Bestiality in Canada?

[betsy]

Canada’s Supreme Court Legalizes Some Sex Acts with Animals

Canada’s highest court has just ruled that some sex acts between humans and animals are legal.

In a quixotic ruling, the country’s high court ruled that a man who was on trial for raping and sexually exploiting his own daughters wasn’t guilty of “bestiality.” The man reportedly, “smeared peanut butter on the genitals of his victims and had the family dog lick it off while he videotaped the act.”

The convicted man took his case to the Canadian Supreme Court, demanding that the bestiality charge be nullified. In the end, the court agreed.

As a result of the rape case, the court ruled 7 to 1 that humans having sexual contact with animals is OK if there is no “penetration” involved in the act.

The high court’s lone dissenter, though, said the ruling would mean open season for the sexual exploitation of animals.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/09/canada-supreme-court-legalized-humans-sex-animals/

It's okay to abuse your animal, that's the point here, isn't it?

[?Impact]

Canada’s Supreme Court Legalizes Some Sex Acts with Animals

Is petting your dog considered a sex act? What about all those old ladies who kiss their dogs? Please tell us what the boundaries are.

[capricorn]

What about all those old ladies who kiss their dogs?

It's considered a sex act only if the "old ladies" stick out their tongue. Ugh.

[Guest]

It's an issue of consent.

Bark once for yes, twice for no.

[WestCoastRunner]

It's an issue of consent.

Bark once for yes, twice for no.

Only if it's an enthusiastic yes. Tail must be wagging.

[Peter F]

OMG are we now training our animals to give enthusiastic consent?

[WestCoastRunner]

OMG are we now training our animals to give enthusiastic consent?

How else are we supposed to react to this thread .

[betsy]

Alice in wonderland. Down the rabbit hole.

Ooops. Didn't mean that to be sexual in any way.

Edited July 23, 2016 by betsy

[WestCoastRunner]

Alice in wonderland. Down the rabbit hole.

Oh no! Not rabbits too!

[WestCoastRunner]

Alice in wonderland. Down the rabbit hole.

Ooops. Didn't mean that to be sexual in any way.

That was good!

[betsy]

Only if it's an enthusiastic yes. Tail must be wagging.

You mentioned it, not me. ENTHUSIASTIC CONSENT.

Wagging in what way? How do you gauge enthusiastic?

Edited July 23, 2016 by betsy

[WestCoastRunner]

You mentioned it, not me. ENTHUSIASTIC CONSENT.

Wagging in what way? How enthusiastic can you gauge that consent?

Betsy. It's a joke.

[Guest]

Only if it's an enthusiastic yes. Tail must be wagging.

LOL Forgot about the tail.

[The_Squid]

I can't believe this actually needs explaining.... But here it is:

Found "not guilty" of something is not the same as "legalizing" that same something.

People are found not guilty of murder all the time.... That doesn't mean murder has been legalized.

What an absolute stupid article by an absolutely stupid source. Doesn't this tell you something about your sources Betsy? When they go to these extremes to lie about something like this?

Edited July 24, 2016 by The_Squid

[BC_chick]

Nailed it, Squid. Time to shut down the thread.

[cybercoma]

Sorry but the courts got it wrong here. The interpretation relies on the historical codes that placed bestiality and buggery together. In this way, the court interpreted beastiality, as parliaments had codified it, to mean sexual penetration of animals. Why they got this monumentally wrong is because a woman, not having a penis, can never penetrate an animal but any reasonable person will acknowledge that it's possible for her to engage in non-penetrative sex acts with an animal. As a result this interpretation now undermines the parts of this law that pertain to these acts in front of children or forcing children to engage in them. Very poor ruling, IMO.

[-1=e^ipi]

So as it is, it's legal for a woman to have sex with an animal, but not legal for a man to have sex with an animal.

Yet another sexist double standard.

[Queenmandy85]

Ahh, yes, Catherine the Great. Law or no law, people will do what they will do.

Of course, the stories of Catherine may be myth.

Edited July 25, 2016 by Queenmandy85

[betsy]

I can't believe this actually needs explaining.... But here it is:

Found "not guilty" of something is not the same as "legalizing" that same something.

Here. It's all in the first sentence.

Canada’s highest court has just ruled that some sex acts between humans and animals are legal.

Edited July 25, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Nailed it, Squid. Time to shut down the thread.

Then you're also wrong. Read my response to him.

Edited July 25, 2016 by betsy

[?Impact]

Here. It's all in the first sentence.

Yes, the first sentence of some trash piece pseudo-journalism was quoted. Give us the actual court filing, not trash.

[Wilber]

Every dog I have had would willingly lick peanut butter off of anything without feeling any remorse or embarrassment.

[betsy]

Every dog I have had would willingly lick peanut butter off of anything without feeling any remorse or embarrassment.

Yeah. Same with a toddler! Or a mentally retarded person. They'll probably think it's a game! Licking, getting licked by a dog.......vice versa! They wouldn't know if they're being sexually exploited.

Would that be a crime if it's just watching and taking videos of these licking that gets a pervert's jollies off? How do we even say for sure that it's meant to be sexual at all?

If these people participating in this doesn't see it as sexual (because they have no idea about it)........then, there shouldn't be anything wrong about that, right?

These liberal judges had opened up another can of worm here, folks.

Edited July 26, 2016 by betsy

[Wilber]

Yeah. Same with a toddler! Or a mentally retarded person. They'll probably think it's a game! Licking, getting licked by a dog.......vice versa! They wouldn't know if they're being sexually exploited.

Would that be a crime if it's just watching and taking videos of these licking that gets a pervert's jollies off? How do we even say for sure that it's meant to be sexual at all?

If these people participating in this doesn't see it as sexual (because they have no idea about it)........then, there shouldn't be anything wrong about that, right?

These liberal judges had opened up another can of worm here, folks.

What does any of that have to do with animal cruelty?

It was just the bestiality ruling that was overturned, not the rape and sexual exploitation charges.

What the guy did to his daughters was sick but in no way was it animal cruelty. Animals leave moral, sexual and religious hangups to us humans. All the dog knows is that it likes peanut butter and is getting some. The only downside for it is that it may now be trained to stick its nose in peoples crotches looking for peanut butter but again, that is mostly the humans problem.

[overthere]

Yeah, the courts charged the wrong mammal in this case.

That dog is guilty as hell.