DEMAND LAWS PROTECTING ANIMALS AGAINST RAPE. (ZOOPHILA)

It should be obvious that we cannot have a state of law where people who have the urge to have sex with animals can simply break into other people places and rape their animals without being punished.
Marlene - animal welfare spokesperson

"It's a bigger problem than people think it is, For example, An online mail list called SWITHA (Sex With Animals) had a female moderator . The SWITHA list promoted bestiality and even featured events such as picnics parks for these sexual abusers to gather.

Laws on bestiality tend to be shaped by three main factors: - From Wikipedia

• Animal welfare concerns
• Personal moral views of shapers of opinion
• Cultural beliefs about the act

Issues confusing the matter are that such research as is available is not widely known, and that cases which come to public light may not be representative of the whole spectrum of this behavior.

Posner (1996) states, "there is some evidence that bestiality was particularly reviled because of fear that it would produce monsters... At early common law, there was no offense of cruelty to animals... The focus of [cruelty to animals] statutes is different from that of the traditional sodomy statute; anticruelty statutes are concerned with both the treatment of the animal and with the offense to community standards, while anti-bestiality provisions embodied in the sodomy statutes are aimed only at offenses to community standards." [5]

.Difficulty in assessing laws on zoophilia

There are two main reasons why it is hard to be certain whether zoophilia acts are legal in a country or area. The terminology used in law may be vague, so it is not clear what is covered, and whilst it is usually clear if a specific law prohibits zoophilia activity, it is not always so clear (for several reasons) whether the absence of an obvious law means the opposite.

[edit] Vagueness of terms

Some countries list laws very clearly, such as the United Kingdom, which specifically prohibits penetration of a human being by the penis of an animal, and penetration of an animal by a human's penis.[6]

By contrast many countries are quite vague about the exact scope of law. Terms such as "sex with animals", "sexual contact",[7] "sodomy", "crime against nature",[8] or "bestiality"[9] are significantly lacking in legal precision, and as with many laws, what may seem very straightforward from a distance is very vague close-up in a courtroom. This also makes them indeterminate and leaves it unclear what exact activities such terms might encompass.[10]

[edit] Difficulty in establishing legality

It is difficult to state with certainty which countries beyond these accept zoophilia actions in law. This is for many reasons, the main ones of which are:

1) Assumption of cruelty

Even if bestiality is not explicitly prohibited, there are often many other laws which can be used to effectively prosecute cases. For example, most countries have animal cruelty laws, and a prosecutor will argue that all zoophilia activity is animal abuse.[11]

2) Creative law use

Some countries have a range of historic but vague laws on their statute books (for example sodomy laws, "crime against nature" laws, or other laws based upon the historical religious beliefs of the culture), and will prosecute under that.[12] Even when these type of laws do not exist, it is often the case that a prosecution will be found on some ground or other, however contrived.[13] Three examples:

• In one case, prosecutors charged the individual with "sex with a minor".

• In the case of Kenneth Pinyan, reports suggest that despite seizing and examining carefully a large number of such videos from the property, no evidence of abuse was found. Not only was there no abuse found, but the state had no law against zoophilia activity at the time. Nonetheless, as one news source comments:

"It was only after Pinyan died, when law enforcement looked for one way to punish his associates, that the legality of bestiality in Washington State became an issue ... The prosecutor's office wanted to charge [his friend] with animal abuse, but the police found no evidence of abused animals on the many videotapes they collected from his home. As there was no law against humanely [having sex with] one horse, the prosecutors could only charge [him] with trespassing."[14]

• In a 2005 Florida case, media reports state: "Florida has no law prohibiting sex with animals, so [the defendant] is charged with ... disorderly conduct, specifically a 'breach of the peace by engaging in sexual activity with a dog'..." [15]

3) Non-codified cultural prohibitions

Often there are traditions or unwritten cultural beliefs, such as tribal law or custom, which although not codified as legislation, carry an equal weight to any other law. These are sometimes called customary law, and are one of the main four legal systems in the world.

4) Social taboos

Finally, whether or not legal, there are often social mores which frown strongly upon it. For example, even in Sweden, where zoophilia has been legal since 1944, Beetz comments[16] on the findings of Ullerstam:

"It has to be noted in this context, that not having laws against a behavior and acceptance of it by society are two completely different matters... no acceptance of the persons engaging in this kind of sexual activity was adopted by the population. [...] Furthermore, Ullerstam referred to alleged evidence that showed, that many remarkable men had sexual experiences with animals and had to live a life in constant fear because of that. Those men had been widely respected, but would have lost everything if their activities would have become known; all their great contributions would have been forgotten due to a 'primitive moral reaction'."

For these reasons, this article only asserts legality where it is both confirmed and openly acknowledged custom and law that bestiality is legal, and where in fact it is openly confirmed, acknowledged or able to be practiced.

[edit] Overview of legislation

Laws in the West are in flux at the moment. Some countries such as the UK have recently (2002) relaxed their laws, whilst others (several US states) have recently introduced new ones where none previously existed.

A key factor seems to be the motive behind the change: in the UK the motive was a complete review of all sex offences, which concluded that a life sentence was inappropriately harsh. By contrast in Arizona USA, the motive for legislation was a "spate of recent cases" [12], and the Arizona legislator is quoted in that source as stating:

"Arizona appears to be in the minority of states that does not make sex with animals a crime. That doesn't necessarily mean we're wrong. But why shouldn't we be in line with everybody else if the rest of the nation thinks it's a problem?" [edit] Common reasons given for laws

In cultures with a strong background in Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), personal or cultural beliefs about God's Biblical laws or God's plans for human sexuality are a strong influencing factor. These beliefs are caused by speciesism (a bias in favor of humans over other species)[17]. Religious-based beliefs are of Abrahamic origin and not of Hindu or Buddhist origin, since eastern religions are more tolerant of zoophilia[18].

Against the Abrahamic tradition, in some countries (notably the United States), courts have ruled that views on morality are not sufficient justification for law (Lawrence vs. Texas). In other cases (Muth v. Frank) have ruled adversely to a broader reading of that case. In two U.S. states, laws prohibiting the act of having sex with an animal were ruled unconstitutional[19].

A second major reason is the strong desire of society to outlaw and punish what is perceived to be animal cruelty and animal abuse. Cultural assumptions and cases of zoosadism have left society as a whole wary or hostile towards any belief that animals may engage in sex with humans on a mutual or non-abusive basis. This is partly because of erroneous studies; prior research was performed only on violent, incarcerated abuser populations and mis-cited by parties with vested interests -- this was described by professor emeritus Vern Bullough as "more a pseudo-science than serious research"[20]. According to Bullough, this assumption of zoophilia was used for many decades as "proof" that zoosexual activity should be classified as a rare but profound sexual pathology. Although there have been a few cases of zoosadism, there is no link between animal cruelty and non-abusive zoosexual activity. Recent studies[17] suggest that the majority of zoophiles are not cruel to animals:

"In recent surveys, the majority of zoophiles scoffed at the notion that they were abusive toward animals in any way %u2014 far from it, they said. Many even consider themselves to be animal welfare advocates in addition to zoophiles."[17]

A major social factor in the proposed introduction of laws is the coming to light of specific cases to public attention; this was the case in Washington, Missouri and Arizona USA, and also behind recent attempts in 2004 to change the law in the Netherlands.[21] In such cases it often does not seem to matter whether there was abuse or not,[22] or how rare or commonly such matters arise. Rather it seems to be a case of moral panic, or "not in my back yard."

Overall much of the concern can be summarized as coming from lack of knowledge, combined with repugnance at the concept of human-animal sexuality, presented in a societal context of religious or social abhorrance, and a desire to reduce what is perceived to be abuse. Because laws against zoophilia have been created as a result of moral panic and not rationality, the reasons for creating these laws have been called "not compelling" and have been described as being "an unjust and unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty."[23]

[edit] Laws against zoophilia

Aggrawal has discussed extensively on laws against zoophilia.[24] It is permitted in a few countries, such as Sweden and Denmark, although ordinary animal treatment laws apply. In other countries, such as Germany and Russia, bestiality is legal, but zoophilia pornography is illegal (2008 in Germany).

Elsewhere in the developed world, it is a prudent assumption that it is illegal or at the very least, against social custom.

There are also commonly laws against forcing another person to engage in zoophilia activity, especially minors (usually considered equivalent to rape), and laws related to exposing others (either non-consensually or minors) to the sight of a sexual act. In some jurisdictions, laws against zoophilia conduct also include provisions for seizure of animals where convicted.

Sexual handling of an animal for the purposes of veterinary practice, or animal husbandry (breeding), is normally exempted where such laws exist. In public discussion for the recently passed Oregon law, however, one animal shelter's spokesperson wanted the husbandry exemption kept out, as he was concerned that someone might use these "accepted farming practices" as a legal loophole to then have (legal) sexual contact with an animal only for personal enjoyment. One of the legislators responded by asking if they were trying to outlaw an act (of sexual contact), or a state of mind. The veterinary and husbandry exemption was left out of Oregon's law in the final, enacted version.