Liberals to broaden controversial definition of bestiality set by 2016 Supreme Court ruling

In a press conference Thursday, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould announced a new bill tabled just moments before in the House of Commons that will broaden the definition of bestiality in order to “prohibit any contact for a sexual purpose between a person and an animal.”

As it stands now, the definition limits only penetrative acts between a person and an animal.

That limit was set by the Supreme Court in a controversial June 2016 ruling in which it upheld the acquittal of a man previously convicted at a lower court of facilitating sexual acts between his stepdaughters and the family dog. In its ruling, the court said applying the definition of the crime beyond penetrative acts would require a change in legislation.

“In direct response to that decision, C-84 will add a definition of bestiality that prohibits any contact for a sexual purpose between a person and an animal,” said Wilson-Raybould, thanking her Liberal colleague Nathaniel Erskine-Smith for his efforts to push for a changes in animal cruelty laws.

The legislation would also prohibit profiting from or keeping facilities for the purposes of animal fighting.

Neither of those changes, the minister said, would impact legitimate activities such as husbandry and agricultural activities or using service animals.

However, it is not clear whether the bill will be able to pass before the House of Commons rises for the last time in June 2019 ahead of the election.

“It’s just frustrating because it’s being tabled so late in this Parliament,” said Conservative MP Michelle Rempel.

Any bill not passed by the time the House of Commons rises for the last time will die on the order paper.

That means whichever government wins in October 2019 would have to re-introduce it all over again once a new Parliament resumes.

Rempel introduced a similar bill in December 2017 that sought to broaden the definition of bestiality to include “any contact by a person, for a sexual purpose, with an animal.”

Hers never made it past first reading.

Rempel was also one of the only MPs to support a bill put forward in fall 2016 by Erskine-Smith that also sought to broaden the definition of bestiality in response to the Supreme Court ruling..

That bill sought to make it easier to convict people who cause suffering to animals through “gross negligence” rather than through the current legal standard of “willful negligence,” which can be difficult to prove.

As well, it would have broadened the definition of bestiality.

It also wanted to ban shark fins as well as selling cat and dog fur in Canada, and to move animals out of the property section of the Criminal Code.

But most Conservative MPs and Liberal MPs, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, voted against it and the bill was defeated in October 2016.

Rempel said one of the questions left unaddressed in the Liberal bill is whether people convicted of bestiality and animal cruelty should be allowed to own animals in the future. (????)

Rempel said the bill, while late in the game, is “better late than never.”

“The key thing was getting the loophole closed,” she said of the  I hope this triggers a conversation going forward.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/4567270/canada-animal-cruelty-bestiality-laws/

News

September

26

Australia's koalas are in trouble. The question is how much.
September

26

New News Post
September

26

Helping the Environment by Going Fur-Free
September

26

Several Native American tribes sue Wisconsin over "unlawful" wolf hunting
September

26

Why Won’t COP26 Take Animal Agriculture Seriously?
September

20

Covid outbreak hits lions, tigers at National Zoo
September

20

10,000 People Sign Petition To Help End The Donkey Skin Trade
September

20

This Michigan City Just Banned The Sale Of Fur
September

20

US Trophy Hunter Exposed After He Paid $30,000 To Kill Lion
September

20

Species Unite Is Calling For An Animal-Free Olympics