According to a new ruling by the highest court in the land, Canadians can legally use their animals for sexual acts, just so long as there is no “penetration.”
The disturbing ruling came by way of a case against a British Columbia man convicted of sexually abusing his stepdaughters. The scumbag was convicted of 13 counts of sexually assaulting his stepdaughters, which included one count of bestiality for “smear[ing] peanut butter on the genitals of his victims and [having] the family dog lick it off while he videotaped the act.” He also tried and failed to force the dog to have sex with one of the girls.
The man (known only as DLW), who is currently serving 16 years for his crimes, appealed the bestiality charge. In a 7 to 1 ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted him of the charge and, in so doing, effectively legalized the sexual exploitation of animals.
DLW’s attorney argued that the state’s definition of bestiality according to a 1955 code only covered “buggery,” or sodomy, with animals. Other sexual acts were not technically illegal. The court agreed.
“Although bestiality was often subsumed in terms such as sodomy or buggery, penetration was the essence – ‘the defining act’ – of the offence,” the court ruled by a 7-1 majority. For an act to constitute bestiality, it must include 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 judges explain.
Animal rights activists are warning about the sick ramifications of the ruling and calling for changes.
“As of today, Canadian law gives animal abusers license to use animals for their own sexual gratification.”
Animal Justice Executive Director Camille Labchuk
“As of today, Canadian law gives animal abusers license to use animals for their own sexual gratification,” Animal Justice Executive Director Camille Labchuk told The Independent. “This is completely unacceptable, contrary to societal expectations, and cannot be allowed to continue.”
“This much-needed bill updates the animal offences in the Criminal Code, and closes this dangerous loophole to make it crystal clear that all forms of sexual activity between a person and an animal are unacceptable,” added Labchuk.
The sole dissenting voice on the Supreme Court, Justice Rosalie Abella, who wanted the court to deny DLW’s appeal, agrees with the sentiment, writing that any acts with animals that have a “sexual purpose” are “inherently exploitative whether or not penetration occurs.”