The Canadian Supreme Court legalizes oral sex with animals but not animal penetration? But is this a step forward? Is the fact that they’ve legalized oral sex with animals, and not animal penetration, a sign of their moral standards and steady moral progression?! Is this their definition of morality, oral sex with animals as opposed to animal penetration?
Bestiality is bestiality and it’s defined as a human having sex with an animal. It doesn’t matter if the sex is oral or penetrative in nature.
It’s gross and disturbing, and powerfully condemned by the word of God for all the sick,filthy,obvious reasons.This is clearly another example of the gradual,but sure break down and destruction, of basic morality in society, and when that happens this is the result you get.
All forms of twisted, perverse sexual behavior, being accepted and legalized. And you can rest assured the legalization of pedophilia and animal penetration is not far removed from being accepted,promoted and legalized worldwide.
Because when you legalize one form of twisted perversion you must legalize them all, because every other group will eventually argue for legalization of their particular perverted indulgence, using the same arguments that garnered success for the previous groups.
And make no mistake about it, the legalization of homosexuality is the catalyst that has brought the fight for legalization of all these other forms of twisted sexual behavior into existence. And because of it legalization of pedophilia and animal penetration are not far behind.
But yet many American’s and people in foreign countries still proudly and openly support this homosexual perversion, despite what’s unfolding right before their eyes. The question is will they wake up,take action, and change their direction and way of thinking and behaving before it’s too late?
Read Article Below
On 9 June 2016, Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that the country’s current bestiality laws only banned sexual acts that involved penetration:
Supreme Court judges ruled 6-1 in favor of a man from British Columbia in western Canada convicted for sexual assault and bestiality after he involved the family dog in the abuse of his two stepdaughters.
The man, known only by the initials “D.L.W.” to protect his stepdaughters’ identity, successfully appealed his bestiality conviction in a provincial court, arguing that according to the law, the offense of bestiality requires penetration, which his actions did not involve.
Justice Thomas Cromwell, writing for all concurring judges, said in the decision that penetration has always been required to secure bestiality convictions and courts do not have the power to rule otherwise.
Shortly after the ruling was issued, several web sites reported that Canada had legalized oral sex with animals. The country, however, did not issue any new laws regarding bestiality, nor did they change any existing laws. The Supreme Court based its ruling on the legal definition of bestiality already in its criminal code:
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.
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.
However, this bill may not stand for much longer. Legislation that would redefine bestiality to include all inter-species sexual activity was introduced to Parliament, but as of June 2016, remains in its early stages. Camille Labchuk, executive director of the Animal Justice group, urged lawmakers to quickly pass the bill:
“People who sexually abuse animals are sometimes linked to sexually abusing children as well, as the accused did in this case,” [Labchuk] said. “That’s a really good reason parliament needs to act.”