The
South African Bull Terrier Club (SABTC) has taken the unprecedented
step of expelling Dr Peter Larkin for writing, and publishing
an article in the (English) Bull Terrier Bulletin that the
committee of the SABTC considers to be "harmful, prejudicial
and injurious to the objects, interest, good order and the
character of the Club." The committee did not question
the accuracy of the articles content, but nevertheless
objected to its critical content.
The article in question was published in the Summer edition
of the Bull Terrier Bulletin, No. 171.
While largely concerned with describing the differences between
the selection of Trophy competitors in South Africa and England
(in England competitors are chosen by a selection committee,
in South Africa by qualification), and the method of choosing
judges, which he considered over-complicated in South Africa
as opposed to, frequently, a matter of desperation in England,
the article was critical of the administration of the show
itself.
Dr Larkin considered that the organisers had over-concentrated
on the style of the show to the detriment of its
content. He quoted, as an example, that the dogs were expected
to climb a ramp on their entry into the ring, and claimed
that "Bull Terriers dont do ramps". The article
included the results of the show, with some ringside
commentary- Dr Larkin is one of the most experienced
Bull Terrier judges in the world and for many years contributed
to OUR DOGS with his Veterinary Matters column.
An offer to mediate by the President of the Kennel Union of
Southern Africa was ignored by the chairman of SABTC.
Dr Larkin appealed over his explusion. The appeal hearing
was chaired by the chairman of SABTC, Mr Deon Schoeman, aided
by Advocate C I Martin who described himself as "the
committees legal council" (sic). Mr Schoeman refused
Dr Larkins request for an independent chairman. The
chairman opened the proceedings by having a charge sheet read.
The charge sheet was not offered to Dr Larkin. The chairman
then informed Dr Larkin that he would be given a limited time
to present his defence.
Much of Dr Larkins initial defence concerned procedural
irregularities on the part of the committee they had
taken the decision to expel Dr Larkin without all the committee
being present, they had refused to permit Dr Larkin access
to documents that he considered relevant to the case (on the
grounds that as he had been expelled from the Club he was
no longer entitled to see Club documents).
Dr Larkin claimed that he was, in any case, entitled under
the Constitution of South Africa to freedom of opinion and
freedom of speech, including freedom of expression. The chairman,
on the frequently interjected advice of his legal adviser,
refused to consider any irregularities on the grounds that
they were legal matters, outwith the competence of the chairman,
and that constitution freedom of speech was "a matter
for the Constitutional Court".
Regarding the article itself, Dr Larkins claim that
it was accurate, if uncomplimentary, was not contested in
the committees charge sheet, their only explanation,
of their case. Dr Larkin lost his appeal.
The President of SABTC, Mr Louw Brits, in a widely circulated
letter, has declared:- "In the light of the damaging
nature of the said article the South African Bull Terrier
Club has taken the drastic step of cancelling all future judging
appointments by the club with Dr Larkin, and has the support
of the other eight Bull Terrier clubs in the country on the
issue, who have indicated to follow suit.
I am further aware of the fact that disciplinary action is
in progress against Dr Larkin whom now also runs the risk
of losing his membership with the South African Bull Terrier
Club and possibly others as well. It has even been said is
some influential circles that Dr Larkin would not in future
have the opportunity to touch another Bull Terrier in South
Africa, and should he be invited by any club to judge any
show, a concerted effort will be made to withhold any Bull
Terrier from entering."