Which countries recently reformed their animal-sex laws and what prompted the changes?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Several countries have recently changed or debated laws criminalizing sexual acts with animals (commonly called bestiality or zoophilia). Denmark banned bestiality in 2015 amid concerns it made the country a destination for “animal sex tourists” [1]. Germany has repeatedly moved to tighten rules since at least 2012, with parliamentary committees and parties pushing to criminalize sexual acts with animals beyond the existing “significant harm” standard [2].
1. Denmark’s 2015 ban — closing a loophole that attracted tourists
Denmark’s parliament passed a law in April 2015 making sex with animals illegal even where no physical harm could be proven; lawmakers said they did not want Denmark to remain one of the last northern European countries allowing such acts and warned the prior loophole had made the country a hotspot for “animal sex tourists” [1]. Danish activists and a justice ministry report indicating veterinary suspicion of animal sexual contact helped frame the reform as both a welfare and a public‑order measure [1].
2. Germany’s long‑running push to criminalize all sexual acts with animals
Germany’s legal reform efforts date back at least to 2012 when parliamentary committees considered moving beyond the 1969 standard that only punished bestiality if the animal suffered “significant harm.” Lawmakers and animal‑welfare advocates argued the law needed clarification so that coercive or “unnatural” sex with animals could be prosecuted even without measurable injury [2]. The debate reflects competing priorities: historical statutory language focused on demonstrable harm, while reformers emphasize animal dignity and prevention of exploitation [2].
3. Drivers of reform — welfare, tourism, and legal gaps
Across the reported cases, two recurring prompts for change appear: first, recognition that existing statutes requiring proof of significant harm left an enforcement gap and moral blind spot [2]; second, concern that permissive or ambiguous laws could draw sexual tourism and normalize abuse, as cited by Danish parliamentarians [1]. Animal‑welfare organizations have been persistent actors in pressing for stricter criminalization where statutes were narrow or outdated [1] [2].
4. Where ambiguity remains — countries still reported as permissive
Sources indicate that some jurisdictions remain permissive or lack explicit prohibitions. A 2016 Canadian Supreme Court decision narrowed the scope of anti‑bestiality law in Canada, prompting calls for legislative reform [3]. Third‑party overviews list several countries where bestiality was described as not explicitly outlawed — for example, commentators in 2023 named Germany and Brazil among nations with legal ambiguity or permissive statutes in practice, though Germany’s domestic debate documented by other reporting shows pressure to tighten the law [3] [2].
5. Conflicting portrayals and limits of the reporting
Sources disagree about which countries “allow” bestiality and why. One summary piece lists countries purportedly permissive as of 2023, including Germany and Brazil, but that listing conflicts with separate, contemporaneous reporting of active German reform efforts [3] [2]. Available sources do not mention the full legislative outcomes in every country named by summary lists, and they do not provide a comprehensive, up‑to‑date global inventory of statutory changes [3] [2] [1].
6. What to watch next — lawmaking, enforcement and tourism effects
Future developments will hinge on whether parliaments move from debate to binding statutes, and whether prosecutors and veterinarians are given clearer standards to act on suspicions. Denmark’s reform was explicitly tied to curbing tourism and filling an enforcement gap [1]; Germany’s reforms aim to remove the requirement to prove “significant harm” so prosecutions need not rest on injury evidence [2]. Available sources do not mention subsequent enforcement statistics or whether tourism patterns changed after reforms.
7. Conclusion — narrow reforms with broad implications
Recent legal changes and debates show legislatures seeking to remove evidentiary loopholes that limited prosecutions and, according to legislators, invited harmful behaviour. The sources paint a consistent picture: activists and lawmakers frame reforms as closing gaps that protected perpetrators, while summary listings of permissive jurisdictions sometimes lag behind or oversimplify active reform campaigns [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention detailed post‑reform enforcement outcomes or a complete global tally of law changes.