Canadian Supreme Court: most animal sex acts not against Canada's bestiality law.

Most animal sex acts not against Canada's bestiality law: court

Canada's bestiality law only bans sexual acts that involve penetration, the country's Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, a blow to advocacy groups who argued animals should be afforded the same protection from exploitation that humans are given.

Supreme Court judges ruled in favor of a man from British Columbia in western Canada convicted for sexual assault and bestiality after he involved the family dog in the abuse of his stepdaughters.

The man, known only by the initials "D.L.W." to protect his stepdaughters' identity, then successfully appealed his bestiality conviction in a provincial court, arguing that according to the law, the offense of bestiality requires penetration, which his actions did not involve.

The crown had argued the definition of bestiality included all sex acts. D.L.W. was originally convicted of 13 offences involving his stepdaughters, including one charge of bestiality, and is currently serving a 16-year prison sentence.

I dont even know anymore.

Clearly, Canadians need to rewrite the "law" upon which this decision was based.

SMH.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Sorry just too many Moose jokes. Must leave this thread or be banned for life.

a reply to: gladtobehere

I can't speak to the law, or the Supreme Court's reversal, but I pray this decision doesn't affect his sentencing. 16 years? That's weak. There's a place for his lot and it's under the jail/prison. Disgusting beyond words. Can only hope the girls deal with this as best as possible and can lead healthy lives. Best wishes to those girls!

Those poor girls.


I hope this sick f# ends up on the sharp end of a shank in prison.
Preferably around the jugular.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: gladtobehere

Sorry just too many Moose jokes. Must leave this thread or be banned for life.

Moose was your first choice? National animal offers more humor...
On topic, I'm speechless.
Many laws need an overhaul, but I suppose when people think of this it generally makes the skin crawl, and keeps getting put on the backburner unless there is enough public outcry, like everything else.

What a weirdo, that law should changed asap.

Well I remember after the Chernobyl disaster, welsh farmers wanted to sue becouse there sheep had become radioactive so ruining the farmers sex life

Let me guess there's going to be another social rights movement in support of people who love animals and want to have sex with them. They will label it as a legitimate, disease or genetic disorder to excuse it. Everyone will be forced to accept it. Then the same will happen with Pedophelia. This world is sick. a reply to: gladtobehere

Now... are we talking about the animal penetrating the human or vice versa? Or both?

Because, I mean, if most sex acts involving animals are gonna fly, we kinda need to get into specifics, right?

originally posted by: TheCretinHop
Let me guess there's going to be another social rights movement in support of people who love animals and want to have sex with them. They will label it as a legitimate, disease or genetic disorder to excuse it. Everyone will be forced to accept it. Then the same will happen with Pedophelia. This world is sick. a reply to: gladtobehere

What percentage of the population do you believe would support people's rights to rape animals?

What percentage of the population do you believe would support people's rights to rape children?

Why do you think the Constitution would support violating the rights of another?

Why do you think of rape as being anywhere near the same topic as (I'm assuming you're talking about) transgendered individuals?

Who has been "forced to accept" anything? Cheer up - you can still writhe in digust all you want over how other people choose to live their lives, and nothing can legally stop you.

This is speciesphobic page. How about is someone is transspeacies. It's not love, love

originally posted by: Farlander
Now... are we talking about the animal penetrating the human or vice versa? Or both?

Because, I mean, if most sex acts involving animals are gonna fly, we kinda need to get into specifics, right?

Yes, this is pretty important. Because, many here in various ATS discussions believe that a human penetrating the animal is wrong, because the animal can't give his or her "consent". So, that's an abusive act, the animal wasn't a "willing" participant. This is what distinguishes "bestiality" from "homosexuality" : willing participants giving obvious consent.

However, what happens when the animal jumps on the human, and willingly penetrates the human? Is that wrong, if the human gives the animal his or her "consent."