Yesterday, I heard a second-hand account (marked by some indications of possible over-excited hyperbole) of an event that took place recently at a local dog park. What I heard stirred my desire to act in opposition to what I see as a dangerous trend. This is my first step in responding to that impulse. Please be patient with me here, since it may bring a peaceable surprise ending that you do not normally associate with me, or with our uncomfortable interactions of the past.
Here is the account of the event that I heard:
In the park, some sort of (pretend?) managerial person approached you to say that another dog park participant, whom I will call “Distressed Person,” had reported your dog, one we all know well, as having somehow behaved with excessive aggression toward some person or pet (whom I will refer to as “Underdog”) that is somehow related to Distressed Person. This managerial person warned you that if there was a second report of this kind against your dog, your presence at the dog park would from now on be formally forbidden.
As you can see, I have left room for clarifications in the above summary because objective facts, to whatever degree they can be arrived at in controversies of this sort, are crucial in pursuing fairness (“justice”). If what I am writing here to you is at all inviting, I would ask you to provide such fact clarity if necessary or possible.
It might surprise you to know that your social group at the park and I are in complete agreement with the cause summarized by the phrase, “No Kings.” If I may provide an interpretation on the meaning of that slogan – one on which I think we would agree:
We oppose the overreach of governmental authority beyond its legitimate legal purpose and role, especially when that overreach constitutes an assault on the legitimate legal freedoms of the common people.
The verbal conflicts we have had in the past have ignored or minimized this profound essential agreement of ours, and focused much more on when, how and toward whom our opposition must be turned into action. My personal belief is that that these battles are most effectively fought on the local level, where the focus can be a little less symbolic and a little more personal; where the effects – however seemingly miniscule – of increasing tyranny on ourselves and our neighbors are knocking at our own doors. In this case, it seems we can stand together.
My proposal:
With your permission and support, I would like to write down – or have you write down – the factual details of these encounters, both yours with this managerial person, and your pet’s with the Distressed Person. Then I would like to turn that text into a kind of petition – to be signed by any dog park participants who care to. I am then willing – eager – to convey that petition to the appropriate managerial body as a protest regarding the following:
• The ridiculous injustice of one warning to be followed by complete banishment
• The seemingly absolute trustworthiness of the Distressed Person’s report, against…
• a person and her dog who have been beloved participants of this dog park for many years.
• The person(s), beliefs, justification(s), and agenda(s) out of which such a managerial style might arise.
If you’re interested or not interested in my participation in this way, please let me know. I don’t want to do anything of which you would not approve.
