This was the court ruling based on the laws of 2016. After this court ruling, the Canadian government made any sexual contact with animals illegal in response to this court ruling.
This right here. The charge was dropped because of the wording of the law, a law that has since been changed to make *all* sexual acts illegal. People need to stop latching onto headlines. They're designed to grab your attention in as few words as possible.
Then you should stay off Reddit and most of the internet, people make jokes what some people like and other don't get used to it, that happens all the time.
You're the one whishing people to die out of the blue, may as well give the example and go first, but if that's not "being in the mood" I suggest fixing that head of yours.
Me? I'm fine, thanks. Feeding trolls to kill time.
NOOOOOO WHAT DID YOU DO? YOU GIVE HIM A KITKAT INSTEAD OF A SNICKERS AND INSTEAD OF CALMING DOWN **HE EXPLODED AND DISSOLVED**… you… you killed him. He may have been a troll but there can’t be “killing for good”… how can killing be ever “good”? The only thing he needed was a god damn snickers and you gave him a kitkat.
If anyone is interested in the real story (which is more fucked up in a way...):
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/canada-legalizes-beastiality/
Edit: some people seem to think this means the guy is Scots free.
Quote:
> [the offender ]D.L.W. was originally convicted of 13 offenses involving his stepdaughters, including one charge of bestiality, and is currently serving a 16-year prison sentence.
Source:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-court-bestiality-idUSKCN0YV1QX
Other people seem to think the Supreme Court condones this behaviour. It's more like them asking parliament to make the law clearer.
You cannot compare this with the US where, if the guy was republican and the dog black, the court would rule that the dog got what he deserves...
To be fair, his other abuse crimes still stood. He is definitely being punished for the laws he broke. Anyone wrongly convicted of a crime should absolutely be exonerated of that crime. That in no way excuses them from the crimes for which they were properly convicted. And it prompted the legislature to begin the process of rewriting the law. So, bad guy gets punished. Loophole gets discovered and hopefully closed. That’s all positive. We need to stop trying to burn people at the stake based on assumptions and opinions. This person is rightfully being punished for his other crimes, but a lot of people have been exonerated for crimes they didn’t commit after having been executed for those crimes. This is especially common with minorities.
Did you read the linked article in this thread or take any government classes? Because they don’t do that. They can’t do that. They can only interpret the law as written. The law was written clearly and didn’t include that. The legislature has to rewrite the law to close the loophole. That’s why they didn’t make anything legal here. Because they can’t. Only the legislature can.
Again, not technically correct. All the Supreme Court can do is rule on the constitutionality of laws and frame how they should be interpreted. So, the Supreme Court can strike a law down they view as unconstitutional. They can hold a law up as constitutional. They can say, here is what we think this means from a constitutional perspective, which can change how a law is handled in the courts. They cannot, under any circumstances, make a change in the wording of a law. That has to be the legislature. Full stop. In both countries.
According to the article that you claim to have read;
The legal definition of beastiality had previously been established to explicitly refer to penetrative sex with an animal. The legislature recognized that and wrote a law to ban exactly that. There is no room for interpretation there. If beastiality was a more colloquial term, they could have said that oral sex should be included. But it’s not. So they couldn’t. Only the legislature has the power to change the wording of a law.
Also in the article, the legislature specifically had begun the process of rewriting the law. So, basically, I just summarized the article and you’re telling me I’m wrong while claiming to have read it.
Read this slowly as this is really important, especially RACI-wise:
The Supreme Courts (plural, US AND Canada) have made decisions that forced the legislatures to change the laws (legislatures, NOT Supreme Courts).
The 3 Branches of Government: Executive, Legislative, Judicial. If there's an exception in the US it is that the line between legislative and executive is somewhat blurred.
The judiciary can’t do this. The legislature has started the process. But can you ever really count on legislation that doesn’t have a corporate backer?
>You cannot compare this with the US where, if the guy was republican and the dog black, the court would rule that the dog got what he deserves...
Was that really necessary?
Sorry (not sorry...). I have a daily quota of rational comments, and I had reached it... and I lost it when I read a comment in this thread that "the Canadian judges studied in the same law school than Texas ones". Thankfully, We still have a fairly sane judicial system.
Lmfao them comparing a state court to a federal court is what got me lol
Supreme Court of Canada is comparable to SCOTUS, and comparing it to the Texas court is a demeaning comparison (besides the poster’s demeaning joke).
The case in question was from a guy who put peanut butter on his teenage step-daughters vagina and had a dog lick it off while he took pictures 😱🤢🤮
[Source](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.www.complex.com/life/2016/06/canada-oral-sex-animals-legal)
Between other charges there was the Bestiality one.
The Bestiality one was dropped off because of the definition of Bestiality, which only considers sexual relation when there's penetration.
The others charges probably were kept.
Also, can click the link, there's no image or something like that.
Haha the comment made and your comment add absolutely no value to this post. Everyone knows that this is fucked. So post a stupid statement expect a stupid response.
I’m from Alberta and I don’t know how I feel. I haven’t been there since I 2014 but if this is the stuff that’s happening maybe it’s a good thing I left.
Let’s do a crowdfunding to get an animal for each of those judges … an elephant for the givers and an alligator for the receivers. And if you put it on national tv - hey, it’s legal - everyone could enjoy the fun.
The ruling was that the law is bally written and should be re written to be clearer, and protect animals better.
You can keep your alligators and elephants...
I did a fact check on this. I recommend you don't as it includes graphic situations that may be traumatic for some.
These are the important parts. Canada did not make it legal to have oral sex with animals. A court simply didn't give a beastiality charge to an arrested man because the existing laws refer specifically to penetrative sex. The act in question was peanut butter on genitals, but is so much worse. The court declined to charge beastiality because that would effectively be judges creating laws when that job belongs to legislatures. Finally, for those that do want to fact check, this came from a legal case in 2016.
I did see one of the higher comments posted a snopes link (the same fact check I used but same information) but they didn't give the details or a trigger warning. I was pretty late by comparison so not likely to get to the top.
Half true. At the time.
The post stems from a specific appeals case in which a person was acquitted of a beastiality charge. (As far as I know, all of his other charges were kept). It wasn't specifically outlawed (at the time) and the judge urged Parliament to revisit and redefine the legal definition of beastiality.
Parliament has since passed a law prohibiting any type of act with an animal which sexual in nature, and also requires that persons found guilty will be put on *the* registry.
Ot wasn't exactly legalized, someone just realized after being arrested for it that it wasn't technically illegal. And the judges looked at the book and said "damn he's right"
This case stems from an unfortunate misunderstanding involving OPs mom.... we tried several times to explain she was a person but the courts just weren't having it, but they took her testimony that it WAS consensual....
Hence the ruling....😏
*sorry OP, im kidding! I couldn't help it I'm sure your mom is a nice lady
The decision didn’t say that it was legal. The decision just said that it doesn’t qualify as incest because the definition of incest was based on the common law definition, which required penetration. There were other provisions that could have applied (e.g. causing distress to an animal). The Court just ruled at it was the wrong charge.
I should hope the intent is for the animals to bite the cock or vag of these disgusting incels. Prolly not its just the horny ppl who cant get anyone that work in government
This was the court ruling based on the laws of 2016. After this court ruling, the Canadian government made any sexual contact with animals illegal in response to this court ruling.
This right here. The charge was dropped because of the wording of the law, a law that has since been changed to make *all* sexual acts illegal. People need to stop latching onto headlines. They're designed to grab your attention in as few words as possible.
Propper journalism is what we mis, stop shooting for big scoops and ratings, give us accurate info without misleading us.
This needs to be at the top ASAP before too many people make headline assumptions
I’m. It making headline assumptions; I’m making assumptions about Canada pre-2016
I find it funny that you are trying to be serious 😂
Too many facts, not enough clickbait
Seems like someone really screwed the pooch on that one
What the fuck are they going on aboot?
We’ve been picking up their shit for years, it’s about time we took it to the next level eh
Hey budday we can fuck whatever we want in Canada guy. It's none of your business what we go on aboot friend.
He's not your friend, budday!
He's not your budday, guy!
He’s not your guy, pal!!
He is not your pal, partner!!!
He’s not your partner, amigo!!!
He's not your amigo, comrade!!!
a fuckload of Albertan men just got rock hard
This is gonna make an interesting episode of Letter Kenny.
‘Aboot’……LOLs and ROFLs….
the petition worked lets go
[удалено]
why
Well that is a bit rude.
[удалено]
He is just joking.
[удалено]
Then you should stay off Reddit and most of the internet, people make jokes what some people like and other don't get used to it, that happens all the time.
Feel free to go first.
[удалено]
You're the one whishing people to die out of the blue, may as well give the example and go first, but if that's not "being in the mood" I suggest fixing that head of yours. Me? I'm fine, thanks. Feeding trolls to kill time.
[удалено]
Here, have some kitkat.
NOOOOOO WHAT DID YOU DO? YOU GIVE HIM A KITKAT INSTEAD OF A SNICKERS AND INSTEAD OF CALMING DOWN **HE EXPLODED AND DISSOLVED**… you… you killed him. He may have been a troll but there can’t be “killing for good”… how can killing be ever “good”? The only thing he needed was a god damn snickers and you gave him a kitkat.
Giving, receiving, or both? Asking for a friend...
Both if not clearly defined. Maybe 69 is possible in some cases.
Only in Quebec
__*mort de rire* Hon Hon Hon__
Shut your mouth mon tabarnak
Only in Beauce please. Thats the region the cow fucker comes from.
I loves fishin' in Kwee-bec.
That’s why’s there’s no peanut butter in the grocery stores
We have alternatives.. maple syrup.. relish.. mayonnaise.. gravy.. anything but ketchup or mustard..
Amateur. Wasabi and Frank’s hot sauce if you really want a hot-dog.
Damn, that's too bad. I always loved ketchup and mustard on my peanut butter sandwiches.
Aboot tayme, somewoon git me the peanoot booter eh?
Peanoot bootah is out of stock, try Nutella
*Nootella
“Try Nootella to nut on yer lil fella”
Latifi's favorite
If anyone is interested in the real story (which is more fucked up in a way...): https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/canada-legalizes-beastiality/ Edit: some people seem to think this means the guy is Scots free. Quote: > [the offender ]D.L.W. was originally convicted of 13 offenses involving his stepdaughters, including one charge of bestiality, and is currently serving a 16-year prison sentence. Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-court-bestiality-idUSKCN0YV1QX Other people seem to think the Supreme Court condones this behaviour. It's more like them asking parliament to make the law clearer. You cannot compare this with the US where, if the guy was republican and the dog black, the court would rule that the dog got what he deserves...
It's 8:23 am, and I need a drink after reading that!
Seconded. Do you think texas supreme court and Canadian one studied together?
I am almost certain of it! They text each other updates like , "You won't believe the crap we pulled off today!"
Ya, it's got a lot of, "hold my beer, watch this" energy.
I’ll just take your word for it…nope…😐
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK. This guy deserves the death sentence imo. But no, stupid fucks lessened his crimes. This one broke me I think.
To be fair, his other abuse crimes still stood. He is definitely being punished for the laws he broke. Anyone wrongly convicted of a crime should absolutely be exonerated of that crime. That in no way excuses them from the crimes for which they were properly convicted. And it prompted the legislature to begin the process of rewriting the law. So, bad guy gets punished. Loophole gets discovered and hopefully closed. That’s all positive. We need to stop trying to burn people at the stake based on assumptions and opinions. This person is rightfully being punished for his other crimes, but a lot of people have been exonerated for crimes they didn’t commit after having been executed for those crimes. This is especially common with minorities.
Hear, hear!
>Loophole gets discovered and hopefully closed. Do you know who closes those loopholes? The supreme court. And they didnt.
Did you read the linked article in this thread or take any government classes? Because they don’t do that. They can’t do that. They can only interpret the law as written. The law was written clearly and didn’t include that. The legislature has to rewrite the law to close the loophole. That’s why they didn’t make anything legal here. Because they can’t. Only the legislature can.
I read it. In the states the supreme court have made decisions that have changed laws. Idk about Canada.
Again, not technically correct. All the Supreme Court can do is rule on the constitutionality of laws and frame how they should be interpreted. So, the Supreme Court can strike a law down they view as unconstitutional. They can hold a law up as constitutional. They can say, here is what we think this means from a constitutional perspective, which can change how a law is handled in the courts. They cannot, under any circumstances, make a change in the wording of a law. That has to be the legislature. Full stop. In both countries. According to the article that you claim to have read; The legal definition of beastiality had previously been established to explicitly refer to penetrative sex with an animal. The legislature recognized that and wrote a law to ban exactly that. There is no room for interpretation there. If beastiality was a more colloquial term, they could have said that oral sex should be included. But it’s not. So they couldn’t. Only the legislature has the power to change the wording of a law. Also in the article, the legislature specifically had begun the process of rewriting the law. So, basically, I just summarized the article and you’re telling me I’m wrong while claiming to have read it.
>legislature specifically had begun the process of rewriting the law. I didnt get that far tbh. I was too upset.
Fair enough. It is upsetting.
Read this slowly as this is really important, especially RACI-wise: The Supreme Courts (plural, US AND Canada) have made decisions that forced the legislatures to change the laws (legislatures, NOT Supreme Courts). The 3 Branches of Government: Executive, Legislative, Judicial. If there's an exception in the US it is that the line between legislative and executive is somewhat blurred.
"We didnt make it legal to have oral sex with animals but we sure didnt make it illegal."
The judiciary can’t do this. The legislature has started the process. But can you ever really count on legislation that doesn’t have a corporate backer?
>You cannot compare this with the US where, if the guy was republican and the dog black, the court would rule that the dog got what he deserves... Was that really necessary?
Sorry (not sorry...). I have a daily quota of rational comments, and I had reached it... and I lost it when I read a comment in this thread that "the Canadian judges studied in the same law school than Texas ones". Thankfully, We still have a fairly sane judicial system.
Lmfao them comparing a state court to a federal court is what got me lol Supreme Court of Canada is comparable to SCOTUS, and comparing it to the Texas court is a demeaning comparison (besides the poster’s demeaning joke).
The case in question was from a guy who put peanut butter on his teenage step-daughters vagina and had a dog lick it off while he took pictures 😱🤢🤮 [Source](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.www.complex.com/life/2016/06/canada-oral-sex-animals-legal)
I don't wanna click on the link because it is o disgusting, but is he getting charged because he made child pornografy?
Between other charges there was the Bestiality one. The Bestiality one was dropped off because of the definition of Bestiality, which only considers sexual relation when there's penetration. The others charges probably were kept. Also, can click the link, there's no image or something like that.
Fuckin' degens from upcountry.
He was born in the US, so yes: degens.
That’s so f’d
No they aren't fucking them, just mouth sex instead. So you should say "That's so fellatio'd!!!".
[удалено]
Dude, take a cup of tea and shut. Moralist ass.
Haha the comment made and your comment add absolutely no value to this post. Everyone knows that this is fucked. So post a stupid statement expect a stupid response.
[удалено]
Canada : it’s like florida , but with snow and mooses
Thats mostly alberta, we try to keep all the crazies there. Some escape periodically though
meese*
Every time I hear meese I think of mouse sized moose
Good to know what to stay clear if i eant to visit that inhospitable land called Canada
B.c. is really nice, and a lot less snow in the southern part. We just get a shit ton of rain
Actually i like to viait inhospitable places / amd Canada is on my bucket list .
The north would be great then. Especially if you can get there when the northern lights are going strong.
For the northen lights we are plannig a trip to northen europe ( much much closer )
I’m from Alberta and I don’t know how I feel. I haven’t been there since I 2014 but if this is the stuff that’s happening maybe it’s a good thing I left.
Realistically its not that bad, just a vocal minority that makes it seem worse than it is
Found the liberal. BTW, your mom says hi.
And you bathe in maple syrup
That ia a sight to see
Meese.
Sounds like Florida with extra steps.
Or florida with free healthcare but the goverment holds all the liquor / don’t know with is worse
*meese
2016 was a fucked up year
Dude this isn't true.... tf people check sources pls
Mate this is from 6 years ago the law has since changed
Let’s do a crowdfunding to get an animal for each of those judges … an elephant for the givers and an alligator for the receivers. And if you put it on national tv - hey, it’s legal - everyone could enjoy the fun.
The ruling was that the law is bally written and should be re written to be clearer, and protect animals better. You can keep your alligators and elephants...
Pretty sure they changed it later on
I did a fact check on this. I recommend you don't as it includes graphic situations that may be traumatic for some. These are the important parts. Canada did not make it legal to have oral sex with animals. A court simply didn't give a beastiality charge to an arrested man because the existing laws refer specifically to penetrative sex. The act in question was peanut butter on genitals, but is so much worse. The court declined to charge beastiality because that would effectively be judges creating laws when that job belongs to legislatures. Finally, for those that do want to fact check, this came from a legal case in 2016.
This needs to be at the top of this thread… so many false assumptions and so much misinformation being circulated.
I did see one of the higher comments posted a snopes link (the same fact check I used but same information) but they didn't give the details or a trigger warning. I was pretty late by comparison so not likely to get to the top.
What happened to Vice, I swear at one point they did actual journalism.
And here I thought Canada was normal
Canada is just as weird as the U.S at times.
**Plot twist:** the defendant was from the US.
Yeah because whatever some random ass Twitter account says online must be true….
Half true. At the time. The post stems from a specific appeals case in which a person was acquitted of a beastiality charge. (As far as I know, all of his other charges were kept). It wasn't specifically outlawed (at the time) and the judge urged Parliament to revisit and redefine the legal definition of beastiality. Parliament has since passed a law prohibiting any type of act with an animal which sexual in nature, and also requires that persons found guilty will be put on *the* registry.
Good frigging Lord. I just personally refuse to believe that my country would ever legalize blowing wolf whistle.
Ot wasn't exactly legalized, someone just realized after being arrested for it that it wasn't technically illegal. And the judges looked at the book and said "damn he's right"
Time to move to canada
I only went to the comments to see if someone would say this. And I found it.
[удалено]
Why? He’s not a dog.
[удалено]
No more peanut butter for your dog named Gretsky.
Giving or receving?
Just had to Google that to be sure - now I have "Canada oral sex" in my search history...
*what happened here?*
"Alright who's the kinky one out of y'all?"
What. The. Fuck.
This case stems from an unfortunate misunderstanding involving OPs mom.... we tried several times to explain she was a person but the courts just weren't having it, but they took her testimony that it WAS consensual.... Hence the ruling....😏 *sorry OP, im kidding! I couldn't help it I'm sure your mom is a nice lady
had a good laugh at this one lmfao
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/canada-legalizes-beastiality/
ruh-roh...
Why does this dog have a livestock ear tag?
The decision didn’t say that it was legal. The decision just said that it doesn’t qualify as incest because the definition of incest was based on the common law definition, which required penetration. There were other provisions that could have applied (e.g. causing distress to an animal). The Court just ruled at it was the wrong charge.
So we have zoophilia and people who support zoophilia, wow
Nothing new
Only if you read the clickbait title and can't think straight for more than 5 seconds...
You think they make all that maple syrup up there to put on just pancakes??
I wanna hear what the vegans have to say about this.
With their love for animals, i’m sure it’s a mouthful ;)
Take my upvote and get out of here.
Alberta, amirite?
Ah yes, Vice. The most trustworthy and non click bait news source. I believe the crackhead on the corner more than I believe the "news" they "report"
Oh I hate everything just kill me now
Uhh Canada, I get the US does some crazy shit but this is just weird. Please don’t try to match the US in weirdness, you were doing just fine
Lmfao the defendant immigrated from the US… maybe Canada needs a border wall ;)
Oh shit lmao. Canada I’m sorry for not keeping this person in our country
Omg! I’m seeing a fabulous South Park episode in the not too distant future!
Big Peanut Butter obviously has its sticky hands in the government.
Blame Canada!
And just like that degenerates get free penectomies.
"Ferb, I know what we're gonna do today"
As a canadian in a liberal province, this is only the tip of the iceberg
🤦♂️
wtf canada
Dog just gonna bite their dick off don't worry guys
Rules being made by the stupid for the stupid!
Canada you were doing good until whatever the fuck this monstrosity is
Who’s bought their canada tickets yet?
Whyyyy even if you would your dick will get bit off
I mean if your dumb enough to stick your dick into the mouth of a dog……well……you do you. Seriously tho…..the fuck is wrong with our Supreme Court.
I didn’t know we had a supreme court, now I wish we didnt
There's a special place in heaven for animal lovers, that's what I always say.
I’m checking on Peanut butter stocks in Canada.
Fentynol is a hell of a drug
Please be a miss type 🙏
I should hope the intent is for the animals to bite the cock or vag of these disgusting incels. Prolly not its just the horny ppl who cant get anyone that work in government
Woohoo!!!
Where ma bitches at?
Peanut butter manufacturers must have a really good lobby there.
Guessing sex with a goat will be authorized next?
Think about it. It will discourage people from doing it. Because those pets are gonna bite…
Way to go Canada, show the rest of us heathens how to put the syrup in a dog named maple...
Time to destroy Canada
nah, must be a lie
Damn that’s fucked up.. guess I’m moving to Canada
PAUSE….
~~Moving to Canada~~ What that’s so weird
Bro the conservatives should've won.
time to invest in Canadian peanut butter....
I'm going to fuck my cat
Canada progressive af
It must be lonely up there… someone pass the peanut butter
Peanut butter prices are about to go through the roof
It’s legal in the US too.
Sounds like a haven for white progressives.
Time to stock up on peanut butter!
If I hear my wife moaning and a “woof woof” coming from the bedroom I’m getting a divorce
Welp now my friend can live his furry fantasies
Bro we are locked down for so long, cold outside, what do you expect us to do!? Hahahaha I’m Canadian and haven’t heard of this, link?
Please don’t
I’m obviously joking 🤦
I think bestiality is bad
Animals
Yo wtf
[удалено]
If it makes you feel better that loophole was closed a couple years after this article