Goat Sex
February 28th, 2008 at 10:38 am by David FarrarOh dear oh dear. The Press reports on a North Canterbury man who has pleaded guilty to having sex with a goat. His rationale?
Well he said that “animals can’t talk” so he thought he would not get caught.
The defence lawyer discriminates against goats also by pleading for name suppression to continue as his client only rapes goats instead of humans.
But one thing missing in the article, is details of how the man did get caught? Did the goat dob him in after all?
Related posts:
- What is in the water in Nelson
- Why we need a register of name supression orders
- A punishment fitting the crime
- Aus Liberals have no sense of humour
February 28th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Interesting DPF. Can you rape a goat? How do you know the goat didn’t want it? I thought the proper legal term was bestiality, which didn’t presume whether or not the goat liked it, but still thought it was an improper thing to be doing.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 10:49 am
There was a famous case on Mt Hobson, Remuera, Auckland, in the 1990s, where a man was caught having sex with one of the many cows that are grazed on its slopes. His girlfriend, who was charged with aiding him, was using a video camera to tape proceedings.
And then there was the man charged with having sex with numerous horses at Trentham racecourse.
I have never understood how the culprits were able to get the cow or the horses to stay still.
I also wonder what the criminal offence is here. Is it a cruelty to animal charge? And if so who decides if the animal was harmed in any way? Or is it illegal to have sex with an animal in this land of sheep-shaggers still? Is bestiality still on the statute books?
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Ah victimless crime – if the goat wasn’t subjected to cruelty, then it shouldn’t be anyone else’s business.
That’ll provoke a fun response
some poor bugger gets done for this about once a year in NZ, and it really shouldn’t be the business of the criminal law, unless it is a property rights matter or cruelty (which can’t be assumed).
http://libertyscott.blogspot.com/2006/12/bestiality-oopss.html
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 10:58 am
To answer my own question, I looked up the Crimes Act and it is a “yes.”
Contents › Part 7 Crimes against religion, morality, and public welfare
143 Bestiality(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who commits bestiality.
(2) This offence is complete upon penetration.
To this I can only say “good god.”
To which I must add that I was astonished to see this act also still contain the offence of “blasphemous libel.” I thought that claims it did were an urban legend.
123 Blasphemous libel(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year who publishes any blasphemous libel.
(2) Whether any particular published matter is or is not a blasphemous libel is a question of fact.
(3) It is not an offence against this section to express in good faith and in decent language, or to attempt to establish by arguments used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever on any religious subject.
(4) No one shall be prosecuted for an offence against this section without the leave of the Attorney-General, who before giving leave may make such inquiries as he thinks fit.
I’d love to see a test case of that go to court
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 11:07 am
It’s interesting that there’s no mention of what sort of considerations the Attorney General is supposed to weight in 4). I’m going to be charitable and assume that the act that establishes the office of the Attorney General has some general guidance.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 11:12 am
No Right Turn has been blogging on this fairly archaic law for a few years now…
So would the Catholics!
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 11:18 am
No Right Turn has been blogging on this fairly archaic law for a few years now…
Yes but as I said, I thought it was an urban myth
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Or crouch down, for that matter.
So that hippy who got busted some years ago for jerking off a dolphin should have been acquitted?
Seriously, I don’t think the laws against bestiality are ‘on account of the animal’, except in the case of small animals like chickens. It’s ‘on account of humans’ who might be disturbed by the behaviour.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 11:21 am
pushmepullu – no it doesn’t. There are a number of offence for which A-G (or S-G) approval is required.
There is some guidance in the Crown Law prosecution guidelines, but not a lot. They do take account of things like free speech. After C4 aired the “”Bloody Mary” episode of South Park some Catholic group hired Greg King to take a private prosecution against C4, however the Solicitor-General (who stands in for the Attorney-General on all such matters) declined consent to prosecute.
Poneke – do you want to be the MP who proposes that amendment? There’s a similar thing in the censorship legislation – the following is automatically banned:
a, b, c, e, and f are at least criminal, so banning publications promoting or supporting them seems justifiable. (d), however, isn’t criminal, and while it’s disgusting, it’s hardly up there paedophilia. But I don’t see someone emerging to push its repeal…
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 11:26 am
This guy obviously lives next door to the Ohoka cow poker.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Yes, (d) is disgusting, but if it’s legal to do it, why is it illegal to feature it in all those porn DVDs that pass (mostly intact) through Bill Hastings’ office?
The day is yet to arrive though that any MP would dare to present a repeal bill. Imagine what would be said about their private lives
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Yes, the poor scatophiles just don’t have a voice.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 11:39 am
If I ever did this (and it’s not going to happen) BUT if I did…. I’d just claim the goat was asking for it by constantly calling my name… burrrrt burrrrt burrrt…
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 11:46 am
The heart-achingly tragic thing is that there are people out there who actually do, do this kind of thing. They are so dysfunctional as human beings they need to commit animal rape as a way of sexual gratification.
These people need to spend serious time in a psychiatrists office.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Whoever said censorship laws were supposed to make sense? It’s not legal to murder people but I see it every night on TV.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Ben – the censor doesn’t deal with TV
And you can see beastiality or torture etc. on TV (or in films etc.) as well. You just can’t see things that promote these things. I suspect if you came across something that encouraged murdering people it would get banned too.
Poneke – I understand it was made illegal as a sop to Graeme Lee (later of the Christian Democrats).
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
The crime here is that they don’t catch more of them at it.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Bet you it’s a current or former Labour cabinet minister
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
“Ah victimless crime – if the goat wasn’t subjected to cruelty, then it shouldn’t be anyone else’s business.”
What an insane thing to say. If we can’t assume that an animal would not voluntarily submit to being raped by a human being then what can we assume? Forced sex is cruelty – regardless of whether the victim is human or animal. As the animal has no way to show consent then surely it should be against the law. And the perpetrator should be locked up.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Google ads are fascinating for this one
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Export the goat to Saudi Arabia.
They’ll love it (only been screwed once)
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Can we please confirm if the goat prefers Cialis or Viagra?
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
the goat?
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Labour are Scum Helen couldsen it to Osama bin Laden as a peace offering from the Socialist Republic
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“Terraweena Boer Goat Stud”
classic.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
All right Edgy, you got me on a technicality again.
I can’t really see the big distinction about ‘encouraging’ though. Unless they say “A message from the director: You should try this”, it’s pretty much the same as any depiction. You could depict a goat rape in a negative light with all sorts of bad moral overtones, and some people would still get off on it. Except you aren’t allowed, because some people might not know bestiality is wrong. And you could depict a gruesome murder which was ‘righteous’. I’ve seen hundreds of movies which do that, where the murdered is a bad person so it’s OK after all. And that’s allowed, because we all know murder is really wrong.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I`ve just been reading my kids “Green Eggs and Ham”.
“I would not, could not, on a boat
Vote:I would not, could not, with a goat.”
February 28th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
You think ‘Eating Green Eggs and Ham’ is a sexual metaphor? The mind boggles about what the green eggs could be.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Perhaps not – but there is one.
Actually, I suspect you would be allowed. One of the other automatic ban ones was:
Rape etc. is shown with some frequency in films. It is allowed (though will likely push something toward R18). Perhaps some people, as you say, still get off on it – it doesn’t stop it from being in cinemas.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
The man responsible is one Alberforth Dumbledore.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Has it not been tested?
Yeah, I guess so. Leave it to the censor, and there’s your distinction right there.
I’m just following up on the comment that censorship doesn’t have to make sense in a general sense. It’s interpreted by humans who have to interpret material in ways that are not indisputable. A film like Kill Bill Volume 1, for instance, depicts graphical murder on a huge scale, indeed it’s about very little else. And it clearly glorifies it. But it’s OK because the murdered are all gangsters who had wronged the main character 4 years earlier. The rape scene (a much lesser crime than mass murder) is carefully tiptoed around – the actual rape is only described in disgusting detail by some gloating unsavory characters, and when it is attempted both the rapists are killed by their intended victim.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Why a Goat? Stupid man. Sheep not attractive anymore? Just wanted something different huh?
Dave.
I`ve just been reading my kids “Green Eggs and Ham”.
“I would not, could not, on a boat
I would not, could not, with a goat.”
Children’s poems are full of double meanings.
Vote:Captain Pugwash and Seaman Stains?
February 28th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Ben Wilson said:
I always thought Fox On Socks was though:
Fox
Vote:Socks
Box
Knox
Knox in box.
Fox in socks.
Knox on fox in socks in box.
Sox on Knox and Knox in box.
Fox in socks on box on Knox.
Chicks with bricks come. Chicks with blocks come. Chicks with bricks and blocks and clocks come.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Another thing we’re not told is whether the man was the “pitcher” or the “catcher”…
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Poneke thought that blasphemous libel was an urban legend- I thought that bestiality was a rural legend!
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Well, since this is a humour slot, I recall a joke on this topic:
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Steve, there was actually no character Seaman Stains in Captain Pugwash. Nor were there characters Master Bates or Roger the Cabin Boy. The Cabin Boy’s name was actually Tom.
But the Magic Roundabout is a bit more dubious, with characters Muffin the Mule and Dobbin the Horse.
Vote:February 28th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
ginga-bearded tree-hugger,
Vote:Thanks for clearing that up.
Master Bates? who, where, when?
Roger, well everyone does, who would have knome
February 29th, 2008 at 1:13 am
“What an insane thing to say. If we can’t assume that an animal would not voluntarily submit to being raped by a human being then what can we assume? Forced sex is cruelty – regardless of whether the victim is human or animal. As the animal has no way to show consent then surely it should be against the law. And the perpetrator should be locked up.”
Hopefully you’re a vegan radar and fighting to get most farmers locked up. Hopefully you’re also concerned about all the animals showing consent for having their milk taken, eggs removed, then slaughtered. Yes bestiality crimes are the true harm against animals.
I think you can assume that animals that let some lonely bugger fuck them, as opposed to biting, kicking and the like, consent – like animals consent to being examined and touched generally, or having someone saddle and ride them. There are also umpteen cases of women letting dogs voluntarily fuck them, hardly cruel.
So Radar either fight for animal liberation or stop criminalising people who at the most need a counsellor, and haven’t harmed anyone. Bestiality is a quaint anachronistic “crime”, that should be repealed in favour of the Dutch/Scandinavian approach – if you aren’t subjecting an animal to cruelty, it is nobody else’s business what you do with it unless that somebody else is the owner!
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 8:46 am
I hope he did not give the goat a cigarette after the act was over. That would be an even more heinous crime than the bestiality in these enlightened times.
Vote: