Canadian Ruling: Dogs not human

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Or human children anyway.

In a ruling that references butter knives, euthanasia and cats named Slimey and Oinky, a Saskatoon judge made an impassioned defence of the notion that, when it comes to the law, dogs should not be treated as though they were children.

The Court of Queen's Bench judge made his case in a written decision about a dispute between a divorcing Saskatoon couple who disagreed about where their dogs Kenya and Willow (sometimes "Willy") should live.

"Dogs are wonderful creatures," wrote Justice Richard Danyliuk in the first sentence of his 15-page decision in August.

"Many dogs are treated as members of the family with whom they live. But after all is said and done, a dog is a dog. At law it is property, a domesticated animal that is owned. At law it enjoys no familial rights."

The wife wanted the case treated as a child custody dispute. She argued she should keep Kenya and Willow and offer visitation rights to her estranged husband.

Danyliuk rejected that request.

The judge ruled that dogs are property and should not be treated as children. He said that should be obvious to all based on a bit of logical, dispassionate thought:

"In Canada, we tend not to purchase our children from breeders.
"We tend not to breed our children with other humans to ensure good bloodlines, nor do we charge for such services.
"When our children are seriously ill, we generally do not engage in an economic cost/benefit analysis to see whether the children are to receive medical treatment, receive nothing or even have their lives ended to prevent suffering.
"When our children act improperly, even seriously and violently so, we generally do not muzzle them or even put them to death for repeated transgressions."

Danyliuk said given dogs are property and not family, it would be absurd for him to make a ruling about visitation rights.

"Am I to make an order that one party have interim possession of [for example] the family butter knives but, due to a deep attachment to both butter and those knives, order that the other party have limited access to those knives for 1.5 hours per week to butter his or her toast?"

Danyliuk acknowledged that dogs aren't quite like other possessions in that "statutory protection for pets exists to prevent them from being treated with cruelty or neglect."

**Pouncey**

Correct, human laws are set up to treat non-humans as property, not citizens.

Where's the big deal?

**Ahtman**

I'm pretty sure our options are greater than something either being a big deal or nothing.

It is just an amusing story and the interest, I suppose, is that there is actually a precedent there now. Just believing something is obvious doesn't mean there are actually laws involving said thing.

**Frazzled**

From deep under a mound of four blankets, Rodney objects strongly.

**Pouncey**

Ahtman wrote:
I'm pretty sure our options are greater than something either being a big deal or nothing.

It's effectively just stating what we already knew. Humans treat non-humans as lesser races undeserving of equality.

It is just an amusing story and the interest, I suppose, is that there is actually a precedent there now. Just believing something is obvious doesn't mean there are actually laws involving said thing.

I'm almost 100% certain that our nations' laws have it clearly spelled out somewhere what species they apply to.

**Ahtman**

Pouncey wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
I'm pretty sure our options are greater than something either being a big deal or nothing.

It's effectively just stating what we already knew.

So you then understand why it is absurd that it actually had to be ruled on by a court of law.

**LordofHats**

Ahtman wrote:
Pouncey wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
I'm pretty sure our options are greater than something either being a big deal or nothing.

It's effectively just stating what we already knew.

So you then understand why it is absurd that it actually had to be ruled on by a court of law.

Yes.

I like animals, cause I'm one of those Christians with a certain love for all living things (except spiders feth them straight back to Satan), so I'm not really big on animals being nothing but property. But having a custody case over dogs with visitation is absolutely ridiculous.

Thank god these people apparently don't have any actual children. In my experience vapid people are terrible parents.

**Pouncey**

Ahtman wrote:
Pouncey wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
I'm pretty sure our options are greater than something either being a big deal or nothing.

It's effectively just stating what we already knew.

So you then understand why it is absurd that it actually had to be ruled on by a court of law.

Yes.

I also understand that a lot of humans are stupid and the judge basically had to respond to the request being made by people asking for something stupid, and was required to provide an actual explanation.

**Frazzled**

Pouncey wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Pouncey wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
I'm pretty sure our options are greater than something either being a big deal or nothing.

It's effectively just stating what we already knew.

So you then understand why it is absurd that it actually had to be ruled on by a court of law.

Yes.

I also understand that a lot of humans are stupid and the judge basically had to respond to the request being made by people asking for something stupid, and was required to provide an actual explanation.

Why is it absurd? One party had attempted to assert law related to one process instead of another. The judge would have to rule on the law to be used in the decision. Its not a big deal. I'm surprised this made news.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Dogs are not human?

Well, thanks Canada, I'll sleep soundly tonight knowing that

**Ahtman**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Dogs are not human?

Well, thanks Canada, I'll sleep soundly tonight knowing that

Even if only one person sleeps better than this story has done its work.

**BigWaaagh**

I don't know why, but this reminded me of the tete-a-tete between Jules(SJ) and Vincent(JT) in 'Pulp Fiction' where they debated the finer points between a pig and a dog with regards to culinary suitability.

Dogs as property? "I don't know, dog got a lot of personality. Personality goes a long way."

**Pouncey**

Frazzled wrote:
Pouncey wrote:
Yes.

I also understand that a lot of humans are stupid and the judge basically had to respond to the request being made by people asking for something stupid, and was required to provide an actual explanation.

Why is it absurd? One party had attempted to assert law related to one process instead of another. The judge would have to rule on the law to be used in the decision. Its not a big deal. I'm surprised this made news.

It's absurd because any reasonable human being would realize that our pets are not treated as human beings by the legal system, by examining any interaction between non-humans and the legal system.

But mostly I'm wondering why you rephrased my post after quoting it like you're offering a counter-argument.

**greatbigtree**

I think this was an inevitable legal... event... for lack of a better term. It is my unscientific observation that more people are buying more deeply into the notion that their pets are "children" because they love them like children. At least, in their own minds.

So someone takes a sentiment of imagining they love a pet like a human child, and wants to process legally that notion. Perhaps they're more emotion motivated than logic motivated. We're all different points on a long spectrum.

Anyhow, I'm glad this has been treated the way it has. A dog is property with additional rights as a living being, but not equal to a human [child].

**BrotherGecko**

I actually find it more ridiculous that a justice couldn't have spent the energy asserting dogs are not humans to actually doing what the former couple were asking. Visitation rights seems simple and if you have ever raised a dog, removing a pillar of their from them can have negative effects.

Of course they should have been able to create a equitable system with out the legal system if they actually did care about the animal they raised.

**greatbigtree**

The current ruling creates a precedent allowing all future judges to summarily dismiss this idiocy, rather than having to process future idiocy through court. While it's a waste of time in this instance, at least protection is now in place to prevent future wastes of time.

**Pouncey**

Personally, I'm looking forward to the excuses we'll use to enslave human-like AI and treat them as inferior life forms once we invent them.

Then once we meet space aliens many millennia in the future we'll surely have fun trying to pretend we're superior to them as well. : D

**greatbigtree**

I take it you're vegan, then? The argument that will follow, assuming you're not, is which animals are ok to eat, which ones aren't? Keep in mind, any consumption of an animal product, even milk, is technically exploiting an animal for your benefit.

If you are, good on you. If you've never swatted a mosquito, good on you. If you've cried over an accidental crushing of an earthworm after a rainstorm, good on you. Eventually, I imagine I'll find some degree of uncaring towards the casual harm of an animal that you've engaged in, and then we'll hopefully get off our high horses... which we were exploiting for the better view / easier mobility.

**Pouncey**

greatbigtree wrote:
I take it you're vegan, then? The argument that will follow, assuming you're not, is which animals are ok to eat, which ones aren't? Keep in mind, any consumption of an animal product, even milk, is technically exploiting an animal for your benefit.

If you are, good on you. If you've never swatted a mosquito, good on you. If you've cried over an accidental crushing of an earthworm after a rainstorm, good on you. Eventually, I imagine I'll find some degree of uncaring towards the casual harm of an animal that you've engaged in, and then we'll hopefully get off our high horses... which we were exploiting for the better view / easier mobility.

Oh, no, I fully agree with killing animals, plants and bacteria.

I mean, it's not like any other animals in nature have an issue with killing other life forms to survive, and being able to eat is required to stay alive.

I just don't consider myself superior to the cow that became my steak, or the trees that became my desk, or the dog that is my pet.

Life on Earth is a daily horror show, and living requires killing others, so if I were to truly minimize my personal impact on Earth the logical course of action would be to end my own existence entirely, not simply swap killing animals for killing plants.

However, the moment Star Trek food replicators become available within my price range, I'm buying one, and never going to the grocery store ever again.

**malamis**

BrotherGecko wrote:
I actually find it more ridiculous that a justice couldn't have spent the energy asserting dogs are not humans to actually doing what the former couple were asking. Visitation rights seems simple and if you have ever raised a dog, removing a pillar of their from them can have negative effects.

Of course they should have been able to create a equitable system with out the legal system if they actually did care about the animal they raised.

Go for Solomon's Method, cut the dog in half and share it between them.

**Frazzled**

malamis wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:
I actually find it more ridiculous that a justice couldn't have spent the energy asserting dogs are not humans to actually doing what the former couple were asking. Visitation rights seems simple and if you have ever raised a dog, removing a pillar of their from them can have negative effects.

Of course they should have been able to create a equitable system with out the legal system if they actually did care about the animal they raised.

Go for Solomon's Method, cut the dog in half and share it between them.

Or just adjudicate the issue.

As the immortal bard one crooned: My wife just left and took my hound dog. I'm gonna miss that dog.

**feeder**

On a somewhat related note: I can't stand my childless single friends who call their fething dog their "furbaby".

If you die in your home, your furbaby is going to eat your face. Fact.

**OgreChubbs**

feeder wrote:
On a somewhat related note: I can't stand my childless single friends who call their fething dog their "furbaby".

If you die in your home, your furbaby is going to eat your face. Fact.

It is also a fact if you die in the woods your friends/ family will eat you.

On a side note I do not mind going to jail for life for ending someone who hurt my pet.

The value of a life is the punishment you recieve for ending it.

**Frazzled**

OgreChubbs wrote:
feeder wrote:
On a somewhat related note: I can't stand my childless single friends who call their fething dog their "furbaby".

If you die in your home, your furbaby is going to eat your face. Fact.
It is also a fact if you die in the woods your friends/ family will eat you.

On a side note I do not mind going to jail for life for ending someone who hurt my pet.

Well lets not go there (although I agree) as chest thumping may start thus leading Feeder to describe further...less amusing...dietary discussions.

"In space, no one can hear you fart."
-Alien screenplay, version 1.

**Breotan**

What's so reassuring about this article is that we can easily see a judge ruling the other way. PETA and radical organizations like this are continually working to get human rights extended to animals. Common sense on display in the courts is nice to hear about.

**greatbigtree**

Indeed, the "Furbaby" idea just sickens me. For starters, if I left a dog chained up outside overnight with a waterbowl for company... they'd be fine. A-ok, and happy to see you. The degree of effort required to keep a pet compared to keeping a child alive [and well!] seems to have lost relevance somewhere. Like I said, a contributing factor to how this made it to court in the first place.

I'm just happy the Canadian legal system continues to follow a path that is mostly intelligent.

**Frazzled**

greatbigtree wrote:
Indeed, the "Furbaby" idea just sickens me. For starters, if I left a dog chained up outside overnight with a waterbowl for company... they'd be fine. A-ok, and happy to see you. {/quote]
That depends.
1. They might freeze to death
2. Be eaten by rpedators.
3. Your ass may go to jail for animal abuse FOR CHAINING UP AN ANIMAL OVERNIGHT.

The degree of effort required to keep a pet compared to keeping a child alive [and well!] seems to have lost relevance somewhere.

Not at all. Having had children, birds, fish, and dogs, children are by far the most needy. Plus they can steal your booze. Ironically our budgies were the loudest and most mean (at least until TBone gave one a heart attack)

Like I said, a contributing factor to how this made it to court in the first place.

Or they wanted to share custody of the animal because both cared for the animal.

**feeder**

OgreChubbs wrote:
feeder wrote:
On a somewhat related note: I can't stand my childless single friends who call their fething dog their "furbaby".

If you die in your home, your furbaby is going to eat your face. Fact.
It is also a fact if you die in the woods your friends/ family will eat you.

Not a certainty, but perhaps a possibility. There will certainly be much debate and guilt among your surviving family members who had to choose between starvation and eating you.

You dog has no such qualms about eating your delicious face bacon.

On a side note I do not mind going to jail for life for ending someone who hurt my pet.

If you were James Hetfield you would have murdered Dave Mustaine instead of just kicking him out of the band? But you would have been depriving teenage Feeder (and millions of others) from so many sweet headbangin' tunes.

**Spinner**

I mean...if no one knows I'm dead and therefore no one's feeding my cat, I really don't have any qualms about giving up my face bacon. Not like I need it any more, and she's clearly hungry. If it helps her last until someone figures out what's going on, that's a-OK with me.

Regardless, yeah, I think this was the right judicial call. Take care of your animals by all means, I don't even care if you treat 'em like your kids - up to a point - but I don't think we need custody battles over pets.

**Orlanth**

I can see both sides here. Yes dogs are not human, but I see no reason there cant be shared custody of a dog. So long as the custody law is clear it applies here to property not people.