New laws needed to protect the weak and innocent.

The Odex case is revealing in the sense that the weak can be subject to extortion by the rich and powerful. People can be dragged to court or pay a ransom for the slightest infringement of the law. Then there is this guy who wrote to the press begging that something be done to restrain his neighbours 5 rottweilers from attacking any passerbys. After highlighting the fear and the possibility of a child being tear to pieces by the dogs, he pleaded sheepishly on what recourse he would have from the barking of the dogs. There must be laws to protect the innocents from people who live dangerously and exposed others to potential harm and destruction of lives. No recourse is going to make any difference to a child or an oldie who is badly mauled by ferocious animals. What the hell is happening? Are we waiting for disasters to happen just to make a few idiots happy with their wild animals? Tame? Animals are only tame when they don't attack. You just can't be too sure how the animal minds work and when it is going to be provoked or go berserk. Please, get rid of those beasts. Or at least have a law to cane the owners if their beasts attack anyone. Monetary compensation is useless to the victims. Make caning of the owners mandatory when an attack takes place.


Anonymous said...

that may be your view, but if you are an animal lover you would not feel this way. my apologies but from what i read you seems to have an extremist view abt things, are you alright?

Matilah_Singapura said...

Nonsense redbean.

The principle of good jurisprudence is that laws ought ot be uniform and universal such that no one particular group is "favoured" or discriminated against.

i.e. everyone is EQUAL under law.

Otherwise you get into the sticky situation of having to make value-moral judgements on people:"Oh he is weak, he needs protection" "He is strong we need to limit his power".

That's fucking nonsense mate.

redbean said...

this post, or most of my posts, intentionally takes on a provocative stance. then you will have two sides.

what is so unfair about a law that prohibits vicious animals or caning owners of vicious animals if they attack innocent passerbys? as long as the law is transparent, made know, the people who are prepared to keep vicious animals must be prepared to be caned. but of course, if their pets are not vicious, they need not be worried.

one must also spare a thought to the parents of a 3 year old child being torn to pieces by such animals. no amount of compensation can do any good to the pain and trauma of the child and parents.

if we can ban chewing gums, why not vicious animals? we banned piranhas too, except loan sharks.

Anonymous said...

except for the caning, i tend to agree with redbean. one or two huge dogs may be acceptable, but to have many we must understand that dogs when attack as a pack,there's not much anyone can stop them.

many keep ferocious dogs not becos they love animals, but for their personal and property protection.

Anonymous said...

ya execute the owners lah

redbean said...

last week there were a couple of pics of children badly mauled by vicious dogs. their faces were cut across many times and stitched together by countless stitches.

can any among of compensation change their lives? just for the love of animals or selfish curiosities and fun, shall we allow them to destroy other people's lives? let everyone have the freedom to play with fire. but they must not be allowed to harm others.

redbean said...

i saw pics of the 5 rottweilers. they look very pretty and lovable, like little angelic children.

can anyone guarantee that they would not bite one of these days? by the way, they are called animals not for no reasons. animals react instinctively. even tame elephants in the zoo often attack the zookeepers.