Described in news reports as a “baffling oversight,” Canada only bans bestiality if it involves penetration. This means that there is a lot of oral sex going on between humans and moose, or something, so while reminding her colleagues that a Canadian sex freak  used this very loophole to escape conviction last year, Calgary MP Michelle Rempel has introduced Bill C-388 to add one line to the Criminal Code defining bestiality as “any contact by a person, for a sexual purpose, with an animal.”

This of course, would mean that doing business with Harvey Weinstein would be illegal in Canada.

Said Rampel in a statement, “I am disturbed that the government has not yet corrected this glaring void in our criminal code….This is a non-partisan issue.”

Ah, but is it a stupid issue? Or an ethics issue?

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is this vital question:

Is it unethical to spread peanut butter on your genitals and then encourage your pet Newfoundland to lick it off?

I have no doubt about the answer to this one. NO.

Is it icky? Yes. A more pure example of the Ick Factor in action, well, for most people anyway, and some unusually judgmental dogs, I guess,  would be hard to imagine. Still, icky isn’t unethical. There is no ethical analysis by which doing this breaches any ethical principles. The dog is just licking up yummy peanut butter (this assumes it isn’t Jiff). The human is engaging in sexual self-gratification, and a bonding experience with his (or her) pet. This is not animal cruelty.

It’s not unethical, and the Canadian law proposed is dumb. It also would be unconstitutional in the U.S.

_____________

Source:National Post