I think it does. I think the whole signal of this bill, and certainly the statements that have been made surrounding its enactment, go to the idea that....
It's twofold. I have focused on harm. It's interesting to note that in Switzerland and other jurisdictions that have dealt with bestiality, they've done it on the basis of animal dignity, essentially moving forward to suggest that animals are beings and we need to respect their physical and psychological integrity. As I referred to in my opening statements, we are sending the message that animals are vulnerable and that animals should not be exploited for sexual gratification. That was the message I sent to the Supreme Court when I spoke on D.L.W. Again, I should point out that I'm focusing more on the harm. I'll get back to that in just a second.
I would say that section 160, as the proposed amendment makes it, is also consistent with Parliament's treatment of sexual offences. That is an important statement to make as well. Parliament's treatment of sexual offences has been very clear: Those who cannot consent cannot be touched sexually. That is essentially what is stated in the Criminal Code with respect to, obviously, human beings. This just harmonizes that now. It's essentially saying that animals, which can never consent—they don't have the capacity to do so—are therefore being treated in the same way. I think it reflects our bigger statement about how we view sexuality, that sexuality must be between two people who are capable of consenting together.
I'll go back to the harm issue and what I was getting at with the analogy to polygamy, and there are other offences that do this as well. I've been engaged in debates with various people. There are people out there—I don't know if they're speaking in front of the committee—who are interested in bestiality. They seem to suggest that some animals are not harmed by this, and that so long as it is done in a way that's respectful of the animal and doesn't involve physical harm, we should not be concerned. That is the argument I've heard, that we should let people do what they wish; this is a libertarian society, and therefore, so long as the animal's not being harmed, we shouldn't be concerned.
My point back to that is twofold. First of all, it's very difficult to know whether they're correct. There are a lot of studies showing that the sexual touching and involvement of animals can cause psychological harm to the animal. We have studies that show that in the first place. The second point I wish to make, which was where I started with my opening remarks, is that it doesn't really matter whether it causes harm in an individual case. That's the point I was really getting at. Whether you can do this safely or in a way that isn't going to hurt the animals is completely beside the point.
We are entitled to do this because the risks of harm, when you are talking about animals as a group, as a class, are simply too large, especially when you're dealing with a category of being who cannot speak. You'll never be able to voice the alarm. It's the same thing when you're talking about very young children; still, at some point, those children will be able to voice the alarm and express what happened to them. Animals will never have that ability. As a result, the risks and the difficulties of actually investigating these things are simply too high. As a result, it makes sense to have a complete ban.
That's where I was going on this.