Canada Legalizes Oral Sex with Animals

[rcoccultwar]

For some of you animal lovers, or some of those who aren't satisfied with their sexual partners, or some of those with excessively dirty mouths (typing at least); rejoice!

Canada’s Ridiculous Ruling That Oral Sex with Animals Is Legal Shows Need for New Bestiality Laws


Manisha Krishnan


By Manisha Krishnan

Senior Writer





June 9, 2016






 Share


 Tweet



Yeah, this was a weird ruling. Photo via Flickr User Can Mustafa Ozdemir.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a person must actually penetrate an animal or vice versa in order for the act to be considered bestiality.

In a judgement released Thursday, Canada's top court ruled in agreement with a lower court that overturned a bestiality conviction.

The graphic ruling explains the case like this: A man, known in the judgment as D.L.W., tried to make his teenage stepdaughter have sex with the family dog, but that proved impossible, so he spread peanut butter on her vagina and made the dog lick it off while he photographed it. Later, he asked her to do it again so he could make a video.

The judge presiding over the man's first trial ruled bestiality "means touching between a person and an animal for a person's sexual purpose," and penetration isn't required. He was convicted of numerous sexual offences, including bestiality. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison.

But when the man appealed that conviction to the Court of Appeal, he won his case and the bestiality conviction was dropped. The Crown then appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.



In today's decision, a majority on the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal.

The ruling goes into the history of the crime of bestiality which was once categorized as "buggery" and/or "sodomy" but bottom line, in all cases, someone had to be penetrating the animal or vice versa.

"The term 'bestiality' has a well-established legal meaning and refers to sexual intercourse between a human and an animal. Penetration has always been understood to be an essential element of bestiality." The courts, they ruled, are not in a place to "broaden" the scope of liability for the offence—that's Parliament's job.

"Parliament may wish to consider whether the present provisions adequately protect children and animals. But it is for Parliament, not the courts to expand the scope of criminal liability for this offence."

It points out that although sexual offences against humans have seen many revisions over the years, the definition of bestiality has remained the same.

The dissenting judge, Justice Rosalie Abella, who thought nightmare stepdad's appeal should be dismissed, argued it's common sense to assume that Parliament intended to protect children and animals from abuse, including that which doesn't involve penetration.

"Parliament must have intended protection for children from witnessing or being forced to participate in any sexual activity with animals," she wrote.

"Since penetration is physically impossible with most animals and for half the population, requiring it as an element of the offence eliminates from censure most sexually exploitative conduct with animals."

Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice, which acted as an intervener in the appeal, told VICE the ruling shows the criminal laws for protecting animals are out of date.

"Sexually abusing animals is completely unacceptable, it is contrary to our values. Canadians care deeply about protecting animals from this type of cruelty and sexual abuse," she said, adding "people who abuse animals often sexually abuse children as well, as the accused did in this case."

In February, Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith introduced a private member's bill to close loopholes and expand Canada's animal protection laws.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/cana...estiality-laws

[murd0c]

Congrats cowboy.... You must be beyond happy avoid this news

[threezero]

it sounds stupid but that how the way our law work. Definition of something has to be argue down to the most tedious stupid detail.

[Speed2K]

I hope that asshole was still jailed for child abuse.

[Bouncing Bettys]

It appears the law originally only included acts of penetration on an animal. Since the courts were tasked with determining guilt under the definition of the law as it stands, they could not go about expanding the law. They didn't make anything legal, they just clarified an existing law.

[Galactic_Phantom]

Originally Posted by Speed2K

I hope that asshole was still jailed for child abuse.

II. Outline of the Facts and Judicial History

[5] This appeal relates solely to the respondent, D.L.W.’s conviction for a single count of bestiality. That conviction was entered after a 38-day trial, at which the respondent was also convicted of numerous other sexual offences against his two stepdaughters committed over the course of 10 years: 2013 BCSC 1327. Both victims testified that the respondent began sexually fondling them by the age of 12 and, by the time they turned 14, he was forcing them to engage in oral sex and sexual intercourse and encouraging them to perform sex acts with each other. He was sentenced to a total of 16 years’ imprisonment. For the bestiality conviction in relation to the older complainant, he received a sentence of two years to run consecutively to sentences totalling 14 years imposed in relation to the other offences: 2014 BCSC 43.

[6] The trial judge, Romilly J., found that the respondent first brought the family dog into the bedroom with the complainant when she was 15 or 16 years old. He attempted to make the dog have intercourse with her and, when that failed, he spread peanut butter on her vagina and took photographs while the dog licked it off. He later asked her to do this again so he could make a video. The judge found that the respondent did all of this for a sexual purpose: 2013 BCSC 1327, at paras. 317-18 (CanLII).

.

[jasonturbo]

[ScizzMoney]

Peanut butter sales are bound to increase

[rcoccultwar]

Obviously oral sex with a pet or animal is an extremely rare, isolated case or occurrence.

However, does this mean the system will have to add "sexual preference to animals", as a prohibited ground for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act?

When we were kids, someone was teased for that and it was a good laugh. As an adult, if this is added as an "identifiable group" under the Criminal Code, I'm not sure what to expect.

[swiftshift]

Uhhh literally #wtf at threadtitle

[tr0ubl3s0m3x]

F*ck is wrong with people.