The only other comment towards bestiality other than from the guy who introduced it seems to be this one:
First, I am proud to say that the Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness supports the bill. The CCAA is a national charitable organization with a mandate to reduce the incidents and impact of child abuse through education and public awareness. As John Muise, director of public safety at the CCAA, retired veteran police detective, and former board member at the Parole Board of Canada, notes that research confirms the link between abuse of animals and other forms of violence including child abuse.
The CCAA appreciates the targeted approach taken in this bill in a number of specific areas. Of note, this legislation, when passed, would close a “sex with animals” loophole successfully used by a child sexual abuser in court. The CCAA believes this evidence-based PMB is deserving all-party support, and looks forward to testifying in support of the bill at committee.
So the current status of the debate seems to be still nonexistent and it probably will go through.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 2 points on 2016-05-11 13:03:19
Anyone who thought anything good would come from that court ruling regarding the definition of bestiality wasn't thinking clearly.
IAmAZoophileCanine 2 points on 2016-05-11 16:20:54
Do you know what the 'sex with animals' loophole they're talking about is?
Frankly, there is a disconnect between what Canadians want and what we're getting from our elected representatives.
Frankly, that's kind of to be expected when the only reason the current Prime Minister is in office is because a bunch of potheads have voted for him to legalize weed.
rakknruin 2 points on 2016-05-12 06:27:27
oh fuck you
zetacola+ Rum 2 points on 2016-05-12 16:15:01
If people really wanted nothing but Harper and the Conservatives out, they would have voted for Mulcair.
I'm sorry, but Trudeau is a fucking joke. What has he done so far? He's put an equal number of men and women in his cabinet. Woohoo. Should we break an arm patting him on the back or something?...
He's failed to keep the deficit in check (big surprise), broken his vows to adjust middle class and small businesses taxes, broken his promise to invest in green infrastructure, broken his promise to reduce subsidies to oil companies... He has even failed his own SJW agenda by not welcoming as many refugees as he said he would.
But hey. He said he wanted to legalize weed. Why do you think he's been able to consolidate the votes of the "youth"? But not only that, but he wants to create harsher laws to penalize those who sell weed outside of his new framework. Wow. So basically expect a governmental "crown corporation" monopoly. And even more severe regulation for the true criminals; people who dare to grow their own produce and make a buck behind the gubment's back.
30-30amator equae 2 points on 2016-05-13 02:25:36
Although I agree on Trudeau being a political lightweight, I think you´re judging the situation leading to his election a bit unfair. Not Trudeau is the problem or the potheads demanding legalisation of cannabis. Scientific research has shown that cannabis may be the least damaging drug out there, the so called "war on (some) drugs" is lost...no it was lost before it even began and people became fed up of all the common prohibitionist lies like "it´s a gateway drug", they became fed up of the enormous costs the prohibition creates and the ridiculous bigotry of allowing alcohol, a drug that kills several thousands every year, but prohibiting cannabis that has never killed someone although Willie Nelson once told the story of one guy who was hit and killed by a bale of hemp falling onto him.
Legalisation of cannabis is something that is long overdue and Trudeau has recognized that; the other parties haven´t although research can´t be interpreted otherwise anymore and the stupid waste of taxes accompanied by the unnecessary criminalisation of citizens needs to stop now. Don´t blame Trudeau, blame the other parties for clinging to the ancient and outdated prohibitionist attitude.
By the way: if you ever get your hands on some genuine BC bud or Manitoba poison, you will cherish Canada´s new approach on cannabis policies. Not as good as the "nederwiet" (dutch cannabis) I often purchase from a good friend living on the dutch-german border, but not far from dutch quality. ;)
If the only way a nation will legalise cannabis includes electing a political lightweight, even a dimwitted one, I wouldn´t hesitate to pick him and his party....honestly, how much more can this guy screw up compared to the so called "political heavyweights"?
As someone with quite an amount of homegrowing practice myself, I would even tolerate outlawing growing your own stash...well, not wholeheartedly, but I do understand that nations want to create money themselves with weed. As long as this money is used to fund healthcare,schools, libraries and other things beneficial to everyone, I´d happily abstain from self gardening and buy my stash from the state. If you ever had spidermites destroying your harvest or bud rot, you surely will be glad have an alternative providing you with potent stuff grown by experts, without the usual sand, sugar, glassdust or other shit mixed in to increase weight and profit like they do on the streets.
zetacola+ Rum 2 points on 2016-05-13 04:32:54
Dude. It's not that I think legalization of cannabis is a problem. The war of drugs is costly and futile and that kind of move was long overdue. But let's be real here. People have voted for Trudeau in a strategic attempt to overthrow Harper, the previous PM, and because he promised people legalization of weed. Other reasons are even more asinine. He's the son of notorious PM Pierre Elliott Trudeau. He has a pretty face. He does martial arts. Come on.
the other parties haven´t although research can´t be interpreted otherwise anymore and the stupid waste of taxes accompanied by the unnecessary criminalisation of citizens needs to stop now.
Trudeau wants to introduce even harsher laws to litigate those who step out of his little gubment playpen. Tax dollars will still be wasted prosecuting people who do pretty much nothing wrong.
By the way: if you ever get your hands on some genuine BC bud or Manitoba poison, you will cherish Canada´s new approach on cannabis policies.
But the problem is that under Canada's new regulation, you will probably have access to absolutely nothing but crap with minute traces of THC. And it will probably be expensive as hell.
And it's not like I'm pulling this out of my ass or anything. We already have crown corporations monopolizing the distribution of a drug (alcohol) here. SAQ in Quebec, LCBO in Ontario... What can you expect? High prices, limited selection and (of course) no alternative whatsoever.
But whatever... I don't even smoke anymore so it's not like I really give a shit. I just wish government would stop poking its nose into people's business when it hurts none. It's the same thing for zoophilia.
FrostfedoraCaptain Esports 2 points on 2016-05-12 00:53:35
Canadians are fucking the everliving shit out of dogs and there's nothing whiny animal rights activist babies can do about it. Beautiful. :)
May a fencehopper visit the backyard of every busybody pushing to close that loophole.
zetacola+ Rum 4 points on 2016-05-12 16:21:19
Penetration is still considered bestiality and carries a sentence of a maximum of 10 years of imprisonment.
(Meanwhile, running over a puppy with a lawnmower is considered a "summary conviction" with a maximum of 6 months in prison.)
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 1 point on 2016-05-14 07:41:13
Just be thankful they did away with the crown's old punishment. It was life in prison.
wright-oneursidae canidae pantherinae 2 points on 2016-05-12 06:13:41
thanks for posting this and the clarification on the loophole. interesting but disappointing reading.
Aluzky 2 points on 2016-05-15 10:31:43
Canada wants all bestiality to be illegal, even if it doesn't qualify as animal abuse. That is obviously bigoted, no different from making all gay sex illegal instead of only making abusive gay sex illegal.
Why can't we have rational secular laws? :/
Eamonpro 1 point on 2016-05-29 15:12:43
Beastiality is animal abuse. Even comparing it to gay sex is crazy. You disgusting degenerates want to fuck dogs, and the government realizes that it's abuse.
Aluzky 1 point on 2016-06-02 01:05:02
Beastiality is animal abuse.
First: It is spelt bestiality.
Second: Do you have scientific evidence that bestiality is ALWAYS animal abuse?
Are you aware that veterinarians and dog breeders do bestiality all the time for artificial insemination purposes, do you also call that animal abuse? Even that the animals not distressed, harmed or killed?
Even comparing it to gay sex is crazy.
You are using a fallacy know as argumentum ad lapidem.
You disgusting degenerates want to fuck dogs, and the government realizes that it's abuse."
You have yet to prove that all bestiality is abusive in nature. If you can't prove it, then a blank ban on all bestiality would violate human rights as it would punish people who does bestiality without abusing the animal.
Eamonpro 1 point on 2016-06-02 20:55:34
Ok, fine. When I say beastiality, I don't mean doctors artificially inseminating animals, I obviously meant people engaging in sexual intercourse with dogs.
Aluzky 1 point on 2016-06-03 03:55:49
Ok, fine. When I say beastiality, I don't mean doctors artificially inseminating animals, I obviously meant people engaging in sexual intercourse with dogs.
And a veterinarian jerking off a dog manually for A.I. reasons is not sexual intercourse with a dog? I guess when I jerk off dogs (for our mutual enjoyment) I'm not doing bestiality either.
Sorry to break the glass, but both action are bestiality. So, do you have evidence that bestiality is always animal abuse? You think that a veterianrian jerking a dog for A.I. reasons is animal abuse? Yes or NO?
Eamonpro 1 point on 2016-06-03 17:21:07
I think that when a doctor is going to artificially inseminate a dog it's not animal abuse, because he's not doing it for his own sexual pleasure. However, when you are jerking off dogs or raping them, you're not doing it for the dog, you're forcefully doing it for your own pleasure because you're a sick fuck. So yeah, I think when you fuckers are sexually assaulting dogs it's fucking abuse, and no I do not think vets are abusing the dogs.
Aluzky 1 point on 2016-06-04 13:26:52
I think that when a doctor is going to artificially inseminate a dog it's not animal abuse, because he's not doing it for his own sexual pleasure.
Irrational. If you don't know it, the legal definition of animal abuse is: To cause significant and unnecessary distress, harm or death to an animal.
Done for sexual pleasure or not, the act done by him is identical to the act done by zoosexuals. And you can't claim that the human feeling sexual pleasure is "animal abuse" as the human feeling sexual pleasure is not causing distress, harm or death to the animal. The animal doesn't know if the vet or the zoosexual is experience sexual pleasure from jerking him off. To the animal, being jerked off by a vet or a zoosexual is no different than getting a belly rub from a et or a zoosexual.
However, when you are jerking off dogs or raping them
I'm not talking about rape. Rape is obviously animal abuse.
Stick to the topic of non-rape acts, as you are the one who thinks that those are animal abuser (even that you have ZERO evidence that they are).
you're not doing it for the dog, you're forcefully doing it for your own pleasure because you're a sick fuck.
Again, you are talking about forced act on a dog, this is called rape. We all agree that rape qualifies as animal abuse and we are not supporting nor condoning such behavior. FOCUS. The topic are sexual acts done with animals that do not involve rape/force.rape.
Also, are you saying that zoosexuals never jerk off dogs, without forcing them for the dog pleasure? Seems you don't know what a zoosexual is. A zoosexual cares about the dog and cares to pleasure the dog. Hell, even a vet that jerks off a dog to get sperm for A.I. is not doing it for that male dog, it is doing it for the sake of getting puppies. So, your argument makes no sense, probably because you are misusing the definition of the word animal abuse.
So yeah, I think when you fuckers are sexually assaulting dogs it's fucking abuse
Again... you are talking about sexually assault, aka rape. Nobody in here is supporting nor condoning rape. Nowhere in my comments I talked about a zoosexual raping a dog or a vet raping a dog. Are you changing the topic on purpose to win against a straw man fallacy?
"and no I do not think vets are abusing the dogs."←Then by logic, you don't think that a zoosexual who is doing the same sexual action on a dog, were the dog is not being harmed nor forced, it is not abuse. Correct?
/r/zoophilia archive
Last time this came up some people showed some interest, so that's how it currently is.
Nothing much needs to be said about it, but this is how the "debate" is framed. Debate in quotes, because it's not a debate.
This here seems to be all the debate references to it: https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-246/
The only other comment towards bestiality other than from the guy who introduced it seems to be this one:
So the current status of the debate seems to be still nonexistent and it probably will go through.
Anyone who thought anything good would come from that court ruling regarding the definition of bestiality wasn't thinking clearly.
Do you know what the 'sex with animals' loophole they're talking about is?
http://www.recorder.ca/2015/11/09/supreme-court-to-decide-on-whether-all-sex-acts-with-animals-should-be-illegal
Frankly, that's kind of to be expected when the only reason the current Prime Minister is in office is because a bunch of potheads have voted for him to legalize weed.
oh fuck you
If people really wanted nothing but Harper and the Conservatives out, they would have voted for Mulcair.
I'm sorry, but Trudeau is a fucking joke. What has he done so far? He's put an equal number of men and women in his cabinet. Woohoo. Should we break an arm patting him on the back or something?...
He's failed to keep the deficit in check (big surprise), broken his vows to adjust middle class and small businesses taxes, broken his promise to invest in green infrastructure, broken his promise to reduce subsidies to oil companies... He has even failed his own SJW agenda by not welcoming as many refugees as he said he would.
But hey. He said he wanted to legalize weed. Why do you think he's been able to consolidate the votes of the "youth"? But not only that, but he wants to create harsher laws to penalize those who sell weed outside of his new framework. Wow. So basically expect a governmental "crown corporation" monopoly. And even more severe regulation for the true criminals; people who dare to grow their own produce and make a buck behind the gubment's back.
Although I agree on Trudeau being a political lightweight, I think you´re judging the situation leading to his election a bit unfair. Not Trudeau is the problem or the potheads demanding legalisation of cannabis. Scientific research has shown that cannabis may be the least damaging drug out there, the so called "war on (some) drugs" is lost...no it was lost before it even began and people became fed up of all the common prohibitionist lies like "it´s a gateway drug", they became fed up of the enormous costs the prohibition creates and the ridiculous bigotry of allowing alcohol, a drug that kills several thousands every year, but prohibiting cannabis that has never killed someone although Willie Nelson once told the story of one guy who was hit and killed by a bale of hemp falling onto him.
Legalisation of cannabis is something that is long overdue and Trudeau has recognized that; the other parties haven´t although research can´t be interpreted otherwise anymore and the stupid waste of taxes accompanied by the unnecessary criminalisation of citizens needs to stop now. Don´t blame Trudeau, blame the other parties for clinging to the ancient and outdated prohibitionist attitude. By the way: if you ever get your hands on some genuine BC bud or Manitoba poison, you will cherish Canada´s new approach on cannabis policies. Not as good as the "nederwiet" (dutch cannabis) I often purchase from a good friend living on the dutch-german border, but not far from dutch quality. ;)
If the only way a nation will legalise cannabis includes electing a political lightweight, even a dimwitted one, I wouldn´t hesitate to pick him and his party....honestly, how much more can this guy screw up compared to the so called "political heavyweights"?
As someone with quite an amount of homegrowing practice myself, I would even tolerate outlawing growing your own stash...well, not wholeheartedly, but I do understand that nations want to create money themselves with weed. As long as this money is used to fund healthcare,schools, libraries and other things beneficial to everyone, I´d happily abstain from self gardening and buy my stash from the state. If you ever had spidermites destroying your harvest or bud rot, you surely will be glad have an alternative providing you with potent stuff grown by experts, without the usual sand, sugar, glassdust or other shit mixed in to increase weight and profit like they do on the streets.
Dude. It's not that I think legalization of cannabis is a problem. The war of drugs is costly and futile and that kind of move was long overdue. But let's be real here. People have voted for Trudeau in a strategic attempt to overthrow Harper, the previous PM, and because he promised people legalization of weed. Other reasons are even more asinine. He's the son of notorious PM Pierre Elliott Trudeau. He has a pretty face. He does martial arts. Come on.
Trudeau wants to introduce even harsher laws to litigate those who step out of his little gubment playpen. Tax dollars will still be wasted prosecuting people who do pretty much nothing wrong.
But the problem is that under Canada's new regulation, you will probably have access to absolutely nothing but crap with minute traces of THC. And it will probably be expensive as hell.
And it's not like I'm pulling this out of my ass or anything. We already have crown corporations monopolizing the distribution of a drug (alcohol) here. SAQ in Quebec, LCBO in Ontario... What can you expect? High prices, limited selection and (of course) no alternative whatsoever.
But whatever... I don't even smoke anymore so it's not like I really give a shit. I just wish government would stop poking its nose into people's business when it hurts none. It's the same thing for zoophilia.
Canadians are fucking the everliving shit out of dogs and there's nothing whiny animal rights activist babies can do about it. Beautiful. :)
May a fencehopper visit the backyard of every busybody pushing to close that loophole.
Penetration is still considered bestiality and carries a sentence of a maximum of 10 years of imprisonment.
(Meanwhile, running over a puppy with a lawnmower is considered a "summary conviction" with a maximum of 6 months in prison.)
Just be thankful they did away with the crown's old punishment. It was life in prison.
thanks for posting this and the clarification on the loophole. interesting but disappointing reading.
Canada wants all bestiality to be illegal, even if it doesn't qualify as animal abuse. That is obviously bigoted, no different from making all gay sex illegal instead of only making abusive gay sex illegal.
Why can't we have rational secular laws? :/
Beastiality is animal abuse. Even comparing it to gay sex is crazy. You disgusting degenerates want to fuck dogs, and the government realizes that it's abuse.
First: It is spelt bestiality. Second: Do you have scientific evidence that bestiality is ALWAYS animal abuse?
Are you aware that veterinarians and dog breeders do bestiality all the time for artificial insemination purposes, do you also call that animal abuse? Even that the animals not distressed, harmed or killed?
You are using a fallacy know as argumentum ad lapidem.
You have yet to prove that all bestiality is abusive in nature. If you can't prove it, then a blank ban on all bestiality would violate human rights as it would punish people who does bestiality without abusing the animal.
Ok, fine. When I say beastiality, I don't mean doctors artificially inseminating animals, I obviously meant people engaging in sexual intercourse with dogs.
And a veterinarian jerking off a dog manually for A.I. reasons is not sexual intercourse with a dog? I guess when I jerk off dogs (for our mutual enjoyment) I'm not doing bestiality either.
Sorry to break the glass, but both action are bestiality. So, do you have evidence that bestiality is always animal abuse? You think that a veterianrian jerking a dog for A.I. reasons is animal abuse? Yes or NO?
I think that when a doctor is going to artificially inseminate a dog it's not animal abuse, because he's not doing it for his own sexual pleasure. However, when you are jerking off dogs or raping them, you're not doing it for the dog, you're forcefully doing it for your own pleasure because you're a sick fuck. So yeah, I think when you fuckers are sexually assaulting dogs it's fucking abuse, and no I do not think vets are abusing the dogs.
Irrational. If you don't know it, the legal definition of animal abuse is: To cause significant and unnecessary distress, harm or death to an animal.
Done for sexual pleasure or not, the act done by him is identical to the act done by zoosexuals. And you can't claim that the human feeling sexual pleasure is "animal abuse" as the human feeling sexual pleasure is not causing distress, harm or death to the animal. The animal doesn't know if the vet or the zoosexual is experience sexual pleasure from jerking him off. To the animal, being jerked off by a vet or a zoosexual is no different than getting a belly rub from a et or a zoosexual.
I'm not talking about rape. Rape is obviously animal abuse. Stick to the topic of non-rape acts, as you are the one who thinks that those are animal abuser (even that you have ZERO evidence that they are).
Again, you are talking about forced act on a dog, this is called rape. We all agree that rape qualifies as animal abuse and we are not supporting nor condoning such behavior. FOCUS. The topic are sexual acts done with animals that do not involve rape/force.rape.
Also, are you saying that zoosexuals never jerk off dogs, without forcing them for the dog pleasure? Seems you don't know what a zoosexual is. A zoosexual cares about the dog and cares to pleasure the dog. Hell, even a vet that jerks off a dog to get sperm for A.I. is not doing it for that male dog, it is doing it for the sake of getting puppies. So, your argument makes no sense, probably because you are misusing the definition of the word animal abuse.
Again... you are talking about sexually assault, aka rape. Nobody in here is supporting nor condoning rape. Nowhere in my comments I talked about a zoosexual raping a dog or a vet raping a dog. Are you changing the topic on purpose to win against a straw man fallacy?
"and no I do not think vets are abusing the dogs."←Then by logic, you don't think that a zoosexual who is doing the same sexual action on a dog, were the dog is not being harmed nor forced, it is not abuse. Correct?