was a danger, in the form of two dogs, at the premises.

Justice Hilary Penfold will reserve her decision, but warned it may take some time to hand down.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/housing-commissioner-had-no-duty-of-care-to-dog-attack-victim-lawyers-argue-20150716-gidr3c.html

Julie Saunderson sees her family’s pets, a pug and two French bulldogs, as members of the family. But two, including a much loved bulldog called Daisy, suffered such agonising pain from problems typical of their breeds that the Faulconbridge family had to put them down after expensive vet treatment failed to fix the problems.

“Losing Daisy the way we did was the hardest thing ever,” she said. “It was like losing a child.”

Rachel English, of Camden, also “loves her furbaby [a three-year-old French bulldog Benny] to pieces,” but she wouldn’t buy another short-headed dog after watching him struggle to breathe day to day.

Typical of his breed and many other short-headed or brachycephalic dogs, Benny can’t walk more than a few minutes at a time. He suffers from sleep apnoea and shakes with pain from cervical deformities.

“I don’t think how they have been bred is humane: It is so unnatural for a dog to be so out of breath all the time, and have these back issues because they are so compressed,” said Ms English.

Her decision coincides with a backlash against these cute dogs. Experts say their flat faces, big eyes, little noses and ears –  bred by design to shorten their muzzles to make them appear non-threatening – appeal to us because they look like human babies.

Brachycephalic dogs include pugs, English bulldogs, French bulldogs, Boston terriers, Cavalier King Charles spaniels and shih tzus – very commonly seen in the handbags of the rich and famous.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/pugs-english-bulldogs-french-bulldogs-boston-terriers-being-crippled-by-cuteness-20170629-gx0yis.html?btis

SEVERAL state and federal politicians have initiated moves to address cruelty to farm animals.

Proposed legislation purports to protect the interests of animals and has been prompted by break-ins at piggeries, ostensibly to photograph and expose animal mistreatment.

As consumers and moral beings we have good reason to be concerned about being the beneficiaries of ­cruelty.

However, a closer look at such legislation and the motivations ­behind it reveal a different story.

Its sponsors allege that what is at stake is Australia’s profitable ­domestic and export meat industry, which is being threatened by allegations of cruelty by groups whose ultimate goal is to make us all vegetarians.

As a meat eater, I suspect that many of those ­revealing mistreatment in the meat ­industry do have this as a long-term goal.

But that goal is distant from the much more reasonable goal of ­combating animal cruelty. Unless, of course, industry representatives want to tell us that cruelty is essential to the viability of their industry.

I suspect they do not but perhaps it is more important to profitability than they wish to let on because ­diminishing cruelty will be costly.

So they have chosen a strategy to make it much more difficult for ­animal rights groups to access ­properties, highlight the privacy ­invasion, increase penalties for trespass, make it a biosecurity hazard and ­require the immediate reporting of photographic evidence of mistreatment to authorities, thereby making it difficult to build a solid case against offenders.

As important as the meat industry is to Australia’s economy, the bottom line is whether it is or must be carried on the back of animal cruelty.

As a civilised country we should be opposed to that possibility.

Prof John Kleinig is criminal justice ethics specialist at Charles Sturt Universit

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/opinion/proposed-laws-against-farm-activists-smell-fishy-says-john-kleinig/story-fnkerdb0-1227006131736

Ms Greenaway, who acted for owners Shannon Holt and Evan Jeremiejczyk, described the move as “unnecessary and despicable”.

She argued the council destroyed the dogs to save face.

“If these dogs went somewhere else, it would be clear they were not dangerous. It’s got nothing to do with the protection of the community,’’ she said.

Ms Greenaway said interstate organisations offering to take the dogs were fully aware of their background.

Supporters of two death row dogs are livid after Frankston Council announced the dogs had been destroyed.

Owner Shannon Holt said she was disgusted at the way she and partner Evan Jeremiejczyk had been treated during the long-running dispute over the dogs.

Two dogs owned by Shannon Holt and her partner were put down by Frankston Council. Picture: Tanya Fry.

A distraught Ms Holt, who repeatedly broke down in tears, said the council had lacked compassion.

Ms Holt was only informed of the demise of the dogs this afternoon.

“It’s proven it was not my dogs (that killed a cat). My dogs didn’t hurt the cat,” she said.

Outraged supporters have posted angry and impassioned comments on the council’s Facebook page.

Shel Williamson described the euthanasia of the dogs as an “utter disgrace”.

“With so many options that could have been explored, council has decided to choose the very least compassionate option. Shame on you,” Ms Williamson said.

Jo-Anne posted a picture of a memorial with candles for the dogs and added: “You horrid people.”

Liz Miller described the action as “outrageous, thoughtless and totally heartless”.

Others said the destruction of the dogs was shameful.

SUPPORTERS LAUNCH PETITION TO SAVE DEATH ROW DOGS

Protesters holding a demonstration against council putting down two dogs owned by Shannon Holt and partner Evan Jeremiejczyk. Pictured is Kim Jeremiejczyk with her protest sign. Picture: Tanya Fry.

Frankston Council announced this afternoon that the two dogs, Charlie and Sharni, had been euthanised.

In a lengthy statement, mayor Darrel Taylor stated that the dogs had been “humanely euthanised by a qualified veterinary practitioner”.

“This decision was not taken lightly. Our council considers every such case carefully based on all the information available to ensure we act responsibly on behalf of our community,” he said.

“Due to the legal and case review process, council has not been in a position to fully respond to some provocative media coverage.”

Cr Taylor acknowledged 11th hour efforts to save the dogs, including a push for them to be sent interstate.

“While offers to assess and rehouse the dogs were received from interstate, these offers were made without full knowledge of the circumstances and the history of the animals,” he said.

“Council did not accept these offers as they could not give a 100 per cent guarantee the dogs would not be a risk to people and animals when re-released into a community.

“Council was not prepared to hand over our legal and moral responsibilities.

“It is council’s responsibility to investigate and prosecute domestic animal attacks. Council will determine the future of the attacking animal and, where there is sufficient evidence, may humanely euthanase in the best interests of the broader community.”

COUNCIL ADOPTS HARD-HEARTED ATTITUDE TO EUTHANISE DOGS

A memorial for Shannon Holt’s dogs Sharni and Charlie. Picture: Facebook.

Cr Taylor said the council reinforced its message of responsible pet ownership, including that dogs must be kept securely on their premises and kept on a lead when outside the premises unless within a designated off-leash area.

Supporters furiously lobbied last week for the dogs to be saved, but this was rejected by Frankston Council.

Ms Holt told the Leader last week that funds from an anonymous donor had already been soaked up in legal fees and neither she nor Mr Jeremiejczyk had the money for a Supreme Court challenge to the council’s decision.

She said she and Mr Jeremiejczyk were financially and emotionally exhausted by the battle to save the dogs.

Ms Holt and Mr Jeremiejczyk pleaded guilty to a range of charges including having a dog at large and dog attack serious injury causing death at the Frankston Magistrates’ Court in February.

Pets – classed under French civil law as property like tables and chairs – are to be given a new legal status as ‘sentient beings’

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10771361/Pets-no-longer-just-part-of-furniture-in-France.html

Posted Apr 18, 2014 10:27 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Pets in France are no longer just “movable goods” as a result of a bill passed by the National Assembly.