What a sicko

[CristyCurves 169032]

Just when you think you can't be shocked,it happens.I was appalled watching the news this morning when I heard this story- www.ctvbc.ctv.ca

about the bc man and his dogs,I hope they throw the book at this sicko,good for the spca,if they get the charges to stick that is.Vancouver has been in the news over the years for it's zoo,the yahoo's that run it have been charged on a number of occasions over the years for it's mistreatment of it's animals,shame on them!

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

Awww I can't bring myself to watch it, but I am sure it is awful. I seen something someone posted on my facebook while ago. Kids put firecracker in a shepards mouth, taped the mouth shut....and well you can imagin, the face was blown off and the dog lived!!! I was so sicked, it F***** my whole day. I was crying for hours over it! I love my animals so much, I can not wrap my brain around these types of stories. Booooo:((((

[ostirch 1668]

Maybe the acts are consensual! If the dog likes the sex he is having with his owner, why bring this to trial? I thought the B.-C. court system was already inundated with cases...

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

Maybe the acts are consensual! If the dog likes the sex he is having with his owner, why bring this to trial? I thought the B.-C. court system was already inundated with cases...

 

Are you for real???? Or are you joking?

 

I think this is just wrong!

[ostirch 1668]

Are you for real???? Or are you joking?

I think this is just wrong!

 

No, not joking at all. Just wondering if anybody has asked how the dog may feel about it. If the dog likes it, where's the problem?

 

I think the pbm here, is the state legislating a sexual practice that is not the norm. Not too long ago, it was doing the same with anal-sex.

[roamingguy 300292]

No, not joking at all. Just wondering if anybody has asked how the dog may feel about it. If the dog likes it, where's the problem?

 

I think the pbm here is the state legislating a sexual practice that is not the norm. Not too long ago, it was doing the same with anal-sex.

 

Are you off your rocker...WTF!!!!!:-(

Asked how the dog may feel about it...!!!!! :-( you got to be outta your mind

I suppose if a child said he/she was ok with having sex by with adult, to you there's no problem

The problem isn't the state legislating sexual practices, the problem is there are some deviant sexual practice going on that need state to intercede to help protect innocent victims

Frankly your posts I find very disturbing

RG

[Gabriella Laurence 301887]

No, not joking at all. Just wondering if anybody has asked how the dog may feel about it. If the dog likes it, where's the problem?

 

And how would you ask the dog how he feels about the whole thing?

I think the pbm here, is the state legislating a sexual practice that is not the norm. Not too long ago, it was doing the same with anal-sex.

So, according to this theory, perhaps the state should legalise necrophilia because some people have this

odd preference of having sex with corpses?

[oscarthegrouch 400]

I agree with Roamingguy and Gabriella 100%. Anyone who can condone this is F*****. Animals have no ability to present their wishes as is implied below, and need to be protected by society. A plus though is that the piece of s*** in the story is going to find out about non-consensual sex shortly though when he goes to jail, which is something as least!

[ostirch 1668]

The state euthanizes thousands of dogs every year and sometimes without the owner's knowledge and nobody cares. Somebody videotapes sex with his dog, and, all of a sudden, we're talking about children and dead bodies. Children can't consent to sex with adults and, most humans would want their dead body to be treated with respect.

 

As for the question of how to know if the dog is consenting, the videotape should show if he's growling or fighting off his owner. The sexual practices of dogs are very different from humans. Most dogs would probably look at us and wonder why we're making such a big deal about sex. They hump each other (and other species) regularly and without shame.

 

I doubt very much that the laws against bestiality have anything to do with preventing animal cruelty, and a lot more to do with imposing/prohibiting sexual practices.

[backrubman 64800]

I agree with Roamingguy and Gabriella 100%. Anyone who can condone this is F*****....

 

I agree and this thread should end right here. Aside from being repugnant and in very poor taste it is IMO a violation of the RULES. I'm not going insult anyone or try to make a point that hasn't already been made except to ask all sensible people to let this thread die right here and now. It shouldn't need to be debated and has taken a wrong turn.

[roamingguy 300292]

The state euthanizes thousands of dogs every year and sometimes without the owner's knowledge and nobody cares. Somebody videotapes sex with his dog, and, all of a sudden, we're talking about children and dead bodies. Children can't consent to sex with adults and, most humans would want their dead body to be treated with respect.

 

As for the question of how to know if the dog is consenting, the videotape should show if he's growling or fighting off his owner. The sexual practices of dogs are very different from humans. Most dogs would probably look at us and wonder why were making such a big deal about sex. They hump each other (and other species) regularly and without shame.

 

I doubt very much that the laws against bestiality have anything to do with preventing animal cruelty, and a lot more to do with imposing/prohibiting sexual practices.

 

Yes, children can't consent under the law...btw neither can animals

Yes most people want a dead body to be treated with respect,...btw most people treat animals with respect

Likewise, under the LAW an animal cannot form consent as is legally understood. And normal people who have COMMON DECENCY wouldn't be using animals who are unable to form the requisite legal consent, for sex partners. And normal people have enough RESPECT for animals not to use them for sex partners

Your posts and "justifications" continue to disturb me, and I'm sure, a few others too

RG

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

I think it's worth noting that the person in this case was not charged under section 445 of the Criminal Code (Wilful and Forbidden Acts in Respect of Certain Property ... Cruelty to Animals), but instead was charged under section 160 (Sexual Offences, Public Morals and Disorderly Conduct ... Bestiality).

 

Leaving moral opinions aside, and speaking strictly of the law and its history:

 

In Canada, the Criminal Code provision against what we now call "bestiality" was not created with an eye to either animal welfare or lack of consent (no doubt today's ideas about animal welfare and consent differ from those of even the relatively recent past). The law originated specifically as part of the complete prohibition against anal intercourse.

 

From 1892 (when the Criminal Code was first enacted) until 1987, anal intercourse and bestiality were treated together under a single clause of the Criminal Code, originally entitled "Unnatural offence". This clause prohibited "buggery, either with a human being or with any other living creature" (1892-1953). The clause was then rephrased as "buggery or bestiality" (1953-1987).

 

It was not until 1968 that the exception was created which first made it possible to legally engage in anal intercourse in Canada, under specific circumstances. Since 1968, it has been legal if it is between husband and wife or between two consenting adults - and if it is done in private. (Note: for the purposes of anal intercourse, "private" meant, and still means, that if more than just two people are present, engaging in anal intercourse is illegal and subject to a penalty of 10 years imprisonment).

 

It was not until 1987 that the offence of "Buggery and bestiality" was first split into two separate offences, namely "Anal Intercourse" and "Bestiality".

 

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-72.html#docCont

http://www.constancebackhouse.ca/fileadmin/website/buggery.htm

[Kubrickfan 12836]

The state euthanizes thousands of dogs every year and sometimes without the owner's knowledge and nobody cares. Somebody videotapes sex with his dog, and, all of a sudden, we're talking about children and dead bodies. Children can't consent to sex with adults and, most humans would want their dead body to be treated with respect.

 

As for the question of how to know if the dog is consenting, the videotape should show if he's growling or fighting off his owner. The sexual practices of dogs are very different from humans. Most dogs would probably look at us and wonder why we're making such a big deal about sex. They hump each other (and other species) regularly and without shame.

 

I doubt very much that the laws against bestiality have anything to do with preventing animal cruelty, and a lot more to do with imposing/prohibiting sexual practices.

 

First, taking a deep breath ...

 

The legal principle of "consent," as you are using it, is one that can only be applied to humans, period. That rules out the dog, period. In many cases the state has chosen to limit the ability even for human beings to consent (minors, mentally disabled).

 

I have no earthly clue what euthansia of animals has to do with being an argument in favor of bestiality but, please, enlighten us all.

 

I, for one, would like to see this thread stay open just long enough for use to show ostrich how stupid his arguments are. And I even regret stating that way but this has to rank as one of the creepiest things I have read on cerb.

[LeeRichards 177238]

I strongly dissagree Kubrickfan... IMO opinion this thread should come to a close now. It will be disturbing to not all but most...and doesn't really warrant a discussion albeit a heated discussion on Cerb in my opinion....The opinions will become repetative, disturbing and depressing actually and if the gentlemen doesn't get it by now he won't. Once again my opinion. This is more of a Jerry Springer type of topic not a Cerb topic.

[CristyCurves 169032]

The state euthanizes thousands of dogs every year and sometimes without the owner's knowledge and nobody cares. Somebody videotapes sex with his dog, and, all of a sudden, we're talking about children and dead bodies. Children can't consent to sex with adults and, most humans would want their dead body to be treated with respect.

 

As for the question of how to know if the dog is consenting, the videotape should show if he's growling or fighting off his owner. The sexual practices of dogs are very different from humans. Most dogs would probably look at us and wonder why we're making such a big deal about sex. They hump each other (and other species) regularly and without shame.

 

I doubt very much that the laws against bestiality have anything to do with preventing animal cruelty, and a lot more to do with imposing/prohibiting sexual practices.

 

Who says no one cares!There are many ,many rescue groups who work to prevent this and rescue many of these poor creatures.As for telling if a dog is "enjoying" themselves,how would anyone know,if a dog is being mishandled by it's owner some will not react,they can become scared,confused,all types of reactions that they will not necessarily show.

Also dogs humping isn't a sexual act but a way of displaying dominance.We as adults are supposed to know the difference between right and wrong,IT IS WRONG TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ANY LIVING BEING THAT CANNOT SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

As far as ending this thread,we have a right to discuss topics in a civil manner,no matter how disturbing,no one has a right to end it,if their are others wanting to take part in the discussion.

[Jabba 18389]

Oh, good lord this is just plain icky.

With all due respect to the OP for expressing outrage and encouraging intelligent discourse, I'm getting creeped-out. I couldn't bring myself to watch the ctv vid.

 

At the risk of appearing to stick my head in the sand, I don't think this thread has a place here on Cerb. I'm normally not one for censorship, but really folks ...this?

 

Personally, I think the poster questioning the outrage is just baiting y'all. My $0.02 worth.

[ostirch 1668]

Since this thread has not died, I'll put in the last comment. I was hoping that an honest discussion can be had respecting a diversity of opinions. I have stated my position earlier, I am not advocating any illegal practice, just questioning the intent of the law. I think it's a valid argument. I don't encourage nor discourage the practice.

 

That said, since my opinions offend, I have no problem in logging off and realizing that CERB is not for me.

[Kubrickfan 12836]

ostrich --

 

Dont leave! I, for one, really appreciate your posts on that "bad life decision" thread. I just think this is a pretty invalid argument and again the subject is at best creepy and at worse, illegal, at least to the extent it is advocating doing that sort of thing.

 

Respectfully, let me try by accepting your premise: as long as the defendant takes a video and presents it to the judge that the animal wasn't fighting back, does the defendant win? Do you perform direct or cross-examination of the animal? This just gets silly and even ickier very fast.

[ostirch 1668]

Respectfully, let me try by accepting your premise: as long as the defendant takes a video and presents it to the judge that the animal wasn't fighting back, does the defendant win? Does you perform direct or cross-examination of the animal? This just gets silly and even ickier very fast.

 

Respectfully, I don't think we'll agree and that's ok. CERB is probably not for me. My premise in a nutshell:

 

Animals are property, the law never envisioned animals "to have rights". These laws in Canada are just trying to regulate private sexual practices. The law has no business in doing that. Moreover, we don't know what goes on in other species heads. And the B.C. court system is already so inundated with serious cases that it is letting real criminals walk.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/02/15/bc-cases-thrown-out-court-delays.html

 

The movie "Project Nim" explores what happens when humans start projecting themselves on other species.

[Jabba 18389]

Respectfully, I don't think we'll agree and that's ok. CERB is probably not for me. My premise in a nutshell:

 

Animals are property, the law never envisioned animals "to have rights". These laws in Canada are just trying to regulate private sexual practices. The law has no business in doing that. Moreover, we don't know what goes on in other species heads. And the B.C. court system is already so inundated with serious cases that it is letting real criminals walk.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/02/15/bc-cases-thrown-out-court-delays.html

 

The movie "Project Nim" explores what happens when humans start projecting themselves on other species.

 

I'm with Kubrick - we need opposing views. But, I personally think I can agree to disagree on this particular discussion. Cerb represents and, I think, encourages a diversity of opinions.

 

If you find that your point of view is not well received or is in the minority, I think that is an opportunity to either challenge your own opinion or to respectfully invite further discussion. Keywords are: Don't give up.

 

You seem like an articulate person who is ready to debate. Go with that. Hang in there.

[CristyCurves 169032]

I cannot believe you would say that jabba,I woke up this morning heard the news and it bothered me so I posted it ,to allow others to hear about it,if it isn't obvious by now that I am a huge animal lover,advocate for dogs,then some have missed alot of my posts.But to assume I had ulterior motives,ie: baiting is just plain mean,rude,unfair!It is not my fault this thread to another turn,that wasn't it's point,but your statement imo has made it take an even weirder one,baiting,omg!I also feel it should be up to the mod to stop a thread,not any of us and I cannot control what people say.

[Kubrickfan 12836]

Respectfully, I don't think we'll agree and that's ok. CERB is probably not for me. My premise in a nutshell:

 

Animals are property, the law never envisioned animals "to have rights". These laws in Canada are just trying to regulate private sexual practices. The law has no business in doing that. Moreover, we don't know what goes on in other species heads. And the B.C. court system is already so inundated with serious cases that it is letting real criminals walk.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/02/15/bc-cases-thrown-out-court-delays.html

 

The movie "Project Nim" explores what happens when humans start projecting themselves on other species.

 

It is certainly reasonable to argue that animals dont have the same sort of "natural rights," a la John Locke, than human beings have. But I'm sure many people on this board will disagree with that, and there is an argument that animals, also as God's creatures, have some of the same sort of natural rights. And even if animals dont have natural rights, they have what "rights" that are granted to them by virtue by the governments in the jurisdictions where they are located, correct? By "rights," I mean if there is a law that prevents a person from doing a certain thing to an animal, or proscribes that an animal has to be treated in a certain manner (properly fed and not violently assaulted, for instance). A goverment has the right, by consent of its citizens, to pass such laws, does it not? There are a lot of laws on the books that deal with how one treats their property. So I dont think you can say that just because an animal is "property" gives its owner the right to treat it in any manner it choses. And in this case the law is very clear.

 

Again, the consent argument just doesn't work either IMO for reasons I already explained.

[roamingguy 300292]

I cannot believe you would say that jabba,I woke up this morning heard the news and it bothered me so I posted it ,to allow others to hear about it,if it isn't obvious by now that I am a huge animal lover,advocate for dogs,then some have missed alot of my posts.But to assume I had ulterior motives,ie: baiting is just plain mean,rude,unfair!It is not my fault this thread to another turn,that wasn't it's point,but your statement imo has made it take an even weirder one,baiting,omg!I also feel it should be up to the mod to stop a thread,not any of us and I cannot control what people say.

 

Christy

First off, your thread is appropriate to post here IMHO. That some disturbing posts have emerged from it, that's about that poster, and not about you and your thread

And I don't see any hidden motives behind your posts. Whether people agree or disagree with posts, I would consider you an honest poster. You state your opinions, I don't see hidden agendas in them. I think the reference to ulterior motives (ie baiting) was in reference to Ostirch's

posts.

You keep posting girl

RG

[CristyCurves 169032]

Oh, good lord this is just plain icky.

With all due respect to the OP for expressing outrage and encouraging intelligent discourse, I'm getting creeped-out. I couldn't bring myself to watch the ctv vid.

 

At the risk of appearing to stick my head in the sand, I don't think this thread has a place here on Cerb. I'm normally not one for censorship, but really folks ...this?

 

Personally, I think the poster questioning the outrage is just baiting y'all. My $0.02 worth.

 

my misunderstanding jabba,sorry,and thank you for your reply,your response to me was very gracious

[Areez 11906]

Animals are property, the law never envisioned animals "to have rights". These laws in Canada are just trying to regulate private sexual practices.

 

I was going to hold my thought on this discussion, because I not want to appear like I'm flaming ostrich. But at this point... I cant held back my thought anymore.

 

After reading his last post this is what I gathered.

 

"Animals are property" - Are you serious? They have life, its not an OBJECT.

ITS NOT A RIGHT TO OWN A PET, ITS A PRIVILEDGE.

 

This just appear sadistic to me in many many way possible. It enrages me to just read about this... This is one of the reason why PITBULL is banned in ontario. Dog owners that are raising these breed poorly and abusing them which lead to putting bad name to them...

 

IF anyone should think any type of abuse or cruelty to animal is okay, seriously .. find a cliff and jump off it.

 

Thank you.

 

EDITED: Added this - http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusiast717B_1_717E.htm