The relationship between violence against people and animals is commonly known as the Violence Link. Evidence-based research shows that violence against animals and violence against people are not distinct and separate problems. Rather, they are part of a larger pattern of violent crimes that often co-exist. Cases of partner abuse, gang violence, youth crime, assault, homicide, sexual assault and child abuse also commonly include animal abuse.
The Canadian Violence Link Coalition (CVLC) was formed in 2018 as a result of issues brought forward at Humane Canada’s 2017 Canadian Violence Link Conference. The Coalition brings together professionals working to prevent and address violence against people and animals in more than 10 Canadian sectors and is committed to advancing awareness, education and training about the link between violence against humans and violence against animals. Its goal is to introduce violence prevention and intervention strategies across the country and to establish policies and practices that make our communities safer.
Members of the Coalition Coordinating Committee
Tracy Porteous – Executive Director, Ending Violence Association of BC
Marcie Moriarty – Chief Prevention and Enforcement Officer, BC SPCA
Dallas Mack – Ontario Crown Counsel
Carrolyn Johnston – Acting Executive Director, Ottawa Coalition to End Violence Against Women
Destiny Bedwell – Communications and Marketing Coordinator, Ontario 211 Service
Barbara Cartwright – Chief Executive Officer, Humane Canada (A/CEO Derek deLouche until Jan 2019)
Teena Stoddart – Sergeant, Ottawa Police Service
Dr. Andrew Sparling, DVM – Board Member, Ontario Veterinary Medical Association
Christine Hartig – Strategic Support Officer, By-law and Regulatory Services, City of Ottawa
Kaitlin Bardswich – Communications and Development Coordinator, Women’s Shelters Canada
Dayna Rose-Desmarais – President, SafePet Ottawa
Frances Wach – Executive Director, Saskatchewan SPCA
Melinda Mennie – Stakeholder Relations Officer, BC SPCA
Canadian Violence Link Coalition Projects Underway:
- Violence Link Training for police officers across the country
- An amendment to section 160 of the Criminal Code of Canada (bestiality)
- Amending ViCLAS book to add animal abuse questions
- Amending threat assessment questionnaires to add animal abuse questions
- The National Centre for the Prosecution of Animal Cruelty’s 2018 Crown prosecutor training
- Hosting the second-ever Canadian Violence Link Conference in 2019
- Judicial training on the Violence Link, spearheaded by The Honourable Justice Michael A. Kelen (retired)
- Animal abuse statistics recorded by Statistics Canada (police statistics)
Due to the 2016 Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v. D.L.W. a legislative gap has opened, effectively legalizing sexual abuse of animals that falls short of penetration. The status quo risks normalizing deviant sexual behavior, decreasing animal welfare in Canada and, ultimately, increasing the sexual exploitation of vulnerable members of society, including children.
The sexual abuse of animals and its relationship to criminal law can be viewed through several lenses. One is the effect of the offending behavior on the animal and on the moral fabric of society. Another is the relationship of sexual abuse of animals to the sexual exploitation of others, including children.
Generally speaking, criminal law focuses on safety and security, the protection of property and the maintenance of social order. Animal cruelty and bestiality provisions have existed in the Criminal Code in one form or another since 1892. Initially, bestiality was referred to in the Code as "buggery with an animal". In 1955, Canada’s criminal laws were amended to introduce the word "bestiality" into the English version of the Code, though the term was not explicitly defined anywhere in the text. The bestiality provisions of 1955 specified that sex with animals was a vice that was to be criminally sanctioned.
Further revisions were made to the Criminal Code in 1989, outlawing the forcing of children to commit or watch bestiality as measures of child protection. What did not change with the 1989 amendments was the continuing absence of an explicit definition of bestiality in the Criminal Code. Instead, the courts have had to rely on the common law definition of bestiality: "sexual activity with an animal that involves penetration".
Meanwhile, social norms as to the acceptability and morality of animal abuse and sexual exploitation have changed over time, to the point where any touching of an animal for a sexual purpose is clearly recognized as deviant behaviour. At the same time, society’s understanding of animal behavior, emotion and psychology has evolved; we now know that there are psychological aspects of neglect and abuse. With these developments, Canadian society is no longer served by using the common law definition of bestiality as "buggery with an animal".
In R v. D.L.W., the Supreme Court found that penetration between a human and an animal is the essence of the offense of bestiality. The Court further found the accused "not guilty" of bestiality because he had enticed his dog to sexually assault his stepdaughter while he filmed it, but there was no penetration involved.
Since this ruling, it has become clear that, under the Criminal Code as currently worded, penetration is an essential element of the offense of bestiality. As observed in the dissent by Madame Justice R. Abella, "since penetration is physically impossible with most animals and for half the human population, requiring it as an element of the offense eliminates from censure most sexually exploitative conduct with animals". But since the majority of the Court found that this was Parliament’s intent, moving beyond the common law definition of bestiality to include all sexually exploitative conduct with an animal - would be required to fix this legislative gap.
There have already been three cases since the R. v. D.L.W. decision in which child sexual abuse and animal sexual exploitation have been allegedly perpetrated by an accused. These recent events highlight the co-occurrence of the offences, demonstrate the link between animal sexual abuse and the sexual exploitation of children, and underscore the urgency of moving forward on this issue.
Parliament should remedy the legislative gap and clarify the issues described by the majority in R. v. D.L.W. by defining the term "bestiality" to mean any contact for a sexual purpose between a person and an animal.
In October 2018, using Humane Canada's recommended language, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-84, which would broaden the definition of bestiality and close this dangerous loophole. The law is currently at second reading before the House of Commons.