donotfearthetruth666
Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 104
https://archive.is/Vi416
In a surprising decision from Canada's Supreme Court, the country's top judges ruled that forcing a dog to perform oral sex is not, in fact, bestiality and therefore not necessarily illegal.
The ruling essentially invites Parliament to get to work and fix that.
The case before the court involves an unnamed man, accused of forcing the family dog to perform oral sex on his underage daughter. The man was convicted of a litany of sexual offences in relation to the abuse, and sentenced to 14 years in jail. On one charge of bestiality, however, he was acquitted on appeal.
His case was surprisingly complex. His lawyers contended that Parliament had never intended to criminalize oral sex with animals. Instead, they argued before the court, the charge, which carries no formal definition in the Criminal Code, was linked to 'buggery' — a similar charge also criminalized homosexual acts — and therefore required penetration.
The Government of Canada, as well as Animal Justice — an animal rights group — argued that the court ought to take a common sense approach to the law and naturally consider any sexual contact with animals as wrong, abusive, and illegal.
In a surprising decision from Canada's Supreme Court, the country's top judges ruled that forcing a dog to perform oral sex is not, in fact, bestiality and therefore not necessarily illegal.
The ruling essentially invites Parliament to get to work and fix that.
The case before the court involves an unnamed man, accused of forcing the family dog to perform oral sex on his underage daughter. The man was convicted of a litany of sexual offences in relation to the abuse, and sentenced to 14 years in jail. On one charge of bestiality, however, he was acquitted on appeal.
His case was surprisingly complex. His lawyers contended that Parliament had never intended to criminalize oral sex with animals. Instead, they argued before the court, the charge, which carries no formal definition in the Criminal Code, was linked to 'buggery' — a similar charge also criminalized homosexual acts — and therefore required penetration.
The Government of Canada, as well as Animal Justice — an animal rights group — argued that the court ought to take a common sense approach to the law and naturally consider any sexual contact with animals as wrong, abusive, and illegal.
![BlackOnyx8 [JG]](/data/avatars/s/71/71344.jpg?1725067962){kind=avatar}