Canadian Judge ok's bestiality (in some cirumstances)

[Humph Warden Bennett]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bestiality-legal-canada-supreme-court-a7073196.html

[Shaker]

Holy cow.

[Harrowby Hall]

I had thought that Canada was a Common Law country, but the article uses the term Criminal Code. If Canada does have a Codified Criminal Law system (similar to the Napoleonic Code of France and some other European countries) then it means that in the absence of a defined crime in the Code, that a crime hasn't been committed.

In English Law, judges have the ability to behave more flexibly since not only legislation exists but also legal precedence.

....................................

Addition - for clarity (perhaps)

In a codified legal environment: if it isn't in the book it doesn't happen. This is an instance where the drafters of the legislation did not envision this particular behaviour. They defined the proposed criminal behaviour so tightly that variations of the behaviour were not included in the offence.

There is a parallel situation in English divorce law (civil law). Same sex sexual behaviour is not adultery since adultery is specifically defined as the penetration of a vagina by a penis when one of the people involved is married - but not to the other.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

This seems a bit bizarre to say the least. I thought that a non Homo Sapiens animal is incapable of giving consent?

[Gordon]

Moderator:

Please note that the title of this thread, and its posts to date, has been amended. As a consequence several posts that related to the previous title, but not to the key link in the OP, have been removed given the change of emphasis.

[Nearly Sane]

This seems a bit bizarre to say the least. I thought that a non Homo Sapiens animal is incapable of giving consent?

For a start your post seems to imply all legal systems have this written into them. Secondly the concept of consent is not a simple thing that is the same in legal systems.

However, the issue in the case from the summary is not about consent but about what sex is. To construct a theoretical case, say there was someone who got sexually excited by a dog licking their face, would they be committing bestiality if the neighbour's dog linked their face?

And that's what it appears was decided here. For bestiality to take place, penetration is the definition of sex. One of the reasons why there wa quite a strict definition was probably that we often 'milk' animals of their sperm for breeding.

[Brownie]

Seems pervy to me, even without any penetration.  The animals, presumably, would have no choice in the matter!  I suppose some would say they ''like it'' but if non-penetrable sexual acts were performed on human beings without their consent, it would still be illegal even if they derived some basic sort of pleasure out of them.  It's abuse.

Ugh.  Still I suppose the judge didn't mean it quite as it was reported and for the man who was prosecuted for sexually abusing stepdaughters, it was a relatively minor crime in the scheme of things;  as he would be given a stiff sentence anyway there wouldn't be much point in adding to it, never mind having to work out how long to give him.

[Nearly Sane]

Seeming perverse isn't a reason for to it be illegal though. As said this is not about consent or abuse, it's about what is sex? That's what the specific decision is in the case.

[floo]

An animal is unable to give consent!

[Brownie]

Precisely floo!  I wasn't saying that ''being pervy'' in my opinion,was a reason for making bestiality illegal.

[Nearly Sane]

Precisely floo!  I wasn't saying that ''being pervy'' in my opinion,was a reason for making bestiality illegal.

The point still being that consent is not the issue here the definition of sex in terms of bestiality is. The action is not defined as sex with animals according to the brief summary, ergo consent is not considered.

[Nearly Sane]

As ever in such cases I find people who eat slaughtered meat worrying about the consent given by an animal licking peanut butter off of genitalia somewhat bizarre.

[Shaker]

Smooth or crunchy?

[Nearly Sane]

Pervert, therefore crunchy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pervert, therefore crunchy

No crunchy is fine - peanut butter with Nutella on the other hand would be perv central, and that's a medical fact.

Re the OP, I did see a chicken look a bit funny at me in Aldi the other day - should I seek help? (Pretty sure it wasn't Canadian though.)

[Harrowby Hall]

The point still being that consent is not the issue here the definition of sex in terms of bestiality is. The action is not defined as sex with animals according to the brief summary, ergo consent is not considered.

Exactly. And as I said earlier:

in the absence of a defined crime in the Code, that a crime hasn't been committed.

It does not matter how much any of you dislike this activity ... how perverted or disgusting you may find it ... under the Canadian criminal code, it is not illegal. Perhaps the code should be changed to ensure that in future animals give consent.

[Owlswing]

Exactly. And as I said earlier:

It does not matter how much any of you dislike this activity ... how perverted or disgusting you may find it ... under the Canadian criminal code, it is not illegal. Perhaps the code should be changed to ensure that in future animals give consent.

As long as the Code defines, with sufficient detail, exactly how the animal shows its consent.

More years ago than I care to think about a woman in Australia's Northern Territory was similarly charged after getting her dog to perform cunnilingus on her.

She said that the dog really liked performing this on her and she was asked how she knew that the dog liked to perform for her; she answered that she stripped off, got on her hands and knees and the dog went for it, the only problem she had was preventing the dog actually mounting her as that would have been obscene.

[Nearly Sane]

As long as the Code defines, with sufficient detail, exactly how the animal shows its consent.

Except, as already pointed out,  it isn't seen in the summary as an issue of consent from the animal, it's a question of what is defined as bestiality. There is no notion of consent here.

[Brownie]

I have no answers to any of this  !
Yesterday I had a look on the 'net to see if I could find any and you'd be surprised how much stuff dealing with the ethics of bestiality is out there.  Quite an eye opener.  I thought of copying a link for here but there were too many to choose from.

[Harrowby Hall]

As long as the Code defines, with sufficient detail, exactly how the animal shows its consent.

Except, as already pointed out,  it isn't seen in the summary as an issue of consent from the animal, it's a question of what is defined as bestiality. There is no notion of consent here.

Oh dear. I was attempting to be sarcastic.

[Nearly Sane]

I hadn't read your post properly but saw the sarcasm. I realise now I was probably doing Owlswing a disservice and where I thought he missed, he actually got it, so apologies to Owlswing

[Owlswing]

I hadn't read your post properly but saw the sarcasm. I realise now I was probably doing Owlswing a disservice and where I thought he missed, he actually got it, so apologies to Owlswing

Accepted