The latest debate gripping the nation is the matter of the XL Bully, an American breed of dog imported to the UK. The government, in response to a string of horrific attacks on our streets, some of which ended in death, has unveiled plans to ban the specific breed of dog responsible. The ban will see some of the more dangerous dogs euthanised, while others will be forced to wear a muzzle, kept on a short leash and have a personal insurance claim taken out in the event they were to attack someone.
It is this swift, decisive action that we so often find lacking on public matters, so of course it’s fitting that its presence is rubbing some Brits the wrong way. Recently, I’ve seen petitions, infographics and voiced protests online about the banning. People are under the belief that the government has swung the axe at the wrong tree. Rhetoric is used such as ‘ban irresponsible owners’, and ‘the dog is not to blame’. My ears always prick up at these remarks, as I find them remarkably similar to the discourse found in American gun control debates. It seems like the old line of ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’ has transformed itself, and is being used as a justification for another public health hazard.
Fortunately, the extent to which dogs are harming people in the United Kingdom does not hold a candle to gun violence in the United States. However, the precedent and principle remain the same. There is, of course, a given right to the people of both nations to own whatever they want, within boundaries. This right is not something that should be modified easily or with any frequency, else we risk tyranny of the government and instability in our nation’s values and principles. To this end, I am usually in staunch opposition to the undue limitation of any freedoms or rights placed upon citizens by their governments, including on matters of ownership. It also isn’t as if the government is well placed to enact such a ban anyway. With popularity at an all-time low and a reputation for lacklustre decision-making based on almost-always questionable ‘experts’, I can sincerely understand the opposition, and regard the distaste of the ban with some level of respect. However, what I can question is the principle. I contend that there is a libertarian, individualistic shadow present in the logic of the pro-XL bully crowd. Absolute freedom in the category of dangerous item ownership is the perfect example. ‘My right to swing my fists ends where your nose begins.’ is a quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes. Reworded to fit the current situation, ‘Your right to own an XL Bully ends when they start viewing people as snacks’.
Firstly, we as a society cannot afford people the right to own dangerous dogs if this right has been shown to infringe upon someone else’s right to walk down the road unharmed. There is, of course, a tendency to over-simplify this argument, as with most constructed on the basis of pure logical reasoning. It fails to account for the human factor of emotional attachment that cannot simply be defeated by ‘facts and logic’, (no matter how much the alt-right wishes this was the case!). When legislating and creating public policy, we must always humanise and take into account feelings. A failure to do so would lead us down a pretty fast authoritarian slide. With this in mind, there is an emotional argument presented by the opposition, that people will have had these dogs for many years and to confiscate them would be a massive blow, even a family breaker. A totalitarian regime akin to that of Pol Pot or Mao Zedong. My retort to this point is simple: Your emotional state, no matter how long you’ve owned a dog, is not valued above the greater public interest to not be mauled to death. There is perhaps no greater qualifier of safeguarding people’s emotional wellbeing than making sure their relatives aren’t left dead, gnashed in a public park.
Secondly, a question exists over where the blame is to be placed. This is the part that bears most semblance to the gun control argument in the United States. Is it the case that dangerous and negligent owners are to blame? It’s possibly true in part. There will always be the dog owner who skimped on training, doesn’t discipline their dog and walks it unleashed. These people are inevitable, and there is almost definitely some truth in the idea that they ruin it for the ‘responsible XL Bully dog owner’. Although, even these people will slip up, leave a gate unlocked, etc. And if that is all it takes to cause the end of somebody’s life, I find it laughable to believe there is such a thing as a ‘responsible XL Bully owner.’ There is simply no need to own such a dangerous dog, presenting a danger to your family, neighbours, and wider society. Buy yourself a poodle.
