Aggggghhhh !!! Dianne :0 :0
it has been taken down!!!
Bestiality is to be banned in Germany in a reversal of a 1969 decision which made it legal. Animal welfare advocates are praising the decision to outlaw such abuse of animals — also known as zoophilia — while contending that the focus on this issue has diverted attention from other urgent animal rights concerns.
Ilse Aigner, the German agriculture minister, is calling for a reversal of the 1969 decision on the grounds that bestiality is an “offence not only to hurt an animal but also to force it into unnatural sex,” according to the BBC. Animals should not be used “for personal sexual activities or made available to third parties for sexual activities … thereby forcing them to behave in ways that are inappropriate to their species,” says Hans-Michael Goldmann, chairman of a parliamentary committee that is discussing the measure before the Bundestag votes on it on December 14.
Under the new measure, anyone found guilty of forcing an animal into “actions alien to the species” could face a fine of 25,000 euros (about $32,300).
Michael Kiok, a librarian who is chairman of a group called the Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information (Zeta), says that he plans to take legal action against the changes. “When I look at my dog I know immediately what it wants. Animals are much easier to understand than women,” says Kiok in the Guardian — statements that are (to totally understate the matter) beyond disturbing.
The topic of animal bestiality is a “tough one for people to hear and deal with,” as Care2 blogger Megan Drake writes. But it is one that we need to not only be aware of, but to take action about. As Megan points out, only 17 states in the U.S. have laws under which bestiality is a felony; fourteen more states say it is a misdemeanor. The rest do not consider bestiality a crime against animals, though some consider it a misdemeanor if a minor child or pornography is involved.
In Europe, a number of countries (including the Netherlands, France and Switzerland) ban bestiality. Prior to 2003, bestiality carried a sentence of life imprisonment in the U.K.; this has been reduced to two years. Bestiality remains legal in Belgium, Denmark and Sweden, though Sweden is considering changing this.
Animal rights advocates in Germany have put forward many other issues that must be attended to and very soon. They are seeking bans on castrating piglets and cutting off their tails and on branding horses without anesthesia. Only the castration issue has been addressed and not in a satisfactory way. According to the Guardian, after 2018 (i.e., not exactly in the very near future) it can only be carried out under a local anesthetic.
While the ban on bestiality is more than — does it need to be said? – necessary, there is clearly far more the German government, not to mention several states in the U.S. and some European nations, can do to protect animals from cruel and horrendous abuse. How we humans treat and care for all creatures great and small says a lot about us.
Related Care2 Coverage
this sickness needs to be banned in ALL CITIES,STATES,AND COUNTRYS...PERIOD!!
I AM BEYOND PISSED OFF AT THIS!!!!
CONTACT YOUR REP
The second bill that needs to pass by next week is Nitro’s Law HB 108. Warning: the video is graphic. But the story it tells is true.
Now, the bill for Nitro’s Law, HB 108, is about to expire again because Ohio State Senate President Thomas Niehaus won’t move the bill to the floor for a vote. And because the Ohio State Senators are not pushing him to do so. The State Senators work for you, and need to hear from you.
From now until December 12, 2012, the Nitro Foundation asks that you please contact the following:
1) Your Ohio Senator - ask for their support and that they push for a Vote on HB 108 (and HB 289).
2) Senate President Niehaus - politely encourage him to move HB 108 to the floor for a Vote. 614-466-8082 email email@example.com
3) Call Governor Kasich and ask how, after all the calls, emails and letters, can Senate President Niehaus hold up Nitro's Law HB 108?
Governor John Kasich
Riffe Center, 30th Floor
77 South High Street
Columbus, OH 43215-6117
Phone: (614) 466-3555
4) Rules and Reference Committee:
Faber - (614) 466-7584
Wagoner - (614) 466-8060
Jones - (614) 466-9737
Widener - (614) 466-3780
Patton - (614) 466-8056
Turner - (614) 466-4583
Oelslager - (614) 466-0626
Kearny -(614) 466-5980
Brown - (614) 466-5204
I HAD A PETITION ON THIS SAME THING BUT IT ENDED JUST A FEW DAYS AGO.
Overview of State Bestiality Laws
Rebecca F. Wisch
Animal Legal & Historical Center
Publish Date: 2008 (updated 2010)
Place of Publication: Michigan State University College of Law
Overview of State Bestiality Laws
Zoophilia is broadly defined as the affinity or sexual attraction by a human to a non-human animal. See Wikipedia, Zoophilia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia (describing the emotional and sexual attraction of humans to animals) (as of June 24, 2008, 15:48 GMT). More recently, the term ï¿½zoosexualityï¿½ has been used to more accurately reflect the full spectrum of a ï¿½human/animal orientation.ï¿½ Id. The term ï¿½bestialityï¿½ is often used interchangeably with ï¿½zoophilia,ï¿½ though some suggest that this is inaccurate. Id. In the legal system, the term bestiality is most often used to describe human-animal sexual activity without specifying the requisite sexual act. This is in addition to use of the term ï¿½sodomy,ï¿½ which not only covers sexual acts with animals but also certain human sexual acts. (For more on the history and psychology of zoophilia, please see the above Wikipedia link).
The legality of zoophilia (otherwise termed bestiality) is not controlled from the federal level. The only relevant federal law is the sodomy law under the military code. This law provides that ï¿½[a]ny person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with . . . an animal is guilty of sodomy.ï¿½ 10 U.S.C.A. § 925, 10 USCA § 925. The penalty is derived through court martial. However, as one might expect, the statute applies only to military personnel.
It should be noted that it is not unusual for this type of societal issue to be controlled at the state level. Due to the interaction of federal power and state rights, most laws that deal with the health, safety, and welfare of citizens occur at the state or even local levels. This is especially true of criminal laws. Bestiality statutes occur as part of the criminal code; thus, each state determines the terms and penalty for the activity.
That being said, approximately 30 states have enacted laws that prohibit sexual contact between humans and animals. The best way to view the actual text of these laws on our website is to go to the Map of State Animal Cruelty Laws. The bestiality statutes have been added to the compilation of these laws. For ease of seeing which states have bestiality laws, these states have been listed below along with a designation for whether it is a felony (F) or a misdemeanor (M):
(MT ï¿½ MT ST 45-5-505 held unconstitutional by Gryczan v. State, 942 P.2d 112, 113+, 283 Mont. 433, 433+ (Mont. Jul 02, 1997) (NO. 96-202); NC ï¿½ NC ST 14-177 ï¿½ held unconstitutional by State v. Whiteley, 616 S.E.2d 576, 577+, 172 N.C.App. 772, 772+ (N.C.App. Aug 16, 2005) (NO. COA04-636)).
(Note also that some states, such as Alabama (AR ST § 13A-12-200.1), Florida (FL ST 847.001), and Tennessee (TN ST § 7-51-1401), have provisions dealing with bestiality under their anti-obscenity and/or adult businesses sections.)
While many of these laws date to the last century or earlier, there have been recent additions of bestiality laws, particularly as part of amended cruelty code. Notably, those states without specific bestiality laws do usually include some reference to bestiality in their child protection laws. These laws, while not included on the website, concern the exhibition of sexually explicit materials containing acts of bestiality to children, or the inclusion of children in the making of such materials.
The slight majority of these states make bestiality a felony. Of the 30 some states, 16 make such acts a felony. What is interesting about the felony designation is that many of these states dictate a lengthy penalty for violation of the law. For instance, Georgia law includes a prison term of one to five years. Idaho makes it a felony with a sentence of not less than five years. Massachusetts has a term of imprisonment not exceeding twenty years or less than seven.
In 2008, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that an animal cannot be a "victim" for the purposes of sex offender registry. People v. Haynes , --- N.W.2d ----, 2008 WL 4365966 (Mich.App.). In this case, the defendant pleaded no contest to committing an ï¿½abominable and detestable crim
In 2008, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that an animal cannot be a "victim" for the purposes of sex offender registry. People v. Haynes , --- N.W.2d ----, 2008 WL 4365966 (Mich.App.). In this case, the defendant pleaded no contest to committing an ï¿½abominable and detestable crime against natureï¿½ with a sheep under MCL 750.158. In addition to sentencing consistent with being habitual offender, the trial court found that defendant's actions evidenced sexual perversion, so the court ordered defendant to register under the Sex Offenders Registration Act (ï¿½SORAï¿½. Defendant only appealed the propriety of the trial court's order requiring him to register as a sex offender. The Court of Appeals reversed the order, holding that while sheep was the ï¿½victimï¿½ of the crime, registration was only required if the victim was a human being less than 18 years old. The court found that MCL 750.158 encompasses two categories of crimes: ï¿½abominable and detestable crime[s] against natureï¿½ with a human being, and ï¿½abominable and detestable crime[s] against natureï¿½ with an animal. SORA defines ï¿½listed offenseï¿½ as including a violation of section 158 if a victim is an individual less than 18 years of age. Relying on the plain and ordinary meaning of "victim," the court concluded that an animal was not intended to be considered a victim under the statute.
Recently enacted or amended laws focus on the necessity of psychological counseling for perpetrators of bestiality (See Arizonaand Washington for instance). Other recent laws impliedly focus on the lack of consent in the activity, terming the action a ï¿½sexual assault.ï¿½ Older laws term the activity a ï¿½crime against natureï¿½ or ï¿½unnatural act with an animal.ï¿½ One scholarly legal article included on our website addresses briefly the legal status of bestiality statutes and the historical bases for these laws. See, 11 Animal L. 131 (2005). Another law review article (not included on our site) suggests that these laws may not be directed at the lack of consent on the part of the animal, but rather societyï¿½s attitude toward sex itself. Pets or Meat? by Mary Ann Case, 80 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 1129 (2005). The author raises the difficult issue of how to differentiate the act of bestiality from other ï¿½tricksï¿½ pets are forced to perform, sometimes through coercion. Finally, famed animal rights philosopher Peter Singer wrote a controversial essay entitled, ï¿½Heavy Petting,ï¿½ in which he suggests that ï¿½mutually satisfying activitiesï¿½ could occur without involving cruelty to the animal. (See http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/main.asp). Singer insinuates that our discomfort with zoophilia stems more from our view as separate and morally superior from the rest of the animal world rather than the direct harm to the animal itself.
Regardless of the philosophical platform from which one views the activity, bestiality is criminally sanctioned in many states. Even if a state does not specifically proscribe the activity, it may be covered under other aspects of a stateï¿½s sex crimes code or even the anti-animal cruelty law. As with any other legal question, it is imperative to contact a licensed attorney in your state to answer any specific questions about the law.
States with Felony Statutes
States with Misdemeanor Statutes
AZ ï¿½ AZ ST 13-1411 (F)
AR - AR ST § 5-14-122 (M)
DE ï¿½ DE ST T. 11 § 777 (F)
CA ï¿½ Cal. Penal Code 286.5 (M)
GA ï¿½ GA ST 16-6-6 (F)
IA ï¿½ IA ST 717C.1 (M)
ID ï¿½ ID ST 18-6605 (F)
IL ï¿½ 720 ILCS 5/12-35 (F)
IN ï¿½ IN ST 35-46-3-14 (F)
MN ï¿½ MN ST 609.294 (M)
KS ï¿½ KS ST 21-3505 (F) - Repealed by 2010 Kansas Laws Ch. 136 (H.B. 2668).
MO ï¿½ MO ST 566.111(6) (M)
MA ï¿½ MASS GEN LAW CH 272 § 34 (F)
NE ï¿½ NE ST 28-1010 (M)
MI ï¿½ MCL 750.158 (F)
NY ï¿½ NY PENAL LAW 130.20 (M)
MS ï¿½ MS ST 97-29-59 (F)
ND ï¿½ ND ST 12.1-20-12 ï¿½ not defined as contact with an animal but listed by one law review as a bestiality law (not on website)
OR ï¿½ OR ST 167.333 (M)
RI ï¿½ RI GEN LAWS 11-10-1 (F)
PA ï¿½ 18 PaCSA 3129 (M)
SC ï¿½ SC ST 16-15-120 (F)
UT ï¿½ UT ST 76-9-301.8 (M)
SD ï¿½ SD ST 22-22-42 (F)
WI ï¿½ WI ST 944.17 (M)
VA ï¿½ VA ST 18.2-361 (F)
WA ï¿½ WA ST 16.52.205 (F)
Dear Dianne Lynn Elko,
Congratulations! Your petition, Stop Bower-Change Ohio's bestiality laws -- PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE!--, is now closed. We hope it was a great success for you and your cause.
We'd love to hear from you about any successes stemming from your petition. You can tell us about it by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please be sure to include a link to the petition.
Thank you for using Care2's PetitionSite, and thank you for choosing to make a difference.
all signed and shared,you know i do not understand any animal abuse or animal abusers,but i just cannot grasp my head around bestiality and the states allowing it!!!
Noted and signed current where I could :-0 15/12
Noted and signed current Dianne :-0 21/12
A married couple from Sugarload, Pa. is accused of violating the terms of their probation after a probation officer discovered that they had been sexually abusing their dog.
According to Friday's publication of the Pocono Record, James Antonelli, 68, and his wife, Jennie Marie Moore, 48, were on probation for a February incident involving a teen who was indecently assaulted by the couple.
Specifically, the teen was allegedly forced to perform "sexual acts" on the woman and he claims to have been punished if those acts were not "satisfactory."
Recently, the couple's probation officer discovered that the pair had violated the terms of their probation when Moore admitted to the probation officer that she and her husband had been having sex with their golden retriever.
Stated in the violation report,
"(Antonelli) and his wife put themselves in danger by having sex with a dog who was not vaccinated,"
The couple also visited an amusement park, which put them in the proximity of children; another violation of their probation terms.
This post was modified from its original form on 03 Jan, 15:17
FROM MY PETITION