this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2025
36 points (89.1% liked)

Canada

10753 readers
608 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
36
Bill-C16, the Protecting Victims Act, appears, to me, to potentially, at least in part, criminalize furry porn (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

From the bill ^[1]^:

[…] It amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, […] (g) criminalize the distribution of visual representations of bestiality; […] ^[1.3]^

(3.‍1) Every person commits an offence who knowingly publishes, distributes, transmits, sells, makes available or advertises any visual representation that is or is likely to be mistaken for a photographic, film, video or other visual recording of a person committing bestiality. ^[1.1]^

(3.‍4) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (3.‍1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. ^[1.2]^

For context, from the Criminal Code:

(7) In this section, bestiality means any contact, for a sexual purpose, with an animal. ^[3]^

The Department of Justice's rationale is that it is "online sextortion" ^[2]^, and that it is known to be used to manipulate children for sexual purposes ^[2]^.

References

  1. Type: Document. Title: "Protecting Victims Act". Publisher: "Parliament of Canada". Published: 2025-12-09. Accessed: 2025-12-09T22:48Z. URI: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-16/first-reading.
    1. Type: Text. Location: §"Criminal Code">§"Amendments to the Act">§"Representation of bestiality"
    2. Type: Text. Location: §"Criminal Code">§"Amendments to the Act">§"Punishment — representation of bestiality"
    3. Type: Text. Location: §"Summary">§"(g)"
  2. Type: Article. Title: "Canada overhauls Criminal Code to protect victims and keep kids safe from predators". Publisher: "Department of Justice Canada". Published: 2025-12-09. Accessed: 2025-12-09T22:46Z. URI: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2025/12/canada-overhauls-criminal-code-to-protect-victims-and-keep-kids-safe-from-predators.html.
    • Type: Text. Location: §"Keep our kids safe from predators">§"Crack down on online sextortion".

      […] This legislation proposes stronger measures to address online sexploitation and child luring, including by criminalizing threatening to distribute child sexual abuse and exploitation material and distributing bestiality depictions, which are known to be used to manipulate children for sexual purposes. […]

  3. Type: Document (PDF). Title: "Criminal Code". Publisher: "Government of Canada". Published: 2025-11-20. Accessed: 2025-12-09T22:44Z. URI: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-46.pdf.
    • Type: Text. Location: §160>§7 ("Definition of bestiality")
top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago

So that time I dressed up as a hyper realistic horse and had my wife fuck my ass while I was on all fours is now a crime... What kinda country is this becoming!

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 20 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

I don't see how any reading of this would criminalize furry porn.

  1. It says "likely to be mistaken for a photographic" media. This immediately rules out all forms of hand drawn and CG furry art from being covered by this law. It has to be a photo, video (or some AI generated facsimile).

  2. The media has to involve - or realistically appear to involve (to the point that a reasonable person would be fooled) - sexual contact with an animal. Not "cartoon rabbit." Not "person in a fursuit." Animal.

Those two points alone rule out any kind of furry porn from being affected by this.

[–] rozodru@pie.andmc.ca 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

yeah it wouldn't. Plus Beastiality is sex between a human and an animal. Furry porn is like Disney mascots yiffing each other. and it's all cartoonish.

I highly doubt someone at the RCMP is going to sit down and watch a dude dressed up like a purple doberman pounding town on a dude dressed up like a dragon and thinking "That dog is fucking a lizard!" then again maybe they do watch it, who am I to kink shame.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Besides, who actually fucks in a full fursuit? That shit is crazy expensive.

[–] HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago

Oh sweet summer child.

[–] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Murrsuits are a thing, made specifically for that purpose.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I'm aware. My comment was a joke, but to be serious about it, murrsuit sex / porn is exceedingly niche, in no small part because, yeah, that shit is really fucking expensive. And, consequently, really expensive fucking.

Even within the furry community as a whole, only 10% report it being a sexual kink. And cartoon furry porn vastly outweighs photographic (There is some venn diagram split here, granted, since some people who don't identify as furries still enjoy furry porn, but it's not exactly a huge one). So, yes, you are technically correct, it does exist, but we're talking about a subset of a subset of a subset.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

[…] The media has to involve - or realistically appear to involve (to the point that a reasonable person would be fooled) - sexual contact with an animal. Not “cartoon rabbit.” Not “person in a fursuit.” Animal. […]

Couldn't there conceivably be some ambiguous grey area with this interpretation? How close to looking like an animal can an anthropomorphic animal get before it is captured?

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The only ambiguity is that stated directly in the text; "is or is likely to be mistaken for".

And again, the thing it has to be likely to be mistaken for is a film or photograph of a person performing a sex act on an animal. Not "something like an animal." Not "something with animal features." Animal. One word. Period.

That means if you showed the image to an average person on the street they would be likely to believe it was an actual photo or video of someone doing actual sex acts to an actual flesh and blood animal. All of those conditions are clearly spelled out in the text of the law. It's really not vague at all.

The only reason they even put the "is likely to be mistaken" for part is because we're now at the point where AI can generate photographic images that aren't actually real photographs.

And if someone is out there painting photo realistic art so good that no one can tell its not real, and they're using that to recreate believable depictions of bestiality, well, yeah, the law is meant to criminalize that too. If it would fool the average person into thinking its a real animal, yes, that counts. But the average person isn't going to look at Judy Hopps and think "Oh my God, that's a real actual bunny rabbit", so I'm really not clear on what it is you're worried about here.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

[…] It says “likely to be mistaken for a photographic” media. This immediately rules out all forms of hand drawn and CG furry art from being covered by this law. It has to be a photo, video (or some AI generated facsimile). […]

Are you interpreting "photographic" to mean "photorealistic"?

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

No, I'm interpreting "photographic" to mean "photographic." There's no interpretation needed, the word has a specific meaning that is entirely valid in this context. The question is, why are you trying to interpret "photographic" as meaning anything else?

[–] SGforce@lemmy.ca 13 points 4 days ago (2 children)

visual recording of a person

It would say "any person" but the context is clear it's talking about the victim. We do "spirit of the law" here anyway and not "letter of the law" so if someone were convicted under this law for furry stuff it would go straight to appeal.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

[…] We do “spirit of the law” here anyway and not “letter of the law” so if someone were convicted under this law for furry stuff it would go straight to appeal.

In this case, out of curiosity, how would "the spirit of the law" be determined?

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

Courts decide. They look at broader context, eg the overall framing and intent of the bill. There's debate and argument, and where necessary there are appeals until it goes to the supreme court. In this case, they're not just going to look at a specific paragraph but the whole text of the law and what it's stated intent is.

[–] Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 days ago

Also you'd have to say imaginary creatures are the same as animals and furries are into beastiality.

Which I know is a fun meme, but legally, it's not even close.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Banning furry porn would destroy a massive section of internet artwork. Furry artists, for all their flaws, can be some of the most creative people out there.

[–] Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

From what i understand the furries basically prop up all modern tech. There's a reason that community gets left alone. 🤷‍♀️

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

It's less "prop up" and more "are". Also most research science. If you like vaccines, thank a furry.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

[…] Furry artists, for all their flaws, […]

What flaws are you referring to?

[–] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago

You naive summer child...

[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 9 points 4 days ago (2 children)

It specifically says bestiality involves an "animal" not "a depiction of an animal". So unless you're saying furries are actually doing things with real animals, I think you're putting too much weight on the "visual representation" part of the wording.

The Department of Justice's rationale is that it is "online sextortion" [2], and that it is known to be used to manipulate children for sexual purposes

None of what you quoted from the bill says that. Where are you getting this from?

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 days ago

It specifically says bestiality involves an “animal” not “a depiction of an animal”. […]

I think that's a good point.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The Department of Justice’s rationale is that it is “online sextortion” [2], and that it is known to be used to manipulate children for sexual purposes

None of what you quoted from the bill says that. Where are you getting this from?

The relevant citations are in the very text that you quoted — you can follow them in my references section at the bottom of the post 🙂

[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Ah got it. I didn't see the references section as it was collapsed.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

For clarity, the relevant reference is this one:

  • Type: Article. Title: "Canada overhauls Criminal Code to protect victims and keep kids safe from predators". Publisher: "Department of Justice Canada". Published: 2025-12-09. Accessed: 2025-12-09T22:46Z. URI: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2025/12/canada-overhauls-criminal-code-to-protect-victims-and-keep-kids-safe-from-predators.html.
    • Type: Text. Location: §"Keep our kids safe from predators">§"Crack down on online sextortion".

      […] This legislation proposes stronger measures to address online sexploitation and child luring, including by criminalizing threatening to distribute child sexual abuse and exploitation material and distributing bestiality depictions, which are known to be used to manipulate children for sexual purposes. […]

[–] Mpatch@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Two animals fucking is not beastiality. A person fucking an animal is. You fucking fury fucks are fine to fuck.

[–] jaselle@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

In this section, bestiality means any contact, for a sexual purpose, with an animal.

You are wrong.

Edit:

of a person committing bestiality.

You are right.

[–] Mpatch@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

How so ? So they gona ban all the nature shows too? Damn i really enjoyed watching salmon dump loads of jizz all over a bunch of orange beads. Like read and read, and that line until you posted until you can comprehend.

What? They gonna start locking up dog breaders and cattle ranchers? Fuck might as well lock up all the people employed at the toronto zoo.

[–] Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Two animals fucking is not beastiality. A person fucking an animal is.

For clarity, that is why my title specifies "in part" 🙂.