5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.(Genesis 6)
A German Newspaper Says 'Animal Brothels' Are On The Rise As Bestiality Becomes 'Lifestyle' Choice
Adam TaylorFeb. 3, 2012, 11:52 AM
An animal protection officer in the German state of Hesse has expressed frustration with a German law that makes spreading bestiality porn illegal — but the act itself legal.
Madeleine Martin told the Frankfurter Rundschau that current laws were not protecting animals from zoophilia, and the problem was getting worse."There are now animal brothels in Germany," Martin told the paper, and people were playing down the importance of the act by describing it as a "lifestyle".
Luckily Germany's animal protection laws, dating from 1969, are due to be reformed soon. Let's hope the German government sees sense and outlaws animal brothels, finally.
Bestiality brothels spur call for animal sex ban
http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120203-40531.html
Published: 3 Feb 12 16:54 CET
Animal sex abuse is on the rise in Germany, with bestiality brothels being set up across the country, according to a state animal protection officer demanding stronger laws to protect mankind's furry and feathered friends.
Madeleine Martin, the animal protection official for Hessian state government, said the law needed to be changed to make sex abuse of animals – known as zoophilia – a crime.
“It is punishable to distribute animal pornography, but the act itself is not,” she told the Frankfurter Rundschau daily paper on Friday.
“There are even animal brothels in Germany,” she said. Sex with animals was being increasingly seen as a lifestyle choice, and thus more acceptable.
“The abuse seems to be increasingly rapidly, and the internet offers an additional distribution platform,” she said.
She said the justice authorities had found it exceptionally difficult to convict a man from Hesse, who had offered pictures and instructions for animal sex abuse over the internet.
“Zoophilia must be completely banned in the reformed animal protection law,” said Martin, referring to the governments plan to rework that section of the law.
Sex with animals was banned until 1969, when the animal protection law was introduced, but failed to include a specific ban on zoophilia, the Frankfurter Rundschau said.
Martin said the current legal situation makes it too difficult for authorities to intervene – an animal has to be shown to have massive injuries before the animal protection laws prescribe action.
“It is punishable to distribute animal pornography, but the act itself is not,” she told the Frankfurter Rundschau daily paper on Friday.
“There are even animal brothels in Germany,” she said. Sex with animals was being increasingly seen as a lifestyle choice, and thus more acceptable.
“The abuse seems to be increasingly rapidly, and the internet offers an additional distribution platform,” she said.
She said the justice authorities had found it exceptionally difficult to convict a man from Hesse, who had offered pictures and instructions for animal sex abuse over the internet.
“Zoophilia must be completely banned in the reformed animal protection law,” said Martin, referring to the governments plan to rework that section of the law.
Sex with animals was banned until 1969, when the animal protection law was introduced, but failed to include a specific ban on zoophilia, the Frankfurter Rundschau said.
Martin said the current legal situation makes it too difficult for authorities to intervene – an animal has to be shown to have massive injuries before the animal protection laws prescribe action.
Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals: Claim unfair to be stigmatized for sexual orientation
Northern Colorado Gazette
newspaper
Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.
Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits. “Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now
beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.
B4U-Act calls pedophiles “minor-attracted people.” The organization’s website states its purpose is to, “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear.”
In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”
Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.
Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”
The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another – whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.”
Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.
Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”
He went on to say, “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”
When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied, “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”
Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quinsey said pedophiles’ sexual interests prefer children and, “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”
In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”
Linda Harvey, of Mission America, said the push for pedophiles to have equal rights will become more and more common as LGBT groups continue to assert themselves. “It’s all part of a plan to introduce sex to children at younger and younger ages; to convince them that normal friendship is actually a sexual attraction.”
Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.”
Diamond is a distinguished lecturer for the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco. The IASHS openly advocated for the repeal of the Revolutionary war ban on homosexuals serving in the military.
The IASHS lists, on its website, a list of “basic sexual rights” that includes “the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.” Another right is to, “be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior” and “the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire.” The organization also says that no one should be “disadvantaged because of age.”
Sex offender laws protecting children have been challenged in several states including California, Georgia and Iowa. Sex offenders claim the laws prohibiting them from living near schools or parks are unfair because it penalizes them for life.
Naturist fights for right to remain naked in landmark challenge to nudity laws
| 12/01/11| Last Updated: 12/01/12 9:40 AM ET
On Thursday, he finds out if that was so wrong.
Police in Bracebridge, Ont., north of Toronto, criminally charged Mr. Coldin with three counts of being nude in a public place and two counts of being nude while in view of the public while on private property after his unencumbered errands in 2008 and 2009.
The businessman and avowed naturist has used his court fight against the charges to challenge the constitutionality of Canada’s nudity laws, putting the legal imperative to cover the genitals as much on trial as Mr. Coldin’s actions.
When Justice Jon-Jo Douglas convenes court in Bracebridge Thursday, he is expected to render a decision not only on Mr. Coldin’s guilt, but on the state’s ability to restrict nudity.
The potentially landmark decision brings attention to the town, 180 kilometres north of Toronto with a population of 16,000, for something other than its waterfalls and Santa’s Village theme park at a time when it’s embarking on a rebranding process.
“Mr. Coldin is a naturist. As a naturist, he believes that being nude in nature fosters greater respect for self, for others and for the environment. He expresses his naturist beliefs by wearing as little clothing as is practical,” Mr. Coldin’s lawyers, Nader Hasan and Clayton Ruby, argued in court last summer.
By charging Mr. Coldin when there was no evidence of a sexual or prurient motive or of actual harm, the state infringed on his Charter rights ensuring freedom of expression and liberty, his lawyers argued.
Crown prosecutor Zachary Green, balked at the notion.
“The Charter does not confer a right to public nudity,” he told court.
Section 174 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits public nudity, protects citizens from those “whose state of undress is such that it interferes with other people’s use and enjoyment of public places,” Mr. Green countered.
While the constitutional arguments draw from case law, legal analysis and expert testimony, court also heard from people who saw Mr. Coldin on his travels.
Eight witnesses described the encounter as creating fear, embarrassment or a reluctance to return to where they saw him.
On May 8, 2009, it was Amanda Fernick’s first day on the job working the window of a Tim Hortons drive-through in Bracebridge. She told court she leaned out to provide Mr. Coldin change and saw he was not wearing a shirt or pants and his genitals were visible.
It rattled her and she walked away from the job.
Four days later, Mr. Coldin was a passenger in a car with two other men, all naked, that pulled up to an A&W drive-through window. The clerk there, Jessica Cramer-Swift, was similarly startled. There was joking inside the car, as the men pretended to look for a wallet in their non-existent pockets, court heard.
Police were called. Mr. Coldin, who owns a nearby clothing-optional resort, and the driver, John Cropper of Orillia, were both charged with public nudity. (Mr. Cropper’s charge will also be dealt with Thursday.)
In 1978, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that “‘nude’ does not mean ‘shockingly bare,’ or ‘offensively bare,’ it simply means ‘completely bare,’ without reference to public decency or order.”
It is an important point. Court heard that Mr. Coldin was wearing at least sandals during each encounter.
“If the accused wears some small article of clothing, yet leaves the private areas exposed, he is not completely bare within the meaning of the statute and is not guilty,” Mr. Hasan argued.
Whether someone’s lack of clothing was offensive to public order used to be decided by a “community standards of tolerance” test, whereby residents of some communities may be more relaxed about such things than others. This was scrapped as being too subjective and now a harm-based test is used.
The Supreme Court outlined that merely being an eyesore or eliciting disapproval is not enough. None of the witnesses, Mr. Coldin’s lawyer elicited in cross-examination, sought counselling or required assistance.
Justice Douglas reserved his decision after hearing arguments in the summer. With 5 to 10 centimetres of snow forecast for the area Thursday, any decision is unlikely to have an immediate impact.