by Selma Mulvey
IN DEFENSE OF DLCC re Dog Politics
Ms Doris Shields article to which these communications refer
release regarding Ms. Doris Shields editorial. (rec'd
our office Jan. 12th via email)
has come to our attention that a member of the Dog Legislation Council of
Canada has been the subject of much public discussion, some of which has
With all due
respect to the complainant organization, its decision in this matter does
not bind or affect the DLCC, and does not prevent this member from
volunteering and providing her expertise in certain unrelated events for the
The DLCC does
not screen members. We ask only that members agree to and abide by the
DLCC's Code of Ethics - available at
This member has,
to the best of our knowledge, fully abided by the DLCC Code of Ethics. Ms
Lewis is a member of the DLCC and holds no other office. Ms Lewis has not,
at any time handled cash monies for the DLCC.
and pieces such as this are trivial in view of the compelling and global
issues we face, it is still unacceptable to us that any individual, who
claims to support the cause, would publish material of this nature without
contacting us for our input.
stated in regards to the Bully Ball, 'If that flies, I'm waiting for a
squadron of Pot Bellied Pigs to buzz the Ontario Legislature.'.
kindly suggests that Ms Shields buy a very sturdy umbrella for those pigs
droppings will be landing on target.
To date the
response has been quite positive.
One final word
of caution: When persons place information on the internet, either on list
servers, emails, or web sites, it is deemed to be public information. As a
result of publishing such information,
persons are accountable and if libellous or defamatory statements are made
about other persons, legal action may be taken.
It is up to the
person making the statement to prove that their statement is correct and
true - not the person being defamed to prove that it is not.
council has forwarded this editorial to legal counsel in order to provide
Ms Shields the opportunity to have her concerns addressed in the proper
Legislation Council of Canada
Editorial reply same date:
Thank you for contacting our offices. Your communication clarifies some
issues but raises others. Perhaps you can take advantage of this opportunity
of offer input and comment on the following:
Canadians not have the same right to free speech as Americans?
2.) By “complainant
organization” do you mean the Canadian Kennel Club that Ms. Shields said
suspended the accused person?
3.) Are your
members content with a DLCC that makes no attempt to screen members, even
when that member has been suspended by the national registering body for
Conduct or Ethics violation? If so, how does the DLCC enforce its Code Of
warning to TheDogPress and your characterization of the website as “trivial”
are unprofessional, petty, and unwarranted. No news service is under any
obligation to contact other parties for input on an article based on the
credibility of the CKC. We make no claims for the authenticity of the
writer’s opinion. We gave her the same opportunity as we have just given to
you and editorially speaking, Ms. Shields seemed to have less malicious
intent than you Ms. O’Reilly, speaking I assume, on behalf of the
Before waving a red flag, it is wise to
ascertain the mood and whereabouts of the bull. It was an article. Not an
“editorial.” We are certain that your Legal Counsel will advise you that
any publication, online or hard media, is indeed a proper venue for opinion.
BJ Andrews, Managing Editor
Note: In view of
the space you allotted to Ms Shields, I would appreciate having my letter
published on your site as a rebuttal to that piece. Thank you.
January 8, 2006
(received Jan. 12th)
Politicians' This piece was
brought to my attention by an alert reader of my blog. To say that poor
judgement was shown in running this 'guest column' by Doris Shields would be
understatement. Not only has this diatribe maligned the organization to
which I belong, the DLCC, it has also defamed an individual and linked them
with the DLCC in an uninformed, malicious and inflammatory manner.
I do not know this
writer and must wonder at her agenda. She states that she opposes BSL, yet
refuses to join the DLCC or, I presume, any of the four other organizations
which make up the Banned Aid Coalition. She has denigrated our ongoing work
to overturn the Ontario breed ban and has insulted our fundraising efforts.
She has obviously not investigated the facts around the matter she discusses
so freely but appears to be regurgitating second- or even third-hand
Contrary to her
statement, the DLCC has proud members across the country who are owners of
many breeds, including Akitas and ACDs. The piece is full of erroneous
postulation, so this statement simply underscores her lack of research or
access to background information on the subjects being discussed.
I would strongly
advise Ms Shields and the publishers of this site that in future, should you
wish to discuss the DLCC, you contact the organization directly. I for one
am dismayed to see a biased, ill-informed and prejudicial article running in
public which attempts to cast aspersions on the DLCC. We are all working
very hard in preparation for the case which, in the event of a decision
favourable to Banned Aid, will benefit owners of all breeds across Canada
whether they have supported the cause or not. I doubt that there is another
anti-BSL organization in existence that rivals the level of expertise,
commitment and integrity found in the DLCC, at both the executive and
I have issues with a
few specific comments made in this column:
1. "Lately, it's been for a $350/per plate Ball scheduled for March 2006 in
Toronto. (Only(!) $650.00 for a couple.) If that flies, I'm waiting for a
squadron of Pot Bellied Pigs to buzz the Ontario Legislature."
I am sorry if the
writer finds the contribution for this event too costly, but I feel
confident in stating that she is not a member of the target group. This
statement, aside from being fatuous, reveals a lack of sophistication. The
event is, in fact, generating a lot of interest among those for whom it is
intended, ie, people who are committed to helping us in the fight to restore
the rights of dog owners in Ontario.
2. "She was soliciting admission for 'Herding Instincts Testing' well after
that date & for fundraising for the court challenge to the Ontario Bill
I would like to
receive specific information from Ms Shields as to the exact events for
which Ms Lewis has been fundraising, as I am unaware of them.
3. "(Re: The All Breed Herding Instincts Testing... Does anybody care that
their Rotti, Mini-Poodle, or St. Bernard can herd Ducks!? More to the point,
why would they care? I'd be happy if any of these dogs could still do the
jobs that they were supposed to be bred for. Is it possible that Dog People
are the dumbest group of people on the planet?)"
It may interest the
writer to learn that an essential breed characteristic of the Rottweiler is
herding ability, as that was one of its original purposes. It is indeed
possible that certain members of the dog community display poor judgment; I
believe we have an excellent example in Ms Shields.
4. "If she made full disclosure, she either made it several months after the
fact, or they debated for several months after the fact to take her off the
exec. When they say 'her current situation', do they mean that the CKC
rulings against her meant nothing? Or that they were told about this a very
short time ago?"
speculating about the internal workings of the DLCC, why has the author not
contacted the organization for the answers to her questions? Why would she
not use a rudimentary journalistic technique and go to the source?
5. "I have written my share of letters to MPP's, The Premier, & the
'Papers. I've made calls, stood out in the snow waving a sign, driven for 2
hours to get to anti-BSL demos BUT -"
Based on the
veracity displayed in this column, I doubt that the author's lone efforts to
fight BSL will be effective. She may have written to newspapers but I am
unable to find evidence of her having been published in any of them.
involves dedication, research, focus, teamwork and selfless commitment -
qualities which the author of this superficial and potentially libelous
piece does not appear to possess. I would like to mention that we have been
unable to find the author's name on the list of contributions to the legal
Incidentally, I am
the coordinator for the Bully Ball, our gala event to be held at the Royal
York Hotel's legendary Imperial Room on March 18, 2006. It will be a night
to remember and the price per person includes a cocktail reception, full
dinner, drinks, live entertainment, interesting guest speakers and much
more. A modest contribution to the legal challenge fund is included.
If any readers of this site would like
more information about the DLCC and its events, or wish to support the
Banned Aid Coalition in its fundraising efforts to fight breed specific
legislation in Ontario and beyond, I invite them to visit;
Selma Mulvey, Proud Member, Dog
Legislation Council of Canada
article by Ms. Shields was reviewed and accepted on the basis that it
represented a problem found on both sides of the border. Political
infighting is not limited to politicians as has just been demonstrated. It takes
dedicated workers to achieve progress against BSL. It takes interest and
helping hands and financial backing. Many such organizations take help
where they find it and no one can criticize that as long as results are
beneficial to the dogs. We have not gone to the website or to the blog by
Ms. Mulvey but trust that there will be long lists of accomplishments on
behalf of anti-BSL. Hopefully everyone has gotten their say and we leave it
to our readers to decide who is right, wrong, or where the grey areas may
be. We present the story in the hope that all dog
legislation groups will re-examine complaints against members in light of
how it may reflect on the noble goals of the organization.
To see Ms Doris Shields article go to the
TheDogPress - Shields re Dog Politics in Canada - CKC Lewis vs. DLCC