I intend to send some letters asking for some sanity on the new bill... yeah, like that will work but I gotta try.

well I'm pleased at the outcome, but not really with the circumstances leading up to it. The guy sounds like a complete weirdo.

good to see you around again as well.

You know my feelings on this from the last time I talked.

I don't see anything good coming from the way this got presented, unfortunately.

I´m not pleased at all by this. Not only does a case like this reassure everybody in thinking that bestiality and child abuse are linked somehow, it also will result in Canada making ALL sexual acts with animals illegal, not only the penetrative ones. This will happen in the near future, I guess...the outcome of this trial won´t go unnoticed.

Just be honest for a second: Aren´t all prejudices against "zoophiles" justified somehow? Guys like this arsehole harm our public image more than any anti ever could. Guys like him are the perfect proof for all allegations zoophiles have to deal with today. The equation animal abuse = child abuse again is valified by some "zoophile".

Our whole community is so busy in scanning the outside world for "zoophobia" and general hostility towards us that it is completely distracted from identifying the real enemy marching amidst our community, backstabbing us whenever it is possible and destroying any efforts to gain tolerance in an instant.

Misunderstood and blinded "tolerance" is what holds us back, what keeps us from going anywhere, gaining anything. Unless we manage to separate zoophilia from conduct like what is described in the above article, those assholes will be perceived as "zoophiles", as part of our worldwide community by the public.

Any official zoo organisation should immediately publish a comment about this guy and his trial outcome, making it ultimately clear that anyone who has/shows paedophilia/child abuse tendencies is NOT a part of our community and his actions are not supported in any way by any zoophile. Before we can improve our public image, we first have to ensure that it isn´t constantly sabotaged by ourselves. As zoophiles we all are familiar with moments we must remain silent at all costs; well, this might be a case where the opposite is true and we have to speak out at any costs...this is what forming and shaping the public image is all about. Protect your orientation.

Being Muslim, I'm kinda used to being in a group where the worst of the group is seen by the media while the rest just try to live their lives, so it don't phase me that much :P Most zoos I met are cool people with happy, healthy animals if they have them, it's always some asshole or idiot who gets the spotlight quite often.

Vice article is predictably a bit shitty: https://news.vice.com/article/canadas-top-court-ruled-that-oral-sex-with-animals-is-technically-legal

First sentence:

In a surprising decision from Canada's Supreme Court, the country's top judges ruled that forcing a dog to perform oral sex is not, in fact, bestiality and therefore not necessarily illegal.

It shouldn't be illegal "because it's bestiality", it should be illegal because it is forcing the dog into sex. Duh.

"Acts with animals that have a sexual purpose are inherently exploitative whether or not penetration occurs," wrote Justice Rosalie Abella in a dissenting opinion

Can't find the full version of this, but I guess it's not worth reading as nobody seems to be willing or able to explain how they "know" this and journalists don't question it anyway.

edit: It's from here: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15991/index.do. After skimming through it I don't think it's worth reading (I'm mostly looking for a discussion about why supposedly "Acts with animals that have a sexual purpose are inherently exploitative" and what resources they used to determine that, but I don't think anyone is even trying to argue about that).

Meanwhile the new Bill has little impact on the animals that objectively do suffer from the hands of humans who exploit or kill them:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-bestiality-1.3624778

But Bill C-245 has had drawn little interest from his Liberal colleagues, save for a few of his fellow backbenchers.

"I'm surprised to see many Conservatives, but also my own Liberal government, not come out in support of my bill. Many have been caught up in this fictitious narrative that my bill will affect hunting, farming, fishing and research, which is absolutely not the case," Erskine-Smith said.

A quote in this article says it like it is: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/05/11/animal-cruelty-bill-runs-into-commons-buzz-saw-government-indifference-walkom.html

“These changes are targeted at animal abuse not animal use,” Erskine-Smith told the Commons.

\> Implying traditional "animal use" is not very often abuse. Take the offspring of a dog away and everyone shows empathy. Do the same with tens and hundreds of thousands calves and it's accepted animal use.

Not abuse, but use.

Edit: Wow, "conservatives" are losing their mind: http://louderwithcrowder.com/canada-bestiality-mostly-legal/ (I think this guy has a vomit fetish)

As others have mentioned, I don't view this as a positive. As zoo, we are not ready for a public dialogue on the subject and for the public, there is a direct association of sex to violence. I'd love to see the code address animal cruelty in all forms (including animal husbandry, hunting, providing the basics of life etc) but there will be a fixation, driven by the media and public "outrage" to address bestiality directly This will not be a good thing and I'm sure it's proving good material for BBQ season in political circles.

This post and subreddit is gonna get some attention thanks to this: http://imgur.com/gallery/wZBhtiZ Tis my doing.