Buggery and sodomy are the same..But you knew that, right?

[JakeYYZ]

Highly paid people who could ruin your life forever are not as smart as you are, apparently:
Canadian Supreme Court Justice doesn’t know what ‘buggery’ means............

There was some comic relief in the courtroom as Justice Marshall Rothstein, while questioning Schuck, demanded to know how Whatcott can justify saying, if “sodomites have their way the school board will be celebrating buggery too”. After listening to Schuck’s explanation, Justice Rothstein began to indicate that he did not believe buggery and sodomy are the same.
Remaining politely deferential by using the words ‘I think’ and ‘I could be wrong’ to downplay his reply, Schuck informs the Justice that buggery was the term for sodomy used in the criminal code prior to the law being struck down.
Justice Rothstein responded, “isn’t buggery having sex with animals” with Schuck retorting that that would be bestiality.
The robed lawyers in the background were seen covering their smiles looking down with hands shielding their embarrassed laughter.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/its-no ... n-the-supr

[North Shore]

IIRC, reputedly, 'the last man to know everything' was Sir Francis Bacon. It's now ~400 years after his death, and the breadth of our knowledge has increased immeasurably. Unlike some right-wing fringe groups who obsess about what others do behind closed doors, I'm sure that Judges have better things to think about than precise definitions of non-mainstream sexual activities. That's why they ask others..

[mcrit]

I'm sure that Judges have better things to think about than precise definitions of non-mainstream sexual activities.

Well, if they'd been talking about felching or Russian style, I'd say you had a point. But, the terms buggery and sodomy are terms a learned person should know.

[Siddley Hawker]

In some metaphorical way I have always associated buggery and sodomy with lawyers.

[TTJJ]

According to "West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 Copyright 2008", I would suggest that the learned Judge was correct in querying Schuck's grasp of the subject matter.

After having perused numerous law sites and their definitions of the terms involved, (purely for the educational benefit of my fellow AvCanadians) I believe it can be stated with a fair degree of certainty that according to at least one of the following definitions most of us are guilty of said offences, possibly even the OP.

(It seems I myself am doomed to cross the river Styx due to "oral copulation". It will be a solitary crossing. Sadly, with remuneration in aviation being as it is, I fear many of my AvCanadian brethren won't even have a coin left over to pay the boatman.)

I suspect that Justice Marshall Rothstein will have the last laugh here as the items are somewhat different historically. The definitions have now almost merged in popular literature but retain a certain distinction which I am sure a Supreme Court Justice can see clearer than a lay person.

(Note: The following is from US law, but the history of the law is the same as in Canada until it was repealed)

To wit:

1) Buggery:

The criminal offense of anal or oral copulation by penetration of the male organ into the anus or mouth of another person of either sex or copulation between members of either sex with an animal.

Buggery is historically referred to as a "crime against nature." It is an offense under both Common Law and statutes. Although prosecution for buggery is rare, the punishment upon conviction can be a fine, imprisonment, or both. The term is often used interchangeably with Sodomy.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/buggery


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sodomy

2) Sodomy,

Anal or oral intercourse between human beings, or any sexual relations between a human being and an animal, the act of which may be punishable as a criminal offense.

The word sodomy acquired different meanings over time. Under the Common Law, sodomy consisted of anal intercourse. Traditionally courts and statutes referred to it as a "crime against nature" or as copulation "against the order of nature." In the United States, the term eventually encompassed oral sex as well as anal sex. The crime of sodomy was classified as a felony.

[grimey]

I suspect that Justice Marshall Rothstein will have the last laugh here as the items are somewhat different historically. The definitions have now almost merged in popular literature but retain a certain distinction which I am sure a Supreme Court Justice can see clearer than a lay person..

Sort of. In Canadian Law, buggery and bestiality was one offence, until it was split into anal intercourse and bestiality in 1987:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. c-46, s. 160.

[Buggery or bestiality]
160. Every one who commits buggery or bestiality is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. R.S., c. C-34, s. 155.
[Exception re acts in private between husband and wife or consenting adults]
162. (1) Sections 160 and 161 do not apply to any act committed in private between
(a) a husband and his wife, or
(b) any two persons, each of whom is twenty-one years or more of age,
both of whom consent to the commission of the act.
[Idem]
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1),
(a) an act shall be deemed not to have been committed in private if it is committed in a public place, or if more than two persons take part or are present; and
(b) a person shall be deemed not to consent to the commission of an act
(i) if the consent is extorted by force, threats or fear of bodily harm or is obtained by false and fraudulent misrepresentations respecting the nature and quality of the act, or
(ii) if that person is, and other party to the commission of the act knows or has good reason to believe that that person is, feeble-minded, insane or an idiot or imbecile. R.S., c. C-34, s. 158.

They're both right, in that prior to being removed from the Criminal Code, buggery was technically the same offense as bestiality, but as is clear from s.162, in more recent law it had obviously meant sex between persons, whereas bestiality meant what it sounded like. This sort of distinction dated back to 1953. Prior to that, there was no offense of bestiality, it was all included under buggery. He screwed up, sort of. So did the lawyer, sort of. It was funny, and embarrassing, but of no real consequence. Move along.

http://www.constancebackhouse.ca/filead ... uggery.htm

(stupid Justice website only has statutes back to 2001. bastards.)

To see lawyers giggle like schoolchildren, fast forward to 247:00, and watch for the next couple minutes:

http://scc-csc-gc.insinc.com/en/clip.ph ... ISO-8859-1

[iflyforpie]

Buggery... sodomy... it's all Greek to me!

[HS-748 2A]

feeble-minded, insane or an idiot or imbecile

Those sound surprisingly non-legaleeze..

[bmc]

You know what makes me laugh about this thread?

Jake was reading the story and thought, "oh shit, I need to share this with the lads on Avcanada. This one's for pilots"

[grimey]

Yes. It's important that pilots not be confused about the meaning of buggery and sodomy when they're spending hours at a time alone in cramped cockpit with another guy.

[Colonel Sanders]

In Canadian Law, buggery and bestiality was one offence, until it was split into anal intercourse and bestiality in 1987

grimey: it frightens me that you know these things. Have you been convicted of both, or either?

[grimey]

It was naptime at daddy daycare, and legal research was one of my favorite courses.

[bmc]

In Canadian Law, buggery and bestiality was one offence, until it was split into anal intercourse and bestiality in 1987

grimey: it frightens me that you know these things. Have you been convicted of both, or either?

Exactly what was he googling that night?

Rhetorical question. Please do not answer.