Monaghan's Law introduced

Monaghan’s law is like Monaghan’s love: hard and fast.

The EM is just sublime. Reads like a how to guide for Monaghaning.

Selected highlights.

Section 28 of the ACT’s Human Rights Act 2004 (‘HR Act’) states that human rights may be subject to reasonable limits set by the laws of the ACT, where the laws can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
The Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 amendments do not substantially interfere with the human rights located in the HR Act. The amendment which gives rise to consideration of human rights issues is the re-introduction of the bestiality offence at section 63A of the Crimes Act 1900.
It is noted that the preamble to the HR Act, at 6, states that few rights are absolute. [b]Whilst the re-introduction of the bestiality offence may raise some concerns over the interference with the section 12 right to privacy, the limitation on the right to privacy is proportionate to achieving the policy objective of preventing animals from being subjected to abuse in the form of non-consensual sexual acts. The criminalising of bestiality is consistent with the criminalising of non-consensual act generally. [/b] The reintroduction of the offence is the least restrictive and appropriate interference with this right, as required by section 28 of the HR Act.

“But your Honour, Rover was begging for it!”

More here: http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/es/db_40345/current/pdf/db_40345.pdf

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Given that the spiritual godfather of many in the Greens, Peter Singer, has publicly espoused the view that certain interspecies liaisons are ethically acceptable (namely *how do I put this with out getting modded* a dog performing a Monaghanesque act on a woman), will the Greens oppose the bill?

Monaghan’s Law will:

1) breach my human (and animal) rights;
2) affect the growing beastiality tourism industry in the ACT, leaving many dog fanciers out of work; and
3) be a retroragrade step; when considering some animals’ “needs” (according to Peter Singer)

We live in a democracy people.

If you support beastiality, NOW is the time to write to you local MLA.

Should of happened earlier… Make me sick that someone would do this..

Why only just now?

No doubt Canberra’s dogs will be celebrating. Except the gay dogs. They’re probably sad.

Again with the marriage thing…

No doubt Canberra’s dogs will be celebrating. Except the gay dogs. They’re probably sad.

ainsliebraddon said :

The question is why was this law repealed in 1985 in the first place?!

I would like to think it was just some sloppy legislative drafting, and not some deliberate pro dog rooter thing.

Given that the spiritual godfather of many in the Greens, Peter Singer, has publicly espoused the view that certain interspecies liaisons are ethically acceptable (namely *how do I put this with out getting modded* a dog performing a Monaghanesque act on a woman), will the Greens oppose the bill?

Finally Canberra’s boxer-samoyed crosses can sleep more soundly than its defenceless housewives can. Thanks, Simon.