{"id":3104,"date":"2016-01-31T17:38:34","date_gmt":"2016-01-31T16:38:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/?p=3104"},"modified":"2016-01-31T17:38:34","modified_gmt":"2016-01-31T16:38:34","slug":"guest-submission-the-law-in-canada","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/","title":{"rendered":"Guest Submission: The Law in Canada"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the winter of 2015\u00ad-2016, Canada has been forced to re\u00adopen some of the debate around its
\nbestiality laws. The question before the Supreme Court of Canada is \u201cDoes bestiality require
\nthe penetration of a penis or does bestiality include fondling or oral sexual contact?” The answer
\ngiven by the lower courts may be surprising to the lay person.<\/p>\n

Brief History of Bestiality in Canada<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

In 1969 there was a brief period of hope that when homosexuals, via the Criminal Law
\nAmendment Act, gained some of their rights and freedoms in Canada zoosexuals would also
\ngain their rights with the removal of the sodomy and buggery laws. Unfortunately, this hope did
\nnot last as the social conservative and religious backlash caused by these changes were not
\nhandled well by the then government of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. The anti\u00adhomosexual laws
\nremained and exceptions were made for only certain instances of homosexual practice. This
\nmeant that anti\u00adzoosexual laws were left unchanged. Remnants of these polices can still be
\nfound today? for example, if three homosexual men engage in acts of anal intercourse together,
\nthey are breaking the law in Canada to this day.<\/p>\n

The current law, section 160 of the Canadian Criminal code, came into effect in 1985, with only
\na few minor cosmetic changes in the last 30 years.<\/p>\n

It reads, in part,<\/p>\n

Every person who commits bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
\nimprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on
\nsummary conviction.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In 2011, Bill C10 was passed in an attempt by the socially conservative government to impose
\nmore sexual morals on Canadians by imposing mandatory minimum sentences for many
\nalready illegal sexual acts. Most of the changes were in sections of the criminal code which
\nwere seldom used.<\/p>\n

It has been argued that the act of zoosexual behavior should be a protected act under the
\ncharter of rights and freedoms of Canada.(1) As outlined in the 1995 case before the Supreme
\nCourt, Egan v Canada, sexual orientation should be a protected right.(2)<\/p>\n

Current Case before the Supreme court<\/strong><\/p>\n

The case before the Supreme court of Canada is an unfortunately disturbing one. My analysis is
\nthat of an average citizen who is familiar with the laws around zoosexuality and animal rights in
\nCanada but with no formal training in law.<\/p>\n

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

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

It should be obvious that any thinking person, myself included, will condemn the rape of the
\nyoung girls and the treatment of the dog in question. The young girls were obviously harmed in
\nthe acts their father performed. It is interesting to note that the dog seems to have been
\nindifferent to the whole affair. No reports of the dog\u2019s welfare have been made, unlike cases
\nwhere zoosexuals have suddenly had animals seized due to \u201cabuse\u201d. It is worth noting the
\ninteresting double standard.<\/p>\n

With no zoophile organizations in Canada to intervene there is no one mentioning the protection
\nof both the rights of the animal in question nor the rights of normal zoosexual individuals
\ninvolved in non\u00adabusive relationships with animals. Rather, the only interested intervener was
\n\u201cAnimal Justice Canada\u201d a legal defense fund for animals. While, according to their webpage,
\nthey do a lot of work for animals it is difficult to find a lot of collaborating information on the
\ngroup outside of their web presence. Those successes listed, while laudable, seem to be low
\nhanging fruit. Even the founder is more notable for his several failed attempts at political office
\nthan his animal welfare work. Animal Justice\u2019s perspective is that animals must be protected
\nand that any sexual contact, including mutually enjoyable contact or when the contact is initiated
\nby an animal, is abuse because animals cannot consent. The attorney general makes a more
\npersuasive case that the section of the legal code involves sexual morals, animal protection
\nbeing in an entirely different section of the code and not the reason for the proscription against
\nbestiality.<\/p>\n

I think it is important to examine the argument that consent is required from an animal before a
\nphysical touch is involved. At what level of touch does the consent issue come into play? Under
\nCanadian law if you do not consent to be touched, anyone who does so can be considered to
\nbe assaulting you. Will we then outlaw animals as pets? And what of the food industry whose
\nlong habit of controlling every intimate detail of animal reproduction includes, under any
\nreasonable definition, the rape of cows, bulls, sows, mares, stallions and so forth. Do those
\nanimals consent? Is animal rape okay when it is done for no enjoyment but solely for money?
\nLive cover is so seldom used in animal husbandry practices anymore that any definition of
\nbestiality that includes the touching of animal genitals which exempts AI and semen collection is
\nwould appear to be a religiously moral law that has nothing to do with either animal protection or
\nthe defense of man\u2019s respectability. We have already lost those in our treatment of animals.<\/p>\n

It is a given amongst zoophiles that animals can consent and that the consent should be sought
\nout. The broader implication of this is that many of the acts we perform on animals should also
\nrequire this same protection. In the end, I would happily take my chances and give up my rights
\nif the result of this case were to protect millions of animals from abusive practices, but we all
\nknow that this is not going to be the case.<\/p>\n

Animal Justice claims:<\/strong><\/p>\n

This is the first time in Canadian history that the top court has considered any legislation
\ndirectly protecting animals. It\u2019s also one of the first times that animal advocates have
\nbeen granted permission to make oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Animal
\nJustice intervened to ensure the Supreme Court hears the perspective of countless
\nanimals who have no voices of their own. Whatever the outcome of the case, it was a
\nvictory for us to be there and speak for them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

which is simply a mischaracterization of the case in question. It is unfortunately the court was so
\nbereft of guidance that a group such as this was allowed intervener status. The biggest problem
\nwith this group is their argument of what is necessary and unnecessary harm and indeed what
\nqualifies as harm. Their submission does not provide facts and information? rather it assumes
\nfacts which are very much not in evidence. Is artificial insemination in which an arm is placed
\nwithout any sedation inside a mare a necessary harm? Is cunnilingus on a mare in which the
\nmare backs into the feeling with no restraint a harm at all? I would love to see any debate on
\nthese topics and indeed on how we treat animals before the supreme court but, of course, that
\nwould be out of the question. As with most animal rights groups, this group considers animals
\nas \u201clesser\u201d than humans and that they must be protected even from things they might like.(4)<\/p>\n

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

Hopefully in the future we will have a better way than outlawing something that is truly harmless
\nto protect both our animal companions and those animals we use for farming.<\/p>\n

Further reading
\n1. http:\/\/www.inter\u00addisciplinary.net\/wp\u00adcontent\/uploads\/2010\/04\/cutteridgepaper.pdf<\/a>
\n2. https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Egan_v_Canada<\/a>
\n3. http:\/\/www.scc\u00adcsc.ca\/WebDocuments\u00adDocumentsWeb\/36450\/FM010_Appellant_Her\u00adMajesty\u00adthe\u00adQueen.pdf<\/a>
\n4. http:\/\/www.scc\u00adcsc.ca\/WebDocuments\u00adDocumentsWeb\/36450\/FM030_Intervener_Animal\u00adJustice.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introduction In the winter of 2015\u00ad-2016, Canada has been forced to re\u00adopen some of the debate around its bestiality laws. The question before the Supreme Court of Canada is \u201cDoes bestiality require the penetration of […]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":2806,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[125,124],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-3104","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-animal-welfare","8":"category-general"},"yoast_head":"\nGuest Submission: The Law in Canada - Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Guest Submission: The Law in Canada - Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Introduction In the winter of 2015\u00ad-2016, Canada has been forced to re\u00adopen some of the debate around its bestiality laws. The question before the Supreme Court of Canada is \u201cDoes bestiality require the penetration of [...]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-01-31T16:38:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/wpcontent\/uploads\/justitia1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"175\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"130\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Slipstream\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Slipstream\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/\",\"name\":\"Guest Submission: The Law in Canada - Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/wpcontent\/uploads\/justitia1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-01-31T16:38:34+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-31T16:38:34+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/#\/schema\/person\/0e1b7c5f24abd8bdaa471d0ed1497db4\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/wpcontent\/uploads\/justitia1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/wpcontent\/uploads\/justitia1.jpg\",\"width\":175,\"height\":130},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Startseite\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Guest Submission: The Law in Canada\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/\",\"name\":\"Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins\",\"description\":\"Zoophiles Engagement f\u00fcr Toleranz und Aufkl\u00e4rung\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/#\/schema\/person\/0e1b7c5f24abd8bdaa471d0ed1497db4\",\"name\":\"Slipstream\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Guest Submission: The Law in Canada - Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Guest Submission: The Law in Canada - Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins","og_description":"Introduction In the winter of 2015\u00ad-2016, Canada has been forced to re\u00adopen some of the debate around its bestiality laws. The question before the Supreme Court of Canada is \u201cDoes bestiality require the penetration of [...]","og_url":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/","og_site_name":"Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins","article_published_time":"2016-01-31T16:38:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":175,"height":130,"url":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/wpcontent\/uploads\/justitia1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Slipstream","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Slipstream","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/","url":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/","name":"Guest Submission: The Law in Canada - Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/wpcontent\/uploads\/justitia1.jpg","datePublished":"2016-01-31T16:38:34+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-31T16:38:34+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/#\/schema\/person\/0e1b7c5f24abd8bdaa471d0ed1497db4"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/wpcontent\/uploads\/justitia1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/wpcontent\/uploads\/justitia1.jpg","width":175,"height":130},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/2016\/01\/guest-submission-the-law-in-canada\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Startseite","item":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Guest Submission: The Law in Canada"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/","name":"Das Blog des ZETA-Vereins","description":"Zoophiles Engagement f\u00fcr Toleranz und Aufkl\u00e4rung","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/#\/schema\/person\/0e1b7c5f24abd8bdaa471d0ed1497db4","name":"Slipstream"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3104"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3104"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3104\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3106,"href":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3104\/revisions\/3106"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2806"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3104"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3104"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.zeta-verein.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3104"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}