Crime of Bestiality, Limited to Penetration, Supreme Court of Canada Rules.

[Chispa]

Warring for all those that are faint of hart, etc., this is not a joke, was informed by a Regimental Brother that was mortified & stupefied by what had just unfold with our all knowing and wise CDN SCC. Owing the source posted was questionable and believed this was some kind of sick joke I checked, WOW.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bestiality-supreme-court-canada-1.3624312


Crime of bestiality limited to penetration, Supreme Court of Canada rules
WARNING: Content of this story may disturb some readers


WARNING: Content of this story may offend some readers. The story deals with bestiality.​

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the acquittal of a British Columbia man in a decision that defines the crime of bestiality as penetration involving a person and animal.

The B.C. man was found guilty three years ago of 13 counts arising from years of sexual molestation of his two step-daughters.

The charges included one count of bestiality under the Criminal Code, stemming from sexual activity involving the older girl and the family dog.

The man successfully challenged the bestiality conviction in the B.C. Court of Appeal based on the fact the activity did not involve penetration. (The man cannot be named to protect the identities of the step-daughters.)

For more fallow the above link.


Too, Mods, etc., if U want to remove I fully understand, however this must be known, the American Propaganda Machine will have a field day once they get wind of this absurdity of ridicule.

 

[Lightguns]

Oiy Vey! Canada and its SCC deserve every bit of ridicule the world can heap on us.  This is the crack in the door that will allow you to marry your puppy one day.  Rule by Jurist continues to lead us down the path of national dismemberment. 

 

[Occam]

The SCC doesn't make law; it interprets it or strikes it down.  It's up to the government to ensure law is current and relevant.

The SCC arrived at the only conclusion they could have.

 

[Journeyman]

The SCC arrived at the only conclusion they could have.

It was not a unanimous decision, suggesting that this was not the only conclusion available to them.

 

[mariomike]

This is the crack in the door that will allow you to marry your puppy one day. 

 

[Occam]

It was not a unanimous decision, suggesting that this was not the only conclusion available to them.

From http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15991/index.do

Per McLachlin C.J. and Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Côté and Brown JJ.: Since 1955 criminal offences in Canada (apart from criminal contempt) have been entirely statutory. However, the common law continues to play an important role in defining criminal conduct as defining the elements of statutory offences often requires reference to common law concepts. Applying the principles that guide statutory interpretation leads to the conclusion in this case that the term bestiality has a well‑established legal meaning and refers to sexual intercourse between a human and an animal. Penetration has always been understood to be an essential element of bestiality. Parliament adopted that term without adding a definition of it and the legislative history and evolution of the relevant provisions show no intent to depart from the well‑understood legal meaning of the term. Moreover, the courts should not, by development of the common law, broaden the scope of liability for the offence of bestiality. Any expansion of criminal liability for this offence is within Parliament’s exclusive domain.

                    When Parliament uses a term with a legal meaning, it generally intends the term to be given that meaning. Words that have a well‑understood legal meaning when used in a statute should be given that meaning unless Parliament clearly indicates otherwise. A further consideration is the related principle of stability in the law which means that absent clear legislative intention to the contrary, a statute should not be interpreted as substantially changing the law, including the common law. Parliament is deemed to know the existing law and is unlikely to have intended any significant changes to it unless that intention is made clear. While these interpretive principles are easy to state, how they apply in particular cases may be controversial. Sometimes, the controversy concerns the state of the common law when Parliament acted: in other words, the debate is about whether the term used had a clearly understood legal meaning when it was incorporated into the statute. In this case, the term bestiality did have a clear legal meaning when Parliament used that term without further definition in the English version of the 1955 Criminal Code . Bestiality meant buggery with an animal and required penetration. It was clear that to secure a conviction, the prosecution had to prove that penetration of an animal, or, in the case of women, penetration by an animal, had occurred. This was the state of the law when the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 was enacted in England. The offence in substantially the same form was carried over into the first English version of the Canadian Criminal Code in 1892 and continued to be in force until the offence called bestiality was introduced into the English version of the Code in the 1955 revisions.

The dissenting judge should know that trying to read the minds of the legislators to read intent is a no-no; if they intended to widen the scope of the offence, they should've spent a little more time defining it. 

6 to 1 isn't even close to being questionable...I think they got it right.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

When the Supreme Court comes up with new law or re-write laws to change their past application, most people on this site cry treason! And call for supremacy of Parliament in making laws.

Well, in the present case, the Supreme Court did not make new law: It confirmed that the specific elements of the infraction of bestiality (which require penetration) that have been defined in law for the longest time remained the same and that if Parliament - which is presumed to know the laws - felt that times had changed and a new definition of the elements of the infraction was needed, all it had to do was legislate accordingly. In the present case, there was no overarching Charter, and therefore constitutional, issue that would have invalidated the law.

It is important to know here that the defining elements date back to the 1950's. Since then, from 1971 to 1993, and then from 1997 to 2006, We had a Law Reform Commission whose specific mission was to look at existing Canadian laws and propose update, modernization, improvements, reform or even deletion, where required. That Commission does not seem to have suggested any changes to the defining elements of that specific infraction, so one must presume from lack of Parliament/Governement action since the 1950's that they are satisfied with this definition.
 

 

[Journeyman]

6 to 1 isn't even close to being questionable...I think they got it right.

I'm not weighing in either way; bestiality isn't part of my world, so I have no dog in that fight....so to speak.

I merely questioned your use of absolutes.

 

[Chispa]

The, interpretation and rewriting Law is not same, my understanding SCC interprets all in the paper work passed into law by the Big Wigs at the Big House;

When the Supreme Court comes up with new law or re-write laws to change their past application It confirmed that the specific elements of the infraction of bestiality (which require penetration) that have been defined in law for the longest time remained the same and that if Parliament -.

The above sound right pour moi, although as stated this will open a door, stepping through a void as there is no floor dropping into the cellar.

I do understand on how they derived too their decision and voted 6-1: Just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Just "En passant" Zoophilia has been around since the term "humans," many without humanity especially in this day and age, have scavenged the earth we were scavengers at first. Through time, history and in today's Gay Com..  especially in the 80s and 90s has been well documented with studies, etc. There are my around the world that do the wild thing with animals, its just their sexual preference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia




.

 

[Nudibranch]

Oiy Vey! Canada and its SCC deserve every bit of ridicule the world can heap on us.  This is the crack in the door that will allow you to marry your puppy one day.  Rule by Jurist continues to lead us down the path of national dismemberment.

I love how the SCC's decision is the exact opposite of the "rule by Jurist" - the Court correctly interpreted the law as written, and invited the legislative branch to amend it as is properly their sphere.
I have, btw, been on a couple of US-centric forums in the past few days. And indeed there was condemnation heaped onto Canada, from those who have no understanding of what actually happened. Similarly to yourself, "activist courts" (not to mention "liberals" who "push alternative lifestyles") were named as the cause for the world's ills, including the alleged legalization of bestiality in Canada. In general people with a smidgeon of sense quickly corrected the mouth-foamers with fact-based Truthiness.

(The US btw has no cause to be shocked - several of its states have NO bestiality laws whatsoever. In Texas for ex it's only a crime if someone sees you and gets offended - so public bestiality is out, but in private as far as Texas is concerned what happens between Man and Man's Best Friend stays between Man and Man's Best Friend).

 

[Lightguns]

You suppose alot, enjoy.

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk

 

[Lightguns]

When the Supreme Court comes up with new law or re-write laws to change their past application, most people on this site cry treason! And call for supremacy of Parliament in making laws.

Well, in the present case, the Supreme Court did not make new law: It confirmed that the specific elements of the infraction of bestiality (which require penetration) that have been defined in law for the longest time remained the same and that if Parliament - which is presumed to know the laws - felt that times had changed and a new definition of the elements of the infraction was needed, all it had to do was legislate accordingly. In the present case, there was no overarching Charter, and therefore constitutional, issue that would have invalidated the law.

It is important to know here that the defining elements date back to the 1950's. Since then, from 1971 to 1993, and then from 1997 to 2006, We had a Law Reform Commission whose specific mission was to look at existing Canadian laws and propose update, modernization, improvements, reform or even deletion, where required. That Commission does not seem to have suggested any changes to the defining elements of that specific infraction, so one must presume from lack of Parliament/Governement action since the 1950's that they are satisfied with this definition.

Thank you for that, I was not aware. Oddly my wife and her cat rescue group and have been working to add sexual, no penetration contact with animals to NB anti cruelty laws. I should pay more attention to her hobbies.

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk

 

[The Bread Guy]

I should pay more attention to her hobbies.

While being careful about how you do research on the interwebs on said hobbies  ;D

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This issue predates the LGBT and Progressive movements by only a few thousand years. I am sure you can find various examples of laws and customs throughout history.

 

[cupper]

So let me get this straight. Guy is convicted of 13 counts of child molestation, and one count of bestiality.

God forbid that he be known as someone who commits bestiality, so he appeals his conviction of that count.

WTF?  :facepalm:

 

[Nudibranch]

So let me get this straight. Guy is convicted of 13 counts of child molestation, and one count of bestiality.

God forbid that he be known as someone who commits bestiality, so he appeals his conviction of that count.

WTF?  :facepalm:

He was appealing on technical grounds, namely that the offence he was convicted of wasn't bestiality as legally defined by Canadian law. it appears, alas, that he was technically correct.

I assume he had no grounds to appeal the child molestation convictions.

 

[cupper]

He was appealing on technical grounds, namely that the offence he was convicted of wasn't bestiality as legally defined by Canadian law. it appears, alas, that he was technically correct.

I assume he had no grounds to appeal the child molestation convictions.

Yeah, I got that.

My point is why bother? What difference does it make when you are guilty of 13 other counts of something just as if not more heinous?

 

[PuckChaser]

My point is why bother? What difference does it make when you are guilty of 13 other counts of something just as if not more heinous?

Or his lawyer convinced him to do it, so that individual can get fame by arguing something in the Supreme Court/make more money.

 

[Chispa]

This issue predates the LGBT and Progressive movements by only a few thousand years. I am sure you can find various examples of laws and customs throughout history.

While in some olden day cultures was an accepted practice, perpetuated in incognito, the sheep, animals No Abla, If that dog could talk maybe be, he did, the guy is a wako, personally child molesters that then kill a child deserve the death penalty, or minimum of 25years 23/24, a yes Canada.

The Egyption's, Roman's, according too mainstream history of zoophilia and bestiality begins in the prehistoric era, where depictions of humans ...Sex in Antiquity: Exploring Gender and Sexuality in the Ancient World By Mark Masterson, Nancy Sorkin Rabinowitz, James Robson. https://books.google.ca/books?id=k1G2BQAAQBAJ&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=Zoophilia+laws+of+antiquity&source=bl&ots=DtYaPOT48I&sig=2fN4_vIXkJmNuPIlazBANqZTO6c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQkuGir6bNAhXH5SYKHSC8ACwQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=Zoophilia%20laws%20of%20antiquity&f=false

Homosexuality in Eighteenth-Century England: Of Sodomy and Bestiality.http://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/1729disn.htm

What I fined despicable is the Law makes provision's for; Pipas Las-Vegas, B.J. Oral Sex with animals (No Penetration) is just fine, go right a head give or recive head, with your dog:
Ladies & Gent's that is, "Phoquen" disturbing pour moi, ce n'est pas possible c'est de la folie.


.

 

[Nudibranch]

You, ummm. Are posting a lot of bestiality-connected links for someone so taken aback by this ruling.

Careful with that link to the "PhD thesis" thing - the homepage (fifine.org) is "Fifi's Page", and although my German is a bit rusty, it talks of the dream of a world where animals are "equal partners" to people - and gives links to blocking software so your kids don't access that site because it might "confuse their sexuality".
Not sure whether your link right into that page made it clear just what you were linking there. The good Dr. Hani Miletski has her own website which includes info about her books, and which seems...significantly less disturbing (the site, I haven't looked into the book's contents).