• Most bestiality is legal, declares Canada's Supreme Court
    128 replies, posted
[URL]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bestiality-legal-canada-supreme-court-a7073196.html[/URL] [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/jfJ5Y7g.jpg[/img_thumb] [quote][B]The Court left it up to Parliament to better define the term[/B][/quote] [quote]Sex acts with animals are legal in [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/Canada"]Canada[/URL], so long as there is no penetration involved, according to a surprise ruling issued by the Supreme Court. The determination stemmed from a case involving a British Columbia man convicted of 13 counts sexually assaulting his stepdaughters - including one count of bestiality. But the man, identified only as "DLW", was acquitted of the [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/bestiality"]bestiality[/URL] count with the new [URL="http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15991/index.do"]ruling[/URL]. DLW's attorneys argued that bestiality linked to "buggery" - or sodomy - with animals beginning with an 1892 criminal code. Bestiality was first used in a 1955 code, but still was not defined to encompass every sex act with animals. "Although bestiality was often subsumed in terms such as sodomy or buggery, penetration was the essence - 'the defining act' - of the offence," the court said. Thus, the court ruled by a 7–1 majority that bestiality required penetration. “There is no hint in any of the parliamentary record that any substantive change to the elements of the offence of bestiality was intended,” the ruling reads. [/quote] [quote]Justice Rosalie Abella was the lone dissenter, and had suggested that the court deny the appeal. “Acts with animals that have a sexual purpose are inherently exploitative whether or not penetration occurs,” she wrote. [/quote] [quote]Representatives for Animal Justice, who brought the case to the Supreme Court, said the ruling should encourage Parliament to act on changing "outdated" laws that fail to protect the country's animals. "As of today, Canadian law gives animal abusers license to use animals for their own sexual gratification," executive director of Animal Justice Camille Labchuk told [I]The Independent [/I]via emailed statement. "This is completely unacceptable, contrary to societal expectations, and cannot be allowed to continue." [/quote] :scream:
Injury to animals is the first problem with it, moral objections come second. So I guess this bill just kind of clears up that part of the deal?
Well Canada, you voted in a guy who could be summed up as being a pinko, and now you get to live the nightmare of someone trying to suck your dog's pink. Hopefully your parliament doesn't go as retarded as the ones in Scandinavia, and you start having those weird parties that like pecking children.
Peanut butter consumption skyrockets in Canada.
Imagine if being accused of pedophilia also required penetration. That's how dumb this law is. Hopefully the Parliament will change it now that's it's got attention.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50485318]Well Canada, you voted in a guy who could be summed up as being a pinko, and now you get to live the nightmare of someone trying to suck your dog's pink. Hopefully your parliament doesn't go as retarded as the ones in Scandinavia, and you start having those weird parties that like pecking children.[/QUOTE] They are fulfilling the conservative view of liberals that throw all morals out of the window and that's not going to be good for liberal parties in Canada.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50485318]Well Canada, you voted in a guy who could be summed up as being a pinko, and now you get to live the nightmare of someone trying to suck your dog's pink. Hopefully your parliament doesn't go as retarded as the ones in Scandinavia, and you start having those weird parties that like pecking children.[/QUOTE] This is because of an old law being written poorly. This liberal government is likely going to be the one to make it actually illegal now. Nice try. So I guess this leaves only one question: With conservatives' failure to make bestiality illegal, why do you guys support sex with animals so much?
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50485318]Well Canada, you voted in a guy who could be summed up as being a pinko[/QUOTE] Slightly astounded that the word pinko is still used without any sense of irony or satire
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;50485343]Imagine if being accused of pedophilia also required penetration. That's how dumb this law is. Hopefully the Parliament will change it now that's it's got attention.[/QUOTE] Well for one thing you can't compare those two things and being accused of something requires nothing. Convicted/found guilty is what requires proof of it happening. The law is just outdated and the lawyer won it on a technicality that exists in law. It is a court of law not justice.
You guys talking about this ruling like the newly elected government had anything to do with it are retards. I'm not sure how things work in your countries, but in Canada, the courts operate separately from the other branches of government. They take the federal government to task for legislation deemed unconstitutional several times a year, in fact. Harper's government in particular was hit by the Supreme court an ungodly number of times. Also, read the damn article before having a childish knee-jerk reaction.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50485318]Well Canada, you voted in a guy who could be summed up as being a pinko, and now you get to live the nightmare of someone trying to suck your dog's pink. Hopefully your parliament doesn't go as retarded as the ones in Scandinavia, and you start having those weird parties that like pecking children.[/QUOTE] First of all - as far as I can tell - this has [I]nothing[/I] to do with Trudeau (or at least I'm assuming you're talking about him). It's a [B]court ruling[/B]. It's about how already existing law should be interpreted. Second of all, what the fuck?
I'll say it once and I'll say it again fuckin dogfuckers
[QUOTE=Svinnik;50485348]They are fulfilling the conservative view of liberals that throw all morals out of the window and that's not going to be good for liberal parties in Canada.[/QUOTE] You both are fulfilling the liberal view of conservatives by not knowing what you're talking about
Nice.
The Conservatives tried to warn people that gay marriage would lead to sex with animals, and now look! This happened while the Liberals are in power, so it means the Liberals legalized beastiality! [Sp]Yes, it's a joke.[/sp]
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50485318]Well Canada, you voted in a guy who could be summed up as being a pinko, and now you get to live the nightmare of someone trying to suck your dog's pink. Hopefully your parliament doesn't go as retarded as the ones in Scandinavia, and you start having those weird parties that like pecking children.[/QUOTE] Dude this is just the courts pointing out that the current law is vague and has loopholes. Chill out This was like when a court here declared their states rape law to be unconstitutional because of the way they defined it, the legislature very quickly changed it as the courts suggested
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;50485343]Imagine if being accused of pedophilia also required penetration. That's how dumb this law is. Hopefully the Parliament will change it now that's it's got attention.[/QUOTE] People aren't charged for pedophilia, they're charged for molestation, rape, or possession of child pornography. Anyways, to everyone acting like Canada is horrible for this, especially those in the states, I'd like to remind them that there are 12 states where bestiality is either legal or has no law regarding it, 16 states where it is legal to produce zoophilia porn, and only 2 states where it's actually illegal to posses zoophilia porn.
Not sure how it works in most places, but here it is 100% legal; you're going to get charged with cruelty/abuse to animals though, if your practices harm them physically or mentally (i.e. sucking your dog's dick is weird, but OK). This reminds me of a case where the defendant (accused of cruelty to their horse for this reason) proved their innocence by releasing the tape of them getting fucked by the horse, proving that there was no cruelty involved and that the horse was actually enjoying it :smug: (This is probably an urban legend, but proves the point of stupid law loopholes like these)
Should be legal to beat them to a pulp too. Fuck dogfuckers.
god damn it just buy a dog dildo you fucks
[QUOTE=Lollipoopdeck;50485841]god damn it just buy a dog dildo you fucks[/QUOTE] Real thing is better
[QUOTE=Lollipoopdeck;50485841]god damn it just buy a dog dildo you fucks[/QUOTE] Bad dragon is probably expensive in canada.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50485318]Well Canada, you voted in a guy who could be summed up as being a pinko[/QUOTE] are you kidding me
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50485318]Well Canada, you voted in a guy who could be summed up as being a pinko[/QUOTE] As opposed to reelecting someone who created a mini recession with his economic policies? I don't know what you expected to be perfectly honest.
[QUOTE=Tsanummy;50485812]Not sure how it works in most places, but here it is 100% legal; you're going to get charged with cruelty/abuse to animals though, if your practices harm them physically or mentally (i.e. sucking your dog's dick is weird, but OK). This reminds me of a case where the defendant (accused of cruelty to their horse for this reason) proved their innocence by releasing the tape of them getting fucked by the horse, proving that there was no cruelty involved and that the horse was actually enjoying it :smug: (This is probably an urban legend, but proves the point of stupid law loopholes like these)[/QUOTE] If you take the moral perspective that the thing should only be illegal if there's abuse involved or if it is cruel or harms the animal in some way, this is exactly the way it ought to be. Let's talk about the issues surrounding bestiality, WHY it is illegal, and some of the double standards involved in the treatment of animals in general by society at large. While I personally find it disgusting, my own knee-jerk reaction has no place in a reasoned debate, and neither do any of yours. 1. Consent and Exploitation Consent (Or at least the common legal definition of the term) implies an agreement on the part of a party that is of sound mind and is a rational actor - in other words, able to make reasonable, informed decisions based on their understanding and cognitive capacity. Children below the age of 'consent', therefore, are not considered rational actors in the eyes of the law, and that is why an adult having sex with a minor is usually a criminal offense, even if the minor consented to it, because the adult is in a mentally superior position, making the act exploitative. Non-human animals, just like children, are not capable of consent, and unlike children, animals never will be. So yes, any human having sex with them is exploitative. The question, however, is whether it is cruel. 2. Cruelty and Double Standards This question is important because human beings are due infinitely more consideration in the law than animals. It's a pretty safe bet that chickens don't consent to being kept in cramped, disease-ridden cages their whole lives, and that cows and pigs don't consent to being slaughtered for their meat. It's a well known fact that slaughterhouses and even farms where cattle are bred for meat are awful, inhumane places, and are unreasonably cruel to the animals they raise - all in the interests of cutting costs and maximizing their profit. However, these institutions are seldom criminally penalized for what is very obviously animal cruelty. Yet let's take this hypothetical situation. Why is it that in the eyes of the law, a human woman, for instance, who keeps a male dog at home, and who has sex with that dog, is somehow committing a greater cruelty to said animal, who is by all appearances a willing participant, and who is otherwise well taken care of? No question that it's exploitative. The question is, how does that constitute animal cruelty when other things we do to animals are not? Me, I'm no vegan. If I don't have meat in my diet, I have a hard time coping. Dead animal meat, cooked right, is one of my greatest pleasures in life. However, even I will admit that from a perspective of doing no unnecessary harm to animals, properly we shouldn't be eating meat. Just turns out I'm not that good of a man. And society at large seems to agree with me. We're loath to give up our pleasure and comfort to prevent cruelty to creatures we never have to see ourselves. And this is the problem with bestiality laws. If a government is to be consistent, such double standards cannot exist. Either all acts that are exploitative of animals are illegal, or they are legal. If you're not willing to do that, then hold exploitation of animals to be legal across the board, and draw the line at actual cruelty. What I'm seeing here instead are laws that are, quite frankly, entirely due to the knee-jerk reaction of disgust that society at large has to bestiality - and not whether or not it is harmful.
[QUOTE=Sableye;50485568]Dude this is just the courts pointing out that the current law is vague and has loopholes. Chill out This was like when a court here declared their states rape law to be unconstitutional because of the way they defined it, the legislature very quickly changed it as the courts suggested[/QUOTE] That was actually a thing?
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;50486376]That was actually a thing?[/QUOTE] I think It was like Louisiana or something, their definition of rape had some kind of loophole and the court had to toss the case out because of it
Now does this law go both ways with penetration, as in a male dog penetrating a female human?
brb gonna visit Niagara Falls
[QUOTE=bigdandyd;50486426]Now does this law go both ways with penetration, as in a male dog penetrating a female human?[/QUOTE] Not likely, because that's not going to cause harm for the dog.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.