Sex acts with animals are legal in Canada, so long as there is no penetration involved, according to a surprise ruling issued by the Supreme Court.
The determination stemmed from a case involving a British Columbia man convicted of 13 counts sexually assaulting his stepdaughters - including one count of bestiality. But the man, identified only as "DLW", was acquitted of the bestiality count with the new ruling.
DLW's attorneys argued that bestiality linked to "buggery" - or sodomy - with animals beginning with an 1892 criminal code. Bestiality was first used in a 1955 code, but still was not defined to encompass every sex act with animals.
"Although bestiality was often subsumed in terms such as sodomy or buggery, penetration was the essence - 'the defining act' - of the offence," the court said.
Thus, the court ruled by a 7–1 majority that bestiality required penetration.
“There is no hint in any of the parliamentary record that any substantive change to the elements of the offence of bestiality was intended,” the ruling reads.
According to court record DLW smeared peanut butter on the genitals of his victims and had the family dog lick it off while he videotaped the act.
Court documents disclose that DLW attempted to have the dog perform intercourse on the stepdaughter, but that ultimately failed.
DLW is serving a 16 year prison sentence. He brought the bestitality conviction to the court on appeal.
Justice Rosalie Abella was the lone dissenter, and had suggested that the court deny the appeal.
“Acts with animals that have a sexual purpose are inherently exploitative whether or not penetration occurs,” she wrote.
D.L.W. was found guilty on 13 counts arising from nearly a decade of repeated sexual molestation of his two step-daughters. The counts ranged from sexual touching to sexual assault to making/possessing child pornography, and even included one count of bestiality, an offence that is rarely prosecuted in Canada.
The facts underlying the bestiality conviction are simple: The family dog licked the vagina of the older complainant, who was 16 years old at the time. Although D.L.W. never had any kind of sexual contact with the dog, he was charged and convicted of committing bestiality, contrary to s. 160(1) of the Criminal Code, since he “aided and abetted” in this act by bringing the dog into the bedroom, applying peanut butter to the complainant’s vagina, and then videotaping the interaction. For a person to be charged and convicted under s. 160(2), that person must “compel” another to commit bestiality. As noted by the trial judge, although “compels” is similar in meaning to “aiding, abetting, or counselling,” it is something different, and is often associated with “to cause or bring about by force, threats, or overwhelming pressure” (R v DLW, 2013 BCSC 1327, paras 324-35 [DLW, BCSC]).
Based on the facts of the case, it would appear as though D.L.W. had committed bestiality, contrary to s. 160(1) of the Criminal Code. Having an animal–who is arguably just as vulnerable as a child in this instance–lick a person’s vagina for a human being’s sexual purposes, would intuitively qualify as bestiality. However, bestiality is not so easily defined, and in fact, has never been defined by a Canadian court, until now.
发表于 14-6-2016 12:38 PM
变色卡
千斤顶
楼主
本周最热论坛帖子
1628 
30
