• Suddenly unable to log into your ZooVille account? This might be the reason why: CLICK HERE!

In the US, we'll have to fight it in the courts

Bruh, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
It's not going to happen by itself, either. It took a considerable amount of labor and passion to build up the social momentum that even led to Lambda Legal having a chance after it opened its doors. They couldn't have attracted big ticket political leaders and reverends in the 1940's. In the 1940's. The turf-building campaign was a massive one, and it took more than a generation.

Any group of people can do it, but I am pretty sure that the process is ultimately going to be the same.
 
If another zoo court case does happen (challenging an anti-zoo law, of which there are many), I don't want it to end the way Warren v. Virginia ended (the judges in Warren v. Virginia gave stupid bullshit reasons to keep Virginia's unjust anti-zoo law on the books). Somehow, zoos have to figure out a way to counteract the kind of anti-zoo propaganda that was used in Warren v. Virginia.
 
The only activist organization I know is ZETA germany and as far as i could tell, they did have some success in fighting to keep zoophilia legal there. As the anti-zoo law there was overturned by constitutional court.

Incorrect, the 2013 besitiality ban wasn't overturned. It is prohibited to use an animal for their own sexual acts or to train or make available for the sexual acts of third parties and thereby force them to behave in a manner contrary to the species.

The only challenge came in 2016 and the case was thrown out.
 
The case was thrown out, (The constitutional complaint is not admitted for decision) thus it didn't overturn the 2013 law. Which clearly states, "It is prohibited to use an animal for their own sexual acts or to train or make available for the sexual acts of third parties and thereby force them to behave in a manner contrary to the species.

Maybe you should read this.

 
Last edited:
The case was thrown out, (The constitutional complaint is not admitted for decision) thus it didn't overturn the 2013 law. Which clearly states, "It is prohibited to use an animal for their own sexual acts or to train or make available for the sexual acts of third parties and thereby force them to behave in a manner contrary to the species.

Maybe you should read this.

Out of context. Try again.

It is within the - basically broad - scope for assessment and assessment by the legislature to include protection against forced sexual assaults for the well-being of animals and their species-appropriate husbandry.

The regulation made by the legislator is otherwise proportionate. In particular, the severity of the intervention is not out of proportion to the desired success. Section 3 sentence 1 no. 13 TierSchG intervenes in the complainants' sexual self-determination. However, the offense only applies if the animal is forced to behave in a manner contrary to the species. In addition, the legislature does not make use of criminal law here, but instead designs the norm as a mere administrative offense, the pursuit and punishment of which is based on the principle of opportunity (see Section 47 (1) sentence 1 of the Administrative Offenses Act) and is therefore at the discretion of the prosecuting authority.
 
What part of the phrase, "Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the offense of sexual acts with animals" don't you understand. The 2013 law was not overturned as you claimed.
 
LOL

MAINZ, Germany — A legal bid to overturn a law banning sex with animals was thrown out by Germany's constitutional court on Thursday. The case was launched by a man and woman who "feel sexually attracted to animals," officials said.

However, the court ruled that the bestiality ban did not violate the individuals’ "right to sexual self-determination." "The protection of the well-being of animals by guarding from unnatural sexual assaults is a legitimate goal,” the court said in its statement explaining the ruling. Judges found the law, which outlaws sexual acts with animals or making them available to others for that purpose, was "proportionate." Offenders face fines of up to 25,000 euros ($27,000).
 
Last edited:
Why do you, @silkythighs, put so much passion into spreading that consensual bestiality would be illegal in Germany, when you—as you said yourself in a different thread—do not really understand the German legal system and apparently don't speak the language and can't read what the constitutional court wrote. Why do you think you know better than people who understand the legal system and can read what the constitutional court wrote in its decision? I've also explained to you why you will find misleading newspaper articles—it only needs a single overhasty news agency for that. I'd totally accept, if you said better safe than sorry and hence refrained from sex with animals on a stay in Germany yourself when you are in doubt. Please stop spreading false information though.
 
May 7, 2016 Constitutional Court - Decisions - Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the infringements on the regulations regarding sexual acts with animals.

The constitutional complaint will not be accepted for a decision.

Besides you @Talio claimed in another thread the case, "was challenged due to the ambiguity of the wording, it could be interpreted to prohibit all kinds of sex with an animal." But the 2013 law made that perfectly clear, "It is prohibited, to use an animal for their own sexual acts or to train or make available for the sexual acts of third parties and thereby force them to behave in a manner contrary to the species."

But regardless, it wasn't challenged due to ambiguous wording of the word force. The complain is shown below.

The constitutional complaint is directed against July 13, 2013's § 3 clause 1 Nr. 13 AWA (BGBI I p. 2182), which prohibits using any animal for one's own sexual acts as well as providing any animal for sexual acts of third parties and thus coercing them into species-inappropriate behavior. Violations are fined per § 18 paragraph 1 Nr. 1 paragraph 4 of the APL with up to €25,000.

I hope you understand that with the 2013 ban, the legislature is asserting that just by having sex with an animal, you are in effect, "coercing them into species-inappropriate behavior, thus forcing them to behave in a manner contrary to the species.

The 2013 law still stands, as written and passed by parliament.
 
Last edited:
So we have an apparently well enough educated citizen of Germany that grew up in the German school system and has a nuanced understanding of German law that is absolutely certain that the German court ruling, in actual practice, legalizes animal sex. It would seem to me that that person's opinion ought to cary some degree of weight, so I am going to run a possible clarification by that person.

My understanding of the court case--correct me if I am wrong, @Tailo--is that what makes the court case important is not the fact that the case was thrown out but the argument that was used for throwing the case out, which apparently carries weight under German law.

I am guessing that the court would have been taking a gamble by taking the case at all, and the only thing they would have gained from that gamble would have been to harass some weirdos that have fallen in love with the pooch but, as far as anyone can tell, have no intention of bothering anybody else or bringing the country any particular negative publicity. On the other hand, if they had lost that gamble, then it would have hampered the state's ability to crack down on actual bad behavior.

By effectively saying, "This has nothing to do with you weirdos, so please leave us alone," the court was making way for the government to prosecute genuinely destructive behavior by sort of putting a protective legal fence around people that have described a very specific situation, thereby rendering their argument for challenging the law null and void while also protecting them from prosecution, AS LONG as their actual behavior, in the privacy of their own homes, fit within the VERY SPECIFIC parameters described to the court.

It was just the most efficient way to save the court a lot of legal complications when the legislators that had authored the law had clearly had bigger fish to fry (psychopaths that would tie up and rape an animal, for instance) when they created the law. It wasn't worth compromising that just to create misery for a harmless fruitcake that clearly just believed that his animal was in love with him.

It was just a tidy way for the court to save a lot of time and money that would have otherwise been squandered on effectively tilting at windmills, but the court handily avoided seeming to approve of the behavior by basically saying a legal equivalent of, "shoo, fly, don't bother me." Essentially, it's easier to shoo a fly out the window with a broom, which takes seconds, than waste valuable time trying to swat it when you really don't have to and just might do more damage to the kitchen than you do to the fly.

Is that basically how the system works, @Tailo?
 
Last edited:
I am guessing that the court would have been taking a gamble by taking the case at all,

Any German citizen can submit a constitutional complaint. "A constitutional complaint may be lodged by any natural or legal person stating that their fundamental rights (cf. Art. 1 to Art. 19 of the Basic Law) or certain rights that are equivalent to fundamental rights (Art. 20 (4), Art. 33, Art. 38, Art. 101, Art. 103, Art. 104 of the Basic Law) have been violated by German public authority.

In this case, "The constitutional complaint is not admitted for decision" "The admissible constitutional complaint is unfounded."
 
@Tailo, I do know that the German legal system is based on civil law, rather than common law. I have a vague understanding of how common law works, but I know relatively little about civil law. In American courts, I know that nothing binding at all comes of a court refusing to hear a case.


I know that, in an American court, this decision by the court would have no weight at all, and it would be up to a future judge to decide on the case as if the challenge had never occurred at all. On the bright side, if a court refuses to hear a challenge, then it doesn't have any binding effect, and it takes a very strong legal case to even get a challenge into the court at all. It is actually kind of risky to get a case heard because if you lose, the precedent is binding, and it is a lot harder to get it heard again in the same court.
 
Last edited:
Getting back to discussion of U.S. courts, does anyone think zoos will ever be successful in challenging unjust bullshit anti-zoo laws?
 
Getting back to discussion of U.S. courts, does anyone think zoos will ever be successful in challenging unjust bullshit anti-zoo laws?
We would have to get an organization like Lambda Legal launched first, and even Lambda Legal had politically powerful supporters.

Ultimately, the social movement is going to have to come first, after all. If you look back on the history of the gay rights movement, then you will see that they spent generations building up a social and political presence.

What Fausty and Toggle and those surrounding them are doing, which is creating a strong outreach effort, is one of the most effective things that we can do.

Foremost, us zoos MUST learn how to be vocal about our zooiness outside of strictly zooey related social venues. Mixed social venues that are safe and welcoming for zoos are ultimately going to be the best thing for us.
 
I am not cynical, but it's going to be a long, long, long time before zoosexuality is accepted and assimilated into society.

Though frankly, I feel very blessed to have been born in this era...
 
Out of context. Try again.

It is within the - basically broad - scope for assessment and assessment by the legislature to include protection against forced sexual assaults for the well-being of animals and their species-appropriate husbandry.

The regulation made by the legislator is otherwise proportionate. In particular, the severity of the intervention is not out of proportion to the desired success. Section 3 sentence 1 no. 13 TierSchG intervenes in the complainants' sexual self-determination. However, the offense only applies if the animal is forced to behave in a manner contrary to the species. In addition, the legislature does not make use of criminal law here, but instead designs the norm as a mere administrative offense, the pursuit and punishment of which is based on the principle of opportunity (see Section 47 (1) sentence 1 of the Administrative Offenses Act) and is therefore at the discretion of the prosecuting authority.

The besitiality law reads, "Sexual acts with animals, which force them to behave in a manner contrary to the species

So the act of sex itself, is forcing the animal to behave in a manner contrary to the species. The term "thereby force" doesn't mean being "physically forced" (Raped) into the sex. The "sexual act", is what forces the animal into behavior contrary to the species.

"This applies in particular to the term sexual act, which is defined in § 184h StGB and has been specified in more detail by the case law (cf. BGH, judgment of May 22, 1996 - 5 StR 153/96 -, StV 1997, p. 524 <524>; judgment of February 6, 2002 - 1 StR 506/01 -, NStZ 2002, p. 431 <432>). The legislative materials (BRDrucks 300/1/12, p. 48; BTDrucks 17/10572, p. 61) do not indicate that the legislature wanted to use a different understanding of the term when introducing Section 3 Clause 1 No. 13 TierSchG. So again, "The sex act" IS what forces the animal into unnatural behavior.

"The offense only applies if the animal is forced to behave in a manner contrary to the species". "Forced to behave" Again the sex act itself, IS "the force"

So the claim the animal must be "physically forced" Thus "Raped" is simply wrong.

"In addition, the legislature does not make use of criminal law here, but instead designs the norm as a mere administrative offense"

In other words, sex with animals, under German law is a "misdemeanor offence"
 
Last edited:
"thereby force them to behave in a manner contrary to the species"

So the act of sex itself, is forcing the animal to behave in a manner contrary to the species. The term "thereby force" doesn't imply to being physically forced into the sex. The "sexual act", is what forces the animal into behavior contrary to the species.

"This applies in particular to the term sexual act, which is defined in § 184h StGB and has been specified in more detail by the case law (cf. BGH, judgment of May 22, 1996 - 5 StR 153/96 -, StV 1997, p. 524 <524>; judgment of February 6, 2002 - 1 StR 506/01 -, NStZ 2002, p. 431 <432>). The legislative materials (BRDrucks 300/1/12, p. 48; BTDrucks 17/10572, p. 61) do not indicate that the legislature wanted to use a different understanding of the term when introducing Section 3 Clause 1 No. 13 TierSchG. So again, "The sex act" IS what forces the animal into unnatural behavior.

"The offense only applies if the animal is forced to behave in a manner contrary to the species.

"is forced to behave in a manner contrary to the species"

To claim the animal must be "physically forced" Thus "Raped" is simply wrong.

"In addition, the legislature does not make use of criminal law here, but instead designs the norm as a mere administrative offense

In other words, sex with animals, under German law is a "misdemeanor offence"
1579976787431.png

Silkythighs is a well known anti-zoo
 
Getting back to discussion of U.S. courts, does anyone think zoos will ever be successful in challenging unjust bullshit anti-zoo laws?

No, not until society changes it's views. The laws are made by the people, if they felt sex with animals was fine, Zoo's and bestialists would have nothing to fear from the law. Some states and even countries only punish if the animal was forced (raped) into sex.

So a no harm, no foul, law is probably the best a zoo could hope for.

Another problem is that animals have NO rights under the constitution. So it doesn't matter if animals enjoy sex with humans. The anti zoo laws are prohibiting humans from having sex with animals, not the other way around. Which is why the animal "consented" is not considered a legal defense.

"Don't shoot the messenger, if you don't like the message"
 
Please, please, please with sugar on top. Show me a "credible news article or official statement, acknowledging that the German constitutional court overturned Germany's 2013 bestiaity ban in 2016 thus legalizing bestiality.
 
Reread the document plz.

I guess you haven't read or don't understand the Federal Constitutional Court's own press release? Here, I'll even put it in big bold letters for you.

Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the criminal offense of sexual acts with animals

 
No, not until society changes it's views. The laws are made by the people, if they felt sex with animals was fine, Zoo's and bestialists would have nothing to fear from the law. Some states and even countries only punish if the animal was forced (raped) into sex.

So a no harm, no foul, law is probably the best a zoo could hope for.

Another problem is that animals have NO rights under the constitution. So it doesn't matter if animals enjoy sex with humans. The anti zoo laws are prohibiting humans from having sex with animals, not the other way around. Which is why the animal "consented" is not considered a legal defense.

"Don't shoot the messenger, if you don't like the message"

But you're completely ignoring the fact that legal practices (such as slaughter, spaying/neutering, artificial insemination, etc.) do not involve the animal's "consent". So requiring "consent" from an animal only for this one activity (sex with an animal) is irrational.

Animals do have rights, they just aren't legally recognized by society yet.

Regarding society's views, something's legality / illegality should not be determined by "the mob" -- just because a majority of people dislike something doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal.
 
Animals do have rights, they just aren't legally recognized by society yet.

Then they don't have rights. One can claim or assert a "right". But until that claim is supported either by congress or the supreme court, the right doesn't, legally exist.

Women asserted their right to suffrage for over 80 years before suffrage was "granted" by an act of congress.

Read what Supreme court Justice Robert B Taney wrote in 1857 about black people

"All people of African descent, free or slave, were not United States citizens and therefore had no right to sue in federal court. In addition, he wrote that the Fifth Amendment protected slave owner rights because slaves were their legal property."

Africans were slaves, and simply property. It wasn't until 1868, that blacks were made full citizens, again by an act of congress.
 
Then they don't have rights. One can claim or assert a "right". But until that claim is supported either by congress or the supreme court, the right doesn't, legally exist.

Women asserted their right to suffrage for over 80 years before suffrage was "granted" by an act of congress.

Read what Supreme court Justice Robert B Taney wrote in 1857 about black people

"All people of African descent, free or slave, were not United States citizens and therefore had no right to sue in federal court. In addition, he wrote that the Fifth Amendment protected slave owner rights because slaves were their legal property."

Africans were slaves, and simply property. It wasn't until 1868, that blacks were made full citizens, again by an act of congress.

You're wrong -- non-human animals have inherent (albeit unrecognized) rights.

Women always had rights -- but they were not recognized until the 20th century -- before then, when women were asserting their rights, they acknowledged that their rights existed (even if said rights were not recognized by society).

Rights cannot be given or taken away by a government or legislature -- they exist independent of those governing bodies.
 
I guess you haven't read or don't understand the Federal Constitutional Court's own press release? Here, I'll even put it in big bold letters for you.

Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the criminal offense of sexual acts with animals

Nice but try again.

It is within the - basically broad - scope for assessment and assessment by the legislature to include protection against forced sexual assaults for the well-being of animals and their species-appropriate husbandry.

The regulation made by the legislator is otherwise proportionate. In particular, the severity of the intervention is not out of proportion to the desired success. Section 3 sentence 1 no. 13 TierSchG intervenes in the complainants' sexual self-determination. However, the offense only applies if the animal is forced to behave in a manner contrary to the species. In addition, the legislature does not make use of criminal law here, but instead designs the norm as a mere administrative offense, the pursuit and punishment of which is based on the principle of opportunity (see Section 47 (1) sentence 1 of the Administrative Offenses Act) and is therefore at the discretion of the prosecuting authority.


The reason it was "unsuccessful" and wikipedia with 3 other documents prove zoo is legal in germany was that the 2013 law was never against zoophilia. There was no need to make a constitutional case because the law was against the forced rape of animals.

That was the whole point. The 2013 law is against FORCED zoophilia, not against unforced zoophilia. Thats why they specifically put that wording in there "behaving contrary to the animals nature" because if you werent such a foaming at the mouth anti-zoo bigot, you could read that text means zoophilia according to the animals nature is perfectly legal.
 
I would point out that, in societies where women NEVER had a right to consent to sex or not to consent to sex, it was absolutely normal, proper, and expected for women to be forced into arranged marriages, and her husband was skillful or not skillful at figuring out how to make her obey his will. While there was such a thing as a concept of rape outside the context of a marriage, what happened when a woman became a wife was that she was socially and morally obligated to cooperate, whether she wanted to or not. If she made an undignified fuss over it, then this was contemptible.

Marriage often occurred when women were only 14 year old children or sometimes younger (assuming they started menstruating at 12, they were assumed to need a couple of years of instruction by their mothers, but if they started at 8, they could therefore be married as early as 10), so their minds were still profoundly impressionable. If they ever did resist when their husbands consummated their marriages, they eventually just felt guilty over that resistance because society told them that a disobedient wife was shameful and despicable. By the time they were mature adult women, they had never heard of any other way to exist, and the concept of "women's equality" would have sounded to them like a lot of nonsense, maybe even a Satanic plot. When change came, many women were quite frankly against it and fearful of it.

I am also not entirely confident that those societies were less moral than ours. Their way of life made quite a lot of practical sense from their point-of-view, especially directly prior to industrialization. The outsides of badly constructed hand-made homes were constantly falling apart, and it wasn't going to get any warmer. Men, even ones with less than stellar imagination and intelligence, were the ones stuck with going out in subzero temperatures to patch holes and redo thatching. Firewood had to be split BY HAND. Fields had to be plowed, and even if you had horses or mules or some oxen, holding the plow steady while it was being dragged forward was dangerous and difficult and physically demanding. If you did not have draft animals, you had to find a way to drag a more primitive scratch plow through the earth by hand, which probably involved you and a half-dozen other men lashing ropes to it and laboring to drag it through the permafrost and racing against the clock and the moon to get the field ready in time for the planting of the crops. If you did have animals, they started moving forward and pulling the plow exactly when you bullied them into doing so by beating them with a lash that would cut human flesh to ribbons. Would you have been a Nobel Prize-winning engineer in a different world? Good for you, big boy: take your genius brain, and do up the harness so that the horse pulls the plow straighter, thank you. This is what you had to do, in order to save your own life, during peace-time under the most ideal conditions conceivable.

Women were not available to do this sort of work because they had problems of their own going on inside. They had to keep watch over household inventory, manufacture candles, help with beekeeping so that there would be wax for the candles, manufacture soap, and use a mortar and pestle to mill their own grain because they did not live close enough to a mill or did not have enough family wealth to go and buy a bag of flour. While there were mills and other businesses that manufactured many of these products even during Medieval times, you still had to live near one and have sufficient wealth in order to buy them, which was not always your luck, and the miller got sick or got old and had to hand the mill over to a disinterested son that really wanted to be a farrier. If your husband was not a skilled artisan like a cobbler and therefore reasonably wealthy, then you did the work yourself by hand, and you liked it because it was that or lie down and croak, ma'am. That happened often enough, too! Women faded away and died from melancholia or came down with female hysteria. The ones that stayed sane were the ones that found something to do and kept doing it as long as they could, and nobody was even sure if they were really sane: people just needed the product and didn't dare look too closely at where it came from.

“It reminds me of that old joke- you know, a guy walks into a psychiatrist's office and says, hey doc, my brother's crazy! He thinks he's a chicken. Then the doc says, why don't you turn him in? Then the guy says, I would but I need the eggs. I guess that's how I feel about relationships. They're totally crazy, irrational, and absurd, but we keep going through it because we need the eggs.” -- Woody Allan.

In our privileged times, it is tempting to look scornfully upon people that lived differently, but I am not going to go that route. Those people had problems of their own.

Cultures change, and it is normal for cultures to change. This is the only constant. To regard things as absolute, fixed, and eternal usually causes more trouble and more complications than it is worth.

The roles of animals in our lives is changing. We are in the middle of a wave of animal rights legislation. It's going to get bigger. There is a positive side to this, including from the standpoints of zoos who are also animal-lovers because they are zoos, but we have been getting caught in the crossfire of warring ideologies.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top