Bill-C16, the Protecting Victims Act, appears to potentially, at least in part, criminalize furry porn (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 15 hours ago by Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca

14 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

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)"
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. […]
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 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ArmchairAce1944@lemmy.ca 7 points 10 hours ago

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 1 points 23 minutes ago

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 10 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

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

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).
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 3 points 2 hours ago

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 1 points 1 hour ago

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

[-] Mpatch@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

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

[-] jaselle@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 hours ago

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

You are wrong.

[-] Mpatch@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour 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.

[-] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 8 points 13 hours ago

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 4 points 13 hours 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 0 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

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 2 points 8 hours ago

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

[-] SGforce@lemmy.ca 8 points 14 hours ago

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.