That Facebook user wrote:
Sick fucks. Only,one Judge a woman was against it They are making decisions on penetration Article is from 2016 but still. How tragic some people are so twisted that cant respect an animals rights. Ugh Because those people,engaging in pedophilia and bestiality are probably not fully human Plenty of others around
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources
Factual Reporting: LOW
Notes: Shoebat.com was founded by Walid Shoebat, a Muslim-turned-Christian journalist. His son, Theodore Shoebat, also provides articles occasionally. Content primarily includes criticism of Islam including Christian end times conspiracies. Strongly promotes homophobia.
As noted by the Facebook post, the claim was originally published in June 2016 with the extremely leading headline “Canada Legalizes Sex With Animals. What An Evil Wicked Generation Full Of The Devil And On The Road To Hell.” The article (which cranked the claims up to eleven) went as follows:
… The Independent reported that the case involved a British Columbia man, identified as “DLW,” who was convicted of 13 counts of sexually assaulting his stepdaughters, but was acquitted of bestiality — because he “only” forced dogs into oral sex, without penetration being involved. The man “smeared peanut butter on the genitals of his victims and had the family dog lick it off while he videotaped the act.”
As a result of this story, the case for allowing bestiality came up and instead of doing what is right Canada’s Supreme Court instead legalized having sex between people and animals as long as “no penetration is involved”.
Out of the 8 judges only one had sanity. Justice Rosalie Abella, the lone dissenter in the 7-1 ruling, said that penetration should not be considered essential when defining bestiality.
To the site’s credit, Shoebat.com linked out to a June 2016 article by the UK’s Independent. It was titled a not too-different “Most bestiality is legal, declares Canada’s Supreme Court,” reporting:
Sex acts with animals are legal in Canada, so long as there is no penetration involved, according to a surprise ruling issued by the Supreme Court.
The determination stemmed from a case involving a British Columbia man convicted of 13 counts sexually assaulting his stepdaughters – including one count of bestiality. But the man, identified only as “DLW”, was acquitted of the bestiality count with the new ruling.
DLW’s attorneys argued that bestiality linked to “buggery” – or sodomy – with animals beginning with an 1892 criminal code. Bestiality was first used in a 1955 code, but still was not defined to encompass every sex act with animals.
In July 2018, two years after the Shoebat.com article began circulating, Agence France-Presse examined various iterations and repetitions of the case that it was claimed “legalized bestiality” in Canada, finding that while the ruling was real, the implications were misrepresented regularly on social media:
The Supreme Court’s ruling did not create a new crime. It based its ruling on the definition of bestiality established by the 1955 Canadian Criminal Code. Only a bill passing both houses of parliament and receiving royal assent could amend the Criminal Code to expand the definition of bestiality.
WHAT CONCLUSIONS CAN BE DRAWN?
• The Canadian Supreme Court acquitted a man of bestiality because sexual acts involving his dog and stepdaughter did not include penetration.
• The Supreme Court does not have the power to create laws.
• The Supreme Court did not legalize bestiality.
A linked June 9 2016 court document outlined the circumstances of the original ruling, appeal, and the judgment:
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. The trial judge was of the view that bestiality in the Code means touching between a person and an animal for a person’s sexual purpose and he concluded that penetration was not required. The trial judge preferred to interpret the elements of bestiality so that they would reflect the current views on what constitutes prohibited sexual acts. A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed D.L.W.’s appeal against the bestiality conviction and acquitted him of the bestiality count. The majority concluded that the term “bestiality” had a common law meaning that included penetration as one of its essential elements. The dissenting judge found that penetration was not an element of bestiality and he would have dismissed the appeal.
According to original case documents, the issue was the manner in which the crime of bestiality had been interpreted in that case. The appellant was acquitted on the bestiality charge based on an appeals court’s majority opinion that “included penetration as one of its essential elements.” That ruling did not in any way affect the referenced 1955 anti-bestiality law on the books in Canada, nor did it “repeal” standing law. It merely interpreted the law as it related to that single case, a legal concept known as “case law.”
Although case law does not inherently alter the laws of any one jurisdiction, it is often used in the future adjudication of legal decisions. Also known as “precedent,” case law can have an effect on future cases in that way, but again, it does not fundamentally constitute a change to existing laws.
In short, a June 2016 Canadian appeals court ruled to acquit one appellant on a bestiality charge in their decision to consider whether penetration in that case occurred. While it is possible that future cases could be argued by lawyers citing the successful appeal, it didn’t prevent charges from being brought or arrests being made on the grounds a defendant allegedly engaged in any sexual acts with animals. More importantly, the ruling had no effect on the legality of sex with animals in Canada, and bestiality there remains illegal.