While the case in question seems quite horrific, it sounds like they are also going to make an important decision regarding the bestiality laws.

Unfortunately they seem to have gotten "Animal Justice Canada" invited to "intervene", whatever that means. The article and the video doesn't actually say much but

“The consequences are pretty far reaching,” she said. “If they reject the appeal, it will essentially legalize forms of sexual abuse of animals across the country.”

caught my attention.

After reading a bit more I'm still not completely sure about what they're deciding there, but here is a document about arranging this "intervention": http://www.animaljustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Animal-Justice-DLW-Motion-To-Intervene.pdf. As you have probably already guessed, they are going to argue like that:

The Applicant strongly disagrees with the Appellant's suggestion, at para. 92 of its factum, that preventing harm to animals would be "a possible justification for restricting bestiality to penetrative sex alone". On the contrary, the very real risks of harm that animals face through acts of bestiality provide additional justification for reading the clause to include any type of contact with an animal engaged in for a sexual purpose.

As this case demonstrates, animals have no wish to engage in sexual acts with humans, and they will almost invariably suffer from this type of contact. Contrary to the Appellant's suggestion, physical penetration of an animal's sexual organs with the penis is not the only way to cause harm to animals through sexual conduct. Without even considering the potential for distress or emotional suffering, animals can be injured by digital penetration, by the use of sexual implements, and by having to be restrained so that an offender can perform the sexual acts in question.

The anti-cruelty sections of the Code are an insufficient way of addressing the harms faced by animals forced to participate in sexual acts with humans, and the existence of these provisions is not a reason for adopting a narrower interpretation to s.

160. Nor should it ever be necessary to charge under those sections to rectify improper sexual contact with an animal.

Surveys in the academic literature suggest that prosecutors are reluctant to lay charges of this nature because of difficulties with certain elements of the offence. In order to convict under s. 446.1(a), the Crown must prove that the animal "suffered", which usually necessitates evidence from a veterinarian or other expert.

As they fucking should have to. If you read this text the other way around they are saying "We want you to be convicted even when we can't prove that any suffering was inflicted. Presumption of innocence? Fuck that.

The Appellant's approach assumes that harm caused to an animal during the course of bestiality -even where such harm occurred-will be capable of proof to the required criminal threshold. This would not provide animals with the protection from sexual exploitation that is required. Animals cannot testify, and instances of bestiality are often not discovered until well after the event, as this case and others exemplify.

It follows that historical injuries or suffering caused through penetrative or non-penetrative acts will be exceptionally difficult to prove. It is difficult to imagine many police investigators or Crown prosecutors making the effort required to initiate an animal cruelty charge along with a bestiality charge except in the most egregious of cases. Relying on the anti-cruelty provisions alone will not provide animals with the protection that the 1954 amendments were designed to provide.

What do we do with murderers when it is "exceptionally difficult to prove" that they committed a murder? We convict them anyway, even when we don't have the evidence, right? If you cannot prove that harm occurred YOU CANNOT ASSUME IT DID or you will convict innocent people! FFS

As the trial judge implicitly recognized, while not every animal forced to engage in an act of non-penetrative sexual conduct with a human will be harmed, every animal capable of being compelled to engage in such conduct will be at a much greater risk of harm if a narrow approach to bestiality is adopted. The broader approach to the bestiality provision suggested by the trial judge is consistent with the Criminal Code's overall protection of vulnerable beings and desire to end the sexual exploitation of those who cannot consent.

Wat

On the contrary, part of what makes this sort of sexual conduct so vexing is that it involves a vulnerable sentient being that must be exploited, against its will, for the conduct to occur.

The majority of the Court of Appeal, whose approach will likely be adopted by the Respondent, takes an even narrower approach, diminishing the victim of this offence to an object capable of being penetrated. Only Animal Justice is capable of bringing an important perspective to this appeal, by highlighting the fact that bestiality, by definition, involves sentient, vulnerable beings whose interests deserve protection through this important offence.

Tl;dr: http://www.animaljustice.ca/media-releases/animal-justice-wins-right-to-intervene-in-supreme-court-animal-sexual-abuse-appeal/

“As an intervener in the case, Animal Justice will ensure the Court hears why vulnerable animals should be protected, and why preventing harm to animals is a key objective of Canadian criminal law. We will argue that it must remain illegal to sexually abuse animals in any way, shape, or form.”

If there are any brave zoophiles or allies in Canada, you may wish to intervene and call them out on their bullshit.

It sounds to me like they're trying to say that getting a dog to lick food off certain parts of your body is "sexually abusing" that dog, however that works.

[deleted]

I feel their priorities are completely mixed up. A 16-year old is molested by her stepdad, who seems to produce porn with minors, and they are worrying about whether the dog should lick peanut butter off someone's body or not.

Someone made a petition with 500 signatures so far: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/159/031/560/dont-let-bestiality-become-legal-in-canada/

It doesn't seem to have arguments or a real goal, but it's to the supreme court of canada.

As usual the people that leave comments show no understanding of the topic at all and seem to have no concern for the people they are attacking:

Who in Canada promostes abuse of animals like this? We need to see that face in many newspapers and magazines. Please publish names and addresses! Phone numbers will be useful, as well!

or

ANYONE who sex with an animal needs to be castrated!!

Good thing that nobody cares about online petitions!