Damned in either case

NO-ONE ever said taking the unpopular road was easy. Just ask Knox City Council mayor, Cr Peter Lockwood.
Over the past few weeks, Cr Lockwood has faced intense scrutiny in relation to a Staffordshire terrier called Izzy.
Izzy was reportedly involved in a bite incident on a woman, which left a 1.5cm laceration on her finger, as well as attacks on three other dogs.
The council’s subsequent unsuccessful battle in the High Court to have Izzy destroyed under the dangerous dog legislation has reportedly cost ratepayers $600,000.
How many park benches could have been built with that amount of cash, you ask?
Plenty.
Which is why the scrutiny over this case has been so high.
To make matters worse for council, Izzy is a rather harmless-looking pet, with pictures of the dog featuring in many news pages and no doubt social media.
But at the heart of this case is a local government’s capacity, including Yarra Ranges Shire, to have a dog destroyed under the dangerous dogs act.
At its heart is how far a local government should go in order to stand by their convictions, particularly in relation to community safety.
Cr Lockwood and his fellow councillors obviously feel strongly on this issue.
For example, Cr Lockwood said in his press release, “Heaven help us if a child was attacked and maimed, or worse”.
So, what if, when Izzy and other dogs were reportedly attacking at random in the streets, there was a toddler in their path?
It’s clearly within the realms of possibility and there are countless documented instances.
If this was the case, we would be having a completely different debate in the media and among the community.
We would then want council to take action.
Of course, all this is hypothetical, which is why the Izzy case is so difficult.
It’s far from an easy scenario for council, but they should be given some support for at least taking a stand and sticking to their guns.