Crime of Bestiality, Limited to Penetration, Supreme Court of Canada Rules.

[brihard]

So just to clarify, where does this leave things with chickens? It's important.

 

[PuckChaser]

So just to clarify, where does this leave things with chickens? It's important.

:stirpot:

 

[Chispa]

You, ummm. Are posting a lot of bestiality-connected links for someone so taken aback by this ruling.

Careful with that link to the "PhD thesis" thing - the homepage (fifine.org) is "Fifi's Page", and although my German is a bit rusty, it talks of the dream of a world where animals are "equal partners" to people - and gives links to blocking software so your kids don't access that site because it might "confuse their sexuality".
Not sure whether your link right into that page made it clear just what you were linking there. The good Dr. Hani Miletski has her own website which includes info about her books, and which seems...significantly less disturbing (the site, I haven't looked into the book's contents).

Guess U caught moi red-hand with the chicken, be blunt what are U implying? Now what Canadian Regiment is the chicken story connected to? I removed it, have no clue nor do I care, just posted some links after a quick Google search, in collaboration on what I was Bla, Bla, Bla, in creating awareness, in response to posts, and in compliance with posting rules, yes I know does not apply too many members.

Please, blocking software, at Tim', etc,. they block many sites that are ok. Above comments sounds very inspector Clouseau.


Like Stated too Mods, etc,. any link or the thread U can kindly permanently delete, makes no difference pour moi, just creating awareness.

My response to the member since many ICI......Was in Deference.


C.U.

 

[a_majoor]

I'm so glad the SCC has such important matters to consider. </sarc>

 

[brihard]

I'm so glad the SCC has such important matters to consider. </sarc>

It is important though. A person was charged with and convicted of an offense. They successfully appealed that the behaviour in question did not constitute the offense alleged. That's exactly the kind of thing we have a court for. The SCC decides what it's going to hear- they obviously felt that this was significant enough, and in reversing that particular conviction on the strength of what the law actually says, they vindicated the accused in pursuing the matter to that level, and returned to PArliament the onus to determine what exactly constitutes an offense. Would the discussion be less ridiculous if the offense had been something like fraud, or kdinapping, or intimidation of a witness or something?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

It is important though. A person was charged with and convicted of an offense. They successfully appealed that the behaviour in question did not constitute the offense alleged. That's exactly the kind of thing we have a court for. The SCC decides what it's going to hear- they obviously felt that this was significant enough, and in reversing that particular conviction on the strength of what the law actually says, they vindicated the accused in pursuing the matter to that level, and returned to PArliament the onus to determine what exactly constitutes an offense. Would the discussion be less ridiculous if the offense had been something like fraud, or kdinapping, or intimidation of a witness or something?

:goodpost:

My grandfather was a judge for 30 years and he would give the exact same answer.

 

[brihard]

Plenty of other laws have been crafted with explicit definitions covering sexual purpose / sexual intent. The bestiality laws would be easy to amend to cover a broader range of behaviour if, for instance, Parliament determines that it should be an offense to have your parakeet lick strawberry jam off your nipples, or whatever floats your boat. The bestiatlity laws are intended, so far as I understand, to prevent harm or suffering to animals, not simply to criminalize the weird/disgusting. The matter now is in Parliament's court.

 

[Occam]

if, for instance, Parliament determines that it should be an offense to have your parakeet lick strawberry jam off your nipples

You've been to Amsterdam, haven't you? 

 

[Chispa]

So just to clarify, where does this leave things with chickens? It's important.

Well, I can help, did some legwork concerning the folklore surrounding the RCR, and that's what it is, folklore. In Montreal 1950s-60s- 70s-80s It was the RMR Royal Montreal Regiment extended to FWW, and called chicken pluckers per say then later heard the RCR were also labeled same. I'll check my notes still on those Meds etc.,

I'll make a Thread on History category, its time the erroneous, misleading account are stifled concerning the RCR and RMR.
P.S. I have a picture somewhere of that RMR FWW Chicken.

C.U.


.