1. The appeal is granted. The Federal Constitutional Court would come to the conclusion that we were “meant” by thislaw and this would be considered as a inappropriate restriction of the right ?on sexual self-determination . The law would be history and we would have achieved a moderate political  success.
2. The appeal is not accepted for decision. The Federal Constitutional Court would state that we are not meant by the law, but only those people who apply sexual violence to animals (as by forcing them to sex). Then our constitutional complaint would indeed seem to be failed, but the clarification of the Constitutional Court would mean that our goal, to have sexual partnerships between humans and other animals regarded as legal in the public opinion again, would still be achieved.

Der Beitrag Why we see our lawsuit against §3 Satz 1 Nummer 13 TierSchG as a success erschien zuerst auf Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins.

“to use an animal for own sexual acts or to train it to be used by other persons for sexual acts and to force it by this into a behaviour, which is against the nature of its species.”

The fine can be up to 25.000 Euros.

In the public debate, this law is referred to as “Zoophilieverbot”, the ban on zoophilia.

The aim of the Zoophilieverbot is to enforce the protection of animals against sexual assaults. However, sexual violence was liable to prosecution before by the animal welfare law §17 and §18. This has not been changed.

On December 8, 2015, the Federal Constitutional Court rejected a complaint against the § 3 subparagraph 13 of the Animal Welfare Law. The explanatory statement specifies, this rule is fulfilled only if the animal is forced into a behaviour which is against the nature of its species.

The court says, that this force has to be equal to physical violence to fulfill this rule. Thus, the sexual intercourse with non-human animals is not prohibited generally.

Der Beitrag Germany’s constitutional court decides about the supposed zoosexuality ban. erschien zuerst auf Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins.

On February the 1st in 2013, the Federal Council of Germany rubber-stamped an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act, which contains, in our opinion, a purely political motivated ban of consensual intimate contact between humans and animals. This violation of the human right for free development of personality was established by reason of the assumption that there would be numerous animal brothels in Germany. The Badische Zeitung did some research and in September the 28th in 2012 they published the very revealing article “Are there any animal brothels in Germany?”. None have been found by this day. However, the originally planned ban on castration of male piglets without anesthesia, as well as the ban of branding horses has been moved some years into the future. No need for further explanations. Despite our efforts the legislation ignored us during the whole process and established a law based only on moral principles to supress and criminalize a minority, which is unconstitutional in the eye of some liberal legal practitioners.

This law is counterproductive in it’s current form and creates a dangerous example.

As an association for the interests of zoophile people, we are committed to:

results-oriented politics without blind activism
decriminalization and a support of scientific studies of the phenomenon zoophilia
a society with a secular morality, whose goal is the welfare of all living beings
a respectful approach to the personality and sexuality of all creatures

During this year there will be a panel discussion on the topic. In previous years we always had held a panel discussion and a demonstration in Berlin in time for the ZRD . For organizational and climatic reasons, these will now be moved to the warmer months.

Der Beitrag ZRD 2016 erschien zuerst auf Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins.

In the winter of 2015­-2016, Canada has been forced to re­open some of the debate around its
bestiality laws. The question before the Supreme Court of Canada is “Does bestiality require
the penetration of a penis or does bestiality include fondling or oral sexual contact?” The answer
given by the lower courts may be surprising to the lay person.

Brief History of Bestiality in Canada

In early Canada there were few criminal cases pursued against buggery and sodomy. When
these cases did make it to trial they were often left unprosecuted unless a violent or abusive
narrative was involved. In fact, while the sentence for these crimes was death until 1841, when
compared with other commonwealth countries, very few Canadians ever faced such severe
punishment.

In 1969 there was a brief period of hope that when homosexuals, via the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, gained some of their rights and freedoms in Canada zoosexuals would also
gain their rights with the removal of the sodomy and buggery laws. Unfortunately, this hope did
not last as the social conservative and religious backlash caused by these changes were not
handled well by the then government of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. The anti­homosexual laws
remained and exceptions were made for only certain instances of homosexual practice. This
meant that anti­zoosexual laws were left unchanged. Remnants of these polices can still be
found today? for example, if three homosexual men engage in acts of anal intercourse together,
they are breaking the law in Canada to this day.

The current law, section 160 of the Canadian Criminal code, came into effect in 1985, with only
a few minor cosmetic changes in the last 30 years.

It reads, in part,

Every person who commits bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on
summary conviction.

In 2011, Bill C10 was passed in an attempt by the socially conservative government to impose
more sexual morals on Canadians by imposing mandatory minimum sentences for many
already illegal sexual acts. Most of the changes were in sections of the criminal code which
were seldom used.

It has been argued that the act of zoosexual behavior should be a protected act under the
charter of rights and freedoms of Canada.(1) As outlined in the 1995 case before the Supreme
Court, Egan v Canada, sexual orientation should be a protected right.(2)

Current Case before the Supreme court

The case before the Supreme court of Canada is an unfortunately disturbing one. My analysis is
that of an average citizen who is familiar with the laws around zoosexuality and animal rights in
Canada but with no formal training in law.

The facts are these: A man serially raped his daughters for over a decade. In four instances he
used the family dog. The dog never had penetrative sex and was used to orally stimulate the
daughters. While the man was found guilty on repeat charges of rape, the British Columbia
provincial court and BC superior court both ruled that the interpretation of oral stimulation as
bestiality was not legally correct.

The BC attorney general has brought forth case number 36450 to the Supreme Court of
Canada arguing that this is neither an animal protection case, nor is there a case for limiting the
interpretation of a moral law. The argument they brought forward is that all sexual contact with
animals should be made illegal because the law in this section of criminal code deals with public
morals and that any infraction should be dealt with in that light.(3)

It should be obvious that any thinking person, myself included, will condemn the rape of the
young girls and the treatment of the dog in question. The young girls were obviously harmed in
the acts their father performed. It is interesting to note that the dog seems to have been
indifferent to the whole affair. No reports of the dog’s welfare have been made, unlike cases
where zoosexuals have suddenly had animals seized due to “abuse”. It is worth noting the
interesting double standard.

With no zoophile organizations in Canada to intervene there is no one mentioning the protection
of both the rights of the animal in question nor the rights of normal zoosexual individuals
involved in non­abusive relationships with animals. Rather, the only interested intervener was
“Animal Justice Canada” a legal defense fund for animals. While, according to their webpage,
they do a lot of work for animals it is difficult to find a lot of collaborating information on the
group outside of their web presence. Those successes listed, while laudable, seem to be low
hanging fruit. Even the founder is more notable for his several failed attempts at political office
than his animal welfare work. Animal Justice’s perspective is that animals must be protected
and that any sexual contact, including mutually enjoyable contact or when the contact is initiated
by an animal, is abuse because animals cannot consent. The attorney general makes a more
persuasive case that the section of the legal code involves sexual morals, animal protection
being in an entirely different section of the code and not the reason for the proscription against
bestiality.

I think it is important to examine the argument that consent is required from an animal before a
physical touch is involved. At what level of touch does the consent issue come into play? Under
Canadian law if you do not consent to be touched, anyone who does so can be considered to
be assaulting you. Will we then outlaw animals as pets? And what of the food industry whose
long habit of controlling every intimate detail of animal reproduction includes, under any
reasonable definition, the rape of cows, bulls, sows, mares, stallions and so forth. Do those
animals consent? Is animal rape okay when it is done for no enjoyment but solely for money?
Live cover is so seldom used in animal husbandry practices anymore that any definition of
bestiality that includes the touching of animal genitals which exempts AI and semen collection is
would appear to be a religiously moral law that has nothing to do with either animal protection or
the defense of man’s respectability. We have already lost those in our treatment of animals.

It is a given amongst zoophiles that animals can consent and that the consent should be sought
out. The broader implication of this is that many of the acts we perform on animals should also
require this same protection. In the end, I would happily take my chances and give up my rights
if the result of this case were to protect millions of animals from abusive practices, but we all
know that this is not going to be the case.

Animal Justice claims:

This is the first time in Canadian history that the top court has considered any legislation
directly protecting animals. It’s also one of the first times that animal advocates have
been granted permission to make oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Animal
Justice intervened to ensure the Supreme Court hears the perspective of countless
animals who have no voices of their own. Whatever the outcome of the case, it was a
victory for us to be there and speak for them.

which is simply a mischaracterization of the case in question. It is unfortunately the court was so
bereft of guidance that a group such as this was allowed intervener status. The biggest problem
with this group is their argument of what is necessary and unnecessary harm and indeed what
qualifies as harm. Their submission does not provide facts and information? rather it assumes
facts which are very much not in evidence. Is artificial insemination in which an arm is placed
without any sedation inside a mare a necessary harm? Is cunnilingus on a mare in which the
mare backs into the feeling with no restraint a harm at all? I would love to see any debate on
these topics and indeed on how we treat animals before the supreme court but, of course, that
would be out of the question. As with most animal rights groups, this group considers animals
as “lesser” than humans and that they must be protected even from things they might like.(4)

Moreover, the criminal code of Canada already protects animals from harm via animal
protection sections. Section 160, the bestiality provision, is simply an antiquated leftover from
when buggery was part of the penal code. We could hope it will be struck down and certainly
hope the Supreme Court of Canada agrees with the limits set forth by the supreme court of
British Columbia. Canada needs an organization similar to ZETA to organize a legal defense
under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to provide education to the public and provide
resources to zoosexuals who have a hard time reconciling their place as part of a society that
reviles them so much.

Hopefully in the future we will have a better way than outlawing something that is truly harmless
to protect both our animal companions and those animals we use for farming.

Further reading
1. http://www.inter­disciplinary.net/wp­content/uploads/2010/04/cutteridgepaper.pdf
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egan_v_Canada
3. http://www.scc­csc.ca/WebDocuments­DocumentsWeb/36450/FM010_Appellant_Her­Majesty­the­Queen.pdf
4. http://www.scc­csc.ca/WebDocuments­DocumentsWeb/36450/FM030_Intervener_Animal­Justice.pdf

Der Beitrag Guest Submission: The Law in Canada erschien zuerst auf Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins.

The quickest answer came from PETA with an astonishing question to answer time of 20 minutes!

“We support neutering as the better option. Vasectomies leave reproductive urges intact, while neutering greatly diminishes and possibly eliminates them. Dogs who have been neutered are far less likely to roam far from home or fight.  Additionally, they are protected from testicular cancer and run less risk of contracting prostate disease.”

According to the recent scientific Articles behavioral changes due to neutering/spaying differs from case to case. The outcome and impact of neutering/spaying can not be determinded beforehand. The reproductive urges are not determined by the gonads, but by the brain itself. Yes, hormones have an impact on the urges, BUT they are not the only factor!
Calling the removal of an organ that can get cancer as “cancer prevention” appears to be inappropriate,too. Think about  removing a lung because you could get lungcancer.

The Humane Society International (HSI) sent an apology for not answering as quickly  as they wanted, because they forwarded the mail to their veterinarian division and these forwarded it to their senior staff veterinarian. Sadly said “senior staff veterinarian” didn’t write an answer till today (14.01.2016).

Last one till now are the World Animal Protection USA who didn’t answer the mail in person but linked to an Online article:

“We’re sending you a link that may interest you. (although there is more research out there)

http://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/June-2010/The-Trouble-With-Pet-Sterilization/“

While this Article is quite interesting (and goes straight to our question) it shows for us how hard it is even for vets themselves to talk about this topic. The writer concludes with:

“[…] the lack of discussion on this subject in academia and its apparent hard sell among veterinarians in practice is enough to make me wonder whether the most likely answer to the question of veterinary disinterest in these procedures—as with any safe surgical procedures with legitimate applications––has much more to do with fashion than with anything else.”

As we noticed that the terminology seems not to be consistent when talking about this topic, we also asked the blogger known as SkeptVet (http://skeptvet.com/) to help us out a bit by giving us the insight of an American Veterinarian.

“As far as terminology, you are correct this is often inconsistent. Technically, “neutering” means to remove the gonads, and “sterilization” means to render an animal unable to reproduce. Since neutering is the primary method of sterilization in the U.S., the words are often used interchangeably. “Castration” technically also means removal of the gonads, but it seems to be used most commonly in U.S. English to mean removal of testes, which “spaying” used for removal of ovaries.!”

“Techniques which prevent reproduction but do not alter sex hormones, (such as vasectomy and tubal ligation) are essentially the same as not neutering in terms of the health risks and benefits. These procedures do prevent reproduction, which reduces the number of unwanted puppies (which is one of the major reasons neutering is done). And they do reduce the risks associated with reproduction, particularly in females. However, the other health conditions associated with neutering are unaffected by these techniques.”

So what are these risks? Linked in the answer we got from SkeptVet is the following paper: “Evaluating the benefits and risks of neutering dogs and cats” http://skeptvet.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Benefiits-Risks-of-Neutering-in-Dogs-and-Cats.pdf

Here are the paper’s tables about the effects of neutering:

For an in dept explanations please read the paper yourself as SkeptVet shows the inconsistency of scientific data.

Conclusion:
Neutering/spaying and their alternatives are a very complex field in science and furthermore in a discussion with animalprotection services. Although all the participants know about the alternatives, those aren’t given a chance to be used in the US due to the fact that there seems to be a lack of interest.

It is your and our mission as pet owners to ask the vets, ask the protection services and last but not least the scientists, because only when we ask we can change something and show that there is an interest in scientific works towards our concerns.

Personal Opinion from the Autor:
As I here have the option towards vasectomy and tubal ligation I would use it. I know about the risks and would like to talk about cancer screenings for animals, because  in my opinion these would be the better treatment.

Der Beitrag Castration: without an alternative in the US? erschien zuerst auf Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins.

What can I do as a Tourist?

If you notice a mutilated animal in a holiday location, you could try to find out whether there is an animal welfare group you could ask for advice or help. Nowadays this is easily possible, using the internet at the hotel or your smartphone. You can also ask the hotel employees where to find a local animal welfare organization. This has the advantage that these persons already know whom to contact in the local infrastructure (vet, the local authorities in duty of such cases etc.) Unfortunately only few animal welfare groups in southern holiday countries have the capacities to take care for all cases announced to them by tourists. Tourists most times only see “the tip of the iceberg”. The problem with poorly kept or abandoned animals in southern holiday countries is overwhelming.

Open your eyes and help

The worst thing you can do is to wait until you got back home to write an email to an animal welfare organization you think is in charge and tell them “There is a problem, take care of it quickly”. This nearly never works as you want, apart to appease your own bad conscience. Who has found an animal in bad state or in need and is interested in his destiny, should seize the initiative and help. Every tourist has the possibility to provide the first assistance if animal grief is observed:

• Bring food and water to the animal
• Let them be examined and vaccinated by the local veterinarian

Sensitize Locals

If the owner of a poorly kept animal is known, you should have the courage to talk to him. Even if you do not speak the language, you can talk non-verbally with your hands and feet. In addition to that, you can talk with the locals and focus their attention on the problem. Often this will work even in English. It is very important to point out clearly to the local hotel manager or restaurant owner that you disapprove the irresponsible handling of animals and that under these circumstances will not spend any more of your vacation time in this holiday location. The threat of less income is in most cases, especially if this is happening often, a measure to sharpen the consciousness for the problem in the locals, and maybe over a longer period they will change their minds.

Compulsory vaccination for crossing the border with an animal

If you decided to take animals – like dogs or cats- back home with you, above all vaccination terms are to be considered. Otherwise a bad surprise will wait for you at the customs. Most times the mandatory periods between the vaccinations are longer than your holidays. You could ask a local animal welfare group for help, perhaps they could take the animal in temporary care, until you can get it later when everything is arranged. Another option is to donate regularly for an animal in a shelter, or to donate a bigger sum for a necessary operation.

Reduction of suffering by donations

Especially on vacation, don’t close your eyes for the misery of the animals. What might appear wildly romantic on the first view, on a closer look might be pure pain, and then you should interfere and show conviction and courage. To look away or not to feel responsible about it is surely the more comfortable method. But this method does not change anything. On the other hand: For the animal that is helped, the life changes 100% for the better and this should be worth the trouble, even on vacation. It is an indescribable feeling if you have saved a life.

Remarks of another Member of the Association:

Even we, as animal protectors were always taught not to feed animals in holiday locations
I would not recommend it either, because it makes the animals dependent on this food, and you don’t know, what kind of illness they might have. They get used on the food in tourist’s seasons, multiply and when the tourists are gone they suffer even more.
So if somewhere is an urgent of help, like animals in the street, then you should try to help, but to distribute water and food to all street dogs and street cats, to deal with animal shelters and veterinarian officials and to argue with bad animal keepers without speaking the local language – I guess you won’t spent your vacation like this.
So it might be better to look for a vacation place, where as an interfering animal welfare activist, you will be less triggered to get upset and have only a little risk to see such grievances.

Der Beitrag Needy animals found in holiday locations erschien zuerst auf Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins.

They are at the moment in the same situation like we were in the end of 2012, when our parliament planned a law to criminalize sexual actions between humans and non-human animals.

From now on, we would like to offer this for all zoophile people speaking a non-german language.

The only condition is, that the author provides an english version of the text and ensures that both texts have the same contents.

Der Beitrag Foreign-language contributions welcome erschien zuerst auf Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins.