Just when you thought our nation couldn’t possibly get more depraved along comes Canada’s Supreme Court to explain just how utterly wrong you are.
In a ruling that I can only describe as bizarre Canada’s highest court ruled June 9, 2016, that bestiality (sex with animals) is okay. Their only caveat is there can be no penetration. That is simply going too far, the robed degenerates ruled, stating that penetration itself is what defines the crime of bestiality.
The 7-1 ruling (what?!) said a man forcing his step-daughters to put peanut butter on their vaginas so the family dog would lick it off while he videotaped the proceedings is not a crime, regardless of how offensive it may be.
The degenerate step-father, who cannot be identified in order to protect the identities of the violated children, was originally convicted of 14 criminal charges including 1 count of bestiality. It is that specific criminal conviction the Supreme Court, in its infinite stupidity, overturned ruling it was not a “crime” as defined by the Criminal Code.
What else can you say?
The lone dissenting voice in this absurd Supreme Court opinion was Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Abella. She wrote,
“Acts with animals that have a sexual purpose are inherently exploitative whether or not penetration occurs.”
How Justice Abella can comprehend reality so clearly when 7 other supposedly intelligent humans could not baffles me. Utterly and completely baffles me.
The decision, R. v. D.L.W., 2106 SCC 22, was handed down on June 9, 2016, and describes a case of human depravity at its most heinous.
From the decision:
After a 38 day trial, D.L.W. was convicted of numerous sexual offences against his two stepdaughters committed over the course of 10 years, including a single count of bestiality. D.L.W. first brought the family dog into the bedroom with the older complainant when she was 15 or 16 years old. He attempted to make the dog have intercourse with her and, when that failed, he spread peanut butter on her vagina and took photographs while the dog licked it off. He later asked her to do this again so he could make a video. At trial, D.L.W. was found to have done all of this for a sexual purpose.
This man is the essence of depravity, to be sure, and I am most grateful he must one day face his Maker and explain himself. That probably won’t go very well for him.
As for our Supreme Court Justices, or at least the 7 who said this behavior, if not perfectly acceptable, is not criminal in nature.
Further from the decision:
Parliament adopted that term without adding a definition of it and the legislative history and ev