On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down a ruling that held any sexual activity between a person and an animal that does not involve penetration does not fall under the definition of bestiality and is therefore not a crime. There was a lot of criticism of the decision, mainly by those on the right who decried the decision of “liberal judges” who were taking on the role of legislators in further weakening the moral fabric of our society. The appeal was heard with seven judges and the ruling was 6-1. Contrary to the notion the decision was the fault of the court, the six judges in the majority were just doing what judges are supposed to do. It was the dissenting justice who would have broadened the definition of bestiality to include sexual activity that does not involve penetration. The dissent was a classic case of judicial activism. In 2013, a man in British Columbia was convicted of several counts of sexual assault involving his two stepdaughters. His name is subject to a publication ban to protect his stepdaughters and he can only be referred to as D.L.W. The sexual assaults took place over a 10-year-period. In addition to the numerous sexual assaults, he was also convicted of one count of bestiality. He had smeared peanut butter on the vagina of one of the girls and had the family dog lick it off while he filmed it.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---