Rape is an ugly thing. Rape of the helpless, even uglier. You know what’s beautiful? Victory. It’s rare than an Anonymous operation can declare complete victory, but OpNullDenmark has earned the right. They have (with a non-trivial amount of help from a crusading politician and of course the court of popular opinion) won complete victory in their mission to declare animal rape illegal in Denmark.
Sex with animals had previously been legal in Denmark as long as there was no demonstrable harm to the animal, a standard that turned out to be much more subjective in court than it should have been. As of yesterday, sex between a human and an animal is banned completely in Denmark. Agriculture and Food minister Dan Jørgensen led the fight in the political arena, whipping up public outrage and forcing his sometimes squeamish colleagues to confront the stain the practice of zoophilia was putting on Denmark’s reputation internationally.
So, naturally Anonymous has set its sights on the rest of the world. Virginia, prepare thyself.
As OpNullDenmark morphs into the reborn OpBeast, we spoke with the people behind the operation to get their take on success, new goals, and past problems. Having interviewed @f0reverway, the founder of OpBeast, back in 2013 and noted the profound sense of discouragement and futility in the operation at the time, I was very interested to speak to the team behind the revived operation, and to discover why successes and public support were coming now, whereas they were noticeably absent two years ago. In retrospect, it may simply have been activist burnout, f0reverway having been heavily involved in animal rights actions for a long period of time. Then again, perhaps the world just wasn’t ready; or perhaps Denmark in this time and place simply turned out to be the perfect test case.
The Cryptosphere: How long has the op been going, focused on Denmark specifically?
OpBeast: The op has been going for about a year now. Was originally focused on Demark, not specifically about bestiality, but also for whaling at the Faroe Islands, and euthanizing “surplus” endangered animals in zoos. They also have a bad reputation for horrendous abattoirs. However, the bestiality laws needed updating [from “without demonstrable harm” to “not at all, nope”] and a lot of focus was directed towards that.
I know that there have been actions against various states in the US who don’t ban bestiality.
These actions occurred prior to our re-engaging the op [#OpBeast was begun in 2013 by @F0reverWay, who has been active in numerous animal-rights ops, but the initial effort stalled]. The current team had nothing to do with the previous efforts under the original #OpBeast.
What is the source of your opposition to acts of zoophilia? In Denmark they previously banned sex with animals if physical harm resulted; now they ban it altogether. What is the philosophical reason you oppose bestiality? Is it that animals cannot give informed consent? Is it that harm occurs even if there is no physical harm? Is it something else?
Regardless of physical harm, is emotional harm possible to gauge? In what study were these tests conducted, where sex with an animal occurred and physical harm was not detected?
We are against zoophilia in all forms that take place beyond the boundaries of one’s cranium.
Who’s the next target?
Several European countries are up next, more info coming soon.
In my opinion OpBeast didn’t take off before in significant part because of peoples’ belief that “oh, it’s a sickness, those people are to be pitied and given therapy and I suppose it’s an outlet for them.” In other words, as with OpDeathEaters, people believed it was essentially a sexual preference, or a mental illness for which the zoophile/pedophile could not be held responsible. OpDeathEaters has been successful at changing this public perception so that increasingly pedophiles are not cast as “child lovers” but as “child abusers.” Do you think that the resurrection and increasing success of OpBeast owes something to this shift of opinion in the public?
I can’t speak for the public. All I can say is that although we agree that it’s a mental illness (as is pedophilia), there is a distinct difference between being sexually attracted to entities other than the norm, and being unable to control one’s actions and choices. Those who suffer from this sickness but choose to get therapy and to fight any urges they have are not a target.
Those who choose to rape can expect us.
In short, our sexual preferences are separate from our ability to control ourselves. My love of women does not create an uncontrollable urge to rape them, whether they suffer physical harm or not!
Why do you think it didn’t take off before? Is this the right time for it?
As I was not a previous participant of the original #OpBEAST, I can not gauge or comment on the success of the previous op. From what I remember, there were some great doxes of deviant web hosts etc. Perhaps animal rights ops were less accepted in #Anonymous back then.
What actions did you take against Denmark? Were they designed to change the public’s opinion, to influence the media, to punish the guilty, or to pressure the government?
We started off with a general tweetstorm about the situation. For over a year, the supporters have been tweeting every Monday with aim to getting more support and to get people to sign a petition to pressure the government to update the laws. Others took it upon themselves to launch various attacks from time to time. Also, multiple sites have been removed by simply reporting content on the domains to the hosts.
What is the long term goal for OpBeast, and how do you expect to get there?
It’s early days. The team are still researching the wider global perspective on the subject to form a list of regions. It’s open season on any country that has similar loopholes. However we will be focusing on specific regions so that each period of action has a great impact.
How many people do you think participated in hacks, ddos, defaces, tweetstorms, and the rest of OpNullDenmark? What percentage of actions were things people risk jail for, like defaces?
There have been a lot. Too many for me to remember them. People feel very strongly about a loophole in the law that makes Denmark a potential destination for bestiality sex tourism. In fact, it’s been difficult to remind everyone involved of the importance of #opsec. This op particularly has had it’s fair share of enthusiastic but reckless little helpers. To these people I say thank you, but for obvious reasons we had to ignore and delete your direct messages!
And to those who just DO without need for attention or recognition, I say thank you & #respect.
What do you have to say to zoophiles?
Have you tried tits? http://global3.memecdn.com/tits_o_594977.jpg Consentually, of course.
Seriously tho, get some cognitive therapy, or just find a quicker way to take yourself out of the gene pool rather than trying to mate with a goat.
What do you have to say to the general public?
Thank you for continuing to support Team #OpFunKill and associated ops. Every single voice makes us stronger. Please help us to keep up the pressure on our targets, and never give up spreading awareness and changing perceptions. Things do change, but it’s a slow, gradual process.
Categories: Activism, Anonymous, Breaking, Cyber, Hackers, Hacktivism, Interviews, News, OpBeast, OpFunKill, OpNullDenmark, Ops
Reblogged this on hactivist culture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
> Sex with animals had previously been legal in Denmark as long as there was no demonstrable harm to the animal, a standard that turned out to be much more subjective in court than it should have been.
Examples, please? I’ve seen these claims time and time again. Why does nobody tell us what is behind them?
> Regardless of physical harm, is emotional harm possible to gauge? In what study were these tests conducted, where sex with an animal occurred and physical harm was not detected?
That’s the whole reason? Where are the studies that show there is any harm? You are the one who want to put an entire minority in prison without evidence that any of them did cause any harm. Since when is it okay to put people in prison because you *believe* there was harm done without actually having to prove anything?
> Those who suffer from this sickness but choose to get therapy and to fight any urges they have are not a target.
That’s funny because I have read from several zoophiles who are in therapy for (not directly related) issues like depression and their therapists often don’t see anything that needs to be done about zoophilia. If you only care to look for it instead of arguing from your own prejudices you can easily find quotes like:
“I’ve told a few therapists about my attractions (struggled to find the right one for a while). And the responses I’ve received have all been neutral or positive, ranging from intellectual curiosity to an understanding of some spiritual connection with animals (that guy was a little odd…) to an admonition that if I’m not going to do any harm and I’m careful about it, it’s perfectly OK. Hell, coming out to therapists has to some degree made me more confident about both this subject and life in general, because I didn’t feel like I was hiding from the entire world any more.”
“At the end of my sessions she had told me that she believes I don’t hurt animals”
> My love of women does not create an uncontrollable urge to rape them, whether they suffer physical harm or not!
Incidentally the same is true for zoophiles.
> Perhaps animal rights ops were less accepted in #Anonymous back then.
People seem to take it as self-evident that it’s always “animal rights activists vs. zoophiles”. In reality it isn’t, of course. For example from Miletski’s book “Understanding Bestility and Zoophilia”:
“The majority of my subjects love their animal-partner. Some see them as a spouse and will do anything for them. Sexual relations with the animal is an expression of love for them, and if the animal tells them, with it’ s body language, that it is not in the mood for love-making, the majority of my subjects will leave the animal alone. In fact, many of them are members of the Humane Society and other organizations that are taking care of animals.”
The reason you don’t see zoophiles being animal rights activists in public is because you don’t know that they’re zoophiles. Because of people like you, they have to hide it.
> We started off with a general tweetstorm about the situation. For over a year, the supporters have been tweeting every Monday with aim to getting more support and to get people to sign a petition to pressure the government to update the laws.
If I had asked questions in this interview, I would have asked why this whole “tweetstorm” was so devoid of fact and full of inaccuracies bordering at lies. Just look at some of those tweets:
First image: German Shepherd named Boss. Was abused by a lone abuser in sweden. A zoophile got hold of his IP and reported him to the police and he got convicted of animal cruelty (no need for a law against sex with animals necessary) and spent 2.5 years in prison.
Second image: A “breeding stand”. I have literally never heard of any zoophile “using” one. People like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3aZdfnqdzY use them. Those are the people you should be concerned about.
Third image: Origin unknown, all stories I’ve heard were very generic and didn’t seem reliable. I’m not sure about the language of the newspaper he lies on, maybe croatian? I’ve heard dogs that have had a prolapse caused by diseases or parasites are treated in a way that looks like this. If anyone can give a source that looks trustworthy, please go ahead.
Fourth image: Stray dogs in turkey that sadly have been killed: http://www.peta.de/tieretuerkei. Some websites claim that some of them were raped.
The description to these four images in the tweet: “dogs being brutally raped 2 death in underground brothels”. Bullshit.
Another one that claims knowledge that this dog died of injuries he suffered in a “dog rape brothel” in denmark, still without any kind of source: https://twitter.com/AnonyMissVegan/status/577637511054409728
Another image: https://twitter.com/MadameVegan/status/576109191057801216
The top two don’t really say anything without context, the bottom right is from a dog that apparently was violently assaulted in a bathroom in brazil: http://www.thedailytrends.net/2013/10/dog-raped-in-bathroom-of-gas-station.html. Last I heard he was awaiting his process (for animal cruelty, obviously, as sex with animals is legal in brazil), but I haven’t found anything about the result. People started a petition which I think makes no sense, because it’s clearly animal cruelty, but it seems “activists” LOVE to pretend to do something when they create petitions.
What all these have in common is that none of this has been legal in denmark. The animal ethics council didn’t believe there was a need for a ban, because preciely all of this animal cruelty has been illegal in all along: http://fifine.org/2.Ebene/Danish_Animal_Ethics_Council_-_November_2006_Report_Unofficial_English_Translation.pdf
Many people signed these petitions under the impression that what they could see in these images needed to be made illegal in denmark.
> People feel very strongly about a loophole in the law
My question is: If they already feel so strongly, why does your entire campaign need to mislead them this way? I mean it was obviously never the goal to ban this stuff, because it was already illegal. The only people that are *newly* affected are the ones who don’t do shit like that. For example you could give people https://np.reddit.com/r/animalromance/comments/14ctu3/this_is_shadow_my_first_lover_story_in_comments/ to read and then tell them that THESE are the people you want to see in prison. But you never do. Why?
> Have you tried tits? http://global3.memecdn.com/tits_o_594977.jpg
You really don’t understand this sexual attraction thing, do you? Yes, many zoophiles have tried tits. Many couldn’t get as happy with them as with nonhuman animals. That’s the whole point. Why don’t you educate yourself about the people who you want to attack? Here, Miletski’s book: http://www.lopdf.net/preview/TsQjLKHcW5vPCrq33KvS2MtJgj-4tzilZmL6yVKuvxA,/Understanding-Bestiality-and-Zoophila-By-Hani-Miletski-Ph.html?query=Ph-t-194-m She has asked her volunteer subjects about their relationships. The number of zoophiles who are or have been in relationships with humans will surprise you, if you still think people “turn to animals because they can’t get a woman”.
If you don’t have an uncontrollable urge to rape animals, then just don’t rape them and you won’t have a problem with Anonymous.
I won’t, of course.
But I have a feeling you and I have some differences in what we think is rape and what isn’t.
In order for it not to be rape, informed consent must be given. I don’t know any animals, not even Border Collies, who would be found competent in a court of law to give informed consent. Also, having a Twitter avatar of a dog’s ass is kind of a giveaway, don’t you think?
I personally settle for the kind dogs give each other when they fuck. They aren’t humans so it’d be kinda weird to apply concepts that have been especially developed for humans.
If you’re interested, my avatar is a cropped version of an image I found in one of these hilariously bad petitions: https://www.tierschutz-shop.de/zoo-love-gegen-sex-mit-tieren/ (Apparently “insiders” in zoophile circles call sex with animals “zoolove”. Guess that I have literally never heard that in that context means ‘m not enough of an insider).
It’d also be weird for dogs, who are not humans, to have sex with humans.
The reason I didn’t show examples of some of the bodily harm that was not found to be bodily harm was, those pictures were truly gross.
Out of curiosity, do you use the same standards for Artificial Insementation and seamen collection? The animal certainly didn’t give any informed consent to have a hand up its vagina nor its penis stroked.
The thing about artificial insemination is, it does not involve sex. So that’s not a zoophilia question, is it? Unlike me, you’ve clearly never worked in a breeding stable where semen was collected; it don’t work via handy.
Do you seriously think humans are smart enough to give informed consent? Have you read the bottom half of the internet ever?
After it was banned in Sweden, a friend of mine told me he’d lost his virginity to a cow. I’m trying to be vegan out of respect for him. I’d trust him with a cow more than anyone who eats hamburgers.
I seriously don’t think you or your friend are. Feel better now?
“The thing about artificial insemination is, it does not involve sex. So that’s not a zoophilia question, is it? Unlike me, you’ve clearly never worked in a breeding stable where semen was collected; it don’t work via handy.”
Yea, sticking things in a vagina without informed consent is okay so long as it isn’t a penis.. then you need informed consent. What a twist your mind must have to not see the use and abuse of animals there yet be all upset when someone’s comparatively tiny penis might penetrate a horse.
Since you don’t know there are multiple techniques in semen collection I highly doubt you have worked in a breeding stable. This is just another example of the low information content, quick one liner you’ve been using all along to try tar people. You lie, your friends have lied, you have done NOTHING to protect a single animal from abuse. Just picked on yet another minority group that it unable to protect itself. Well done.
Sex doesn’t necessarily mean rape. Animals are also happy to penetrate people, if you consider penetrating an animal as a rape. It is morally much better than eating meat for example.
You didn’t study ethics in University, did you?
As I can see, no lesson learned…PROHIBITION is NOT working!
Nothing learned from the “War on (some) drugs”…making something illegal only makes it less controllable, not disappear. But these “Out of sight, out of mind” policies are able to soothe the mostly uninformed majority, it´s pretty nice that Joergensen even admitted the main reason for the ban wasn´t animal welfare, but the way other countries look upon Denmark as a “safehaven for animal fuckers”.
Do you really think that outlawing something will make it disappear?Really?
The campaign itself, led by former “Freedom of speech in the internet” activists Anonymous, was and is an example of disinformation tactics, manipulative usage of media, a conglomerate of half truths and plain lies; basically anything the yellow press and populists would be proud of.
Intentional misinformation, denial of hearing scientists who deal with the topic, silencing dissident opinions, threats of violence…what exactly is the difference between the Anons and their “enemy” Scientology again? Freedom of speech, but only if you say what THEY like to hear…Anonymous has turned into Anonology recently. Well done. Also see: North Korea, China, Nazi Germany….Sexcrime.. Nineteen Eighty Four….
Prohibition is indeed not working, as you seem to be high.
Oh, what a witty retort. English is probably not their first language, genius.
“His.” And it’s not mine either.
Yeah, right…if you can´t argue using facts, the old argumentum ad hominem comes into play…
Your little masked friends betrayed anything Anonymous once stood for in this smear campaign. Why don´t you answer Axyz´ comment about all of the lies used in Op Beast? Afraid to admit the lies? By the way: Unveiling lies once was the purpose of the Anons, now they´re telling them themselves.
If this whole thing was really about the wellbeing of the animals, regulation would have been better than restriction. Restriction will only generate higher profits for those who didn´t care about the laws or the animals before. Anyone actually hurting his animal will be less detectable because he/she will not take the animal to a vet in fear of accusations.
Since Germany prohibited sex with animals( July 2013), not even one trial regarding this was held. So, what effect has such a law? If you don´t place a policeman into each citizen´s home, turning your country into a class A Orwellian Policestate, how will this law “end” zoophilia?
The only thing that will ensure the animals wellbeing is regulation: Sex with animals should be legal under the supervision of the state, e.g. neutral vets who visit the zoophiles regularly, but unschedueled to check the physical and psychical condition of the animal. If no harm can be seen, leave ém alone. If the vet detects harm, being done, the state is free to take further, adequate actions.
You don´t have to be a zoo, you don´t even have to like it, but you have to be aware what really should count here: the animal, not your morals.
PS: Your advice “have you tried some tits?”…do you recommend that to a homosexual, too? Please read Hani Miletski and Andrea Beetz. Knowledge, not prejudice should play the leading role here.
There is a very good reason I’m not giving lengthy replies to people advocating pet rape: the old saying, “When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.”
Now let’s talk about the role of zoophilia in the origin of AIDs, shall we? Oh wait, are you leaving already?
Leaving? Me? When such dumb crap like having sex with animals gave birth to the HI virus comes up?
Lets see what Wikipedia has to say about your “fact”:
“There is evidence that humans who participate in bushmeat activities, either as hunters or as bushmeat vendors, commonly acquire SIV. However, SIV is a weak virus and it is typically suppressed by the human immune system within weeks of infection.It is thought that several transmissions of the virus from individual to individual in quick succession are necessary to allow it enough time to mutate into HIV.”
As I said, myths are presented as facts. Eating meat from infected monkeys actually was the origin of HIV. If you can´t even check facts on Wikipedia when it comes to such a well researched topic as HIV, then it is quite obvious how scientifically correct your other “facts” might be…Urban myths mistaken as the truth. Only hearsay, with no need to check out the scientific facts…
Why you don´t answer should be clear now: You´re afraid, terribly afraid that the actual facts will destroy your religious like convictions…this whole campaign does it this way, like with the pictures your friends po. on Twitter . Lies, nothinig but lies…and you easily could check the real facts by the links Axyz gives you…the mighty Anons, cowardly afraid of clicking and reading.
Have you left already? ^^
“The worth a society has can be seen in the way it deals with minorities”
You don´t have to be one of “´em ole vile animal fuckers” to smell the bullshit in here…
“Only the absolute insane are selfassured beyond any kind of doubt”
I suggest another renaming of this “Op”: OpNullBrain
Actually that quote is incorrect. That zoophiles are a minority does not by definition mean they are oppressed. Rapists are a minority too, but we do not permit them to rape humans. Why should we permit them to rape animals? This is not oppression; this is protection of the helpless and also…let us say…facilitating a life of peace and justice for those whose impulses might otherwise lead them to select other courses.
Can you, just for a second, imagine that zoophilia does NOT equal rape? Like with your little “AIDS origins from fucking animals” flaw, can you imagine that you are wrong again regarding the rape topic? How do you rape a horse,weighing 600 kg, armed with 4 heavy hitting hooves and a set of sharp teeth? If you do anything the horse doesn´t like, you´ll immediately regret it, I swear.
FYI: I am totally okay with some of your goals, cleansing the net from animal porn, turning in to the police those who actually harm animals, getting rid of forums like BF, whose only cause to exist is to make money out of animal sex. What I´m not okay with is the lack of differentiation. Your denial of facts like those portrayed in Miletskis and Beetz´ works. And your inability to use some reason: a law won´t change anything. It hasn´t changed anything in Germany, sex with animals still happens; nothing will change in Denmark: people who rent animals to strangers for sex will go even more underground, raise their prices and just continue.
What is needed is science, let scientists do the evaluation. Your campaign prevents any research regarding zoophilia, no one will volunteer for a study in fear of him being exposed, arrested and jailed,his animal partner taken away from him, relocated or killed. Not a good climate to find out the truth, is it? And I´d like to know the truth, not some biased opinions based on nothing else than pure prejudice. What if scientists find out that zoophilia is nonharmful and good for the animal? Have you considered that? It would turn your whole campaign into an example of intolerance, narrowmindedness and deceit. Please do yourself a favor and educate yourself about what you fight. It will help tremenduously: the animals, the zoophiles and last but not least, our entire society.
Wh, you might ask? Because freedom should be our most important value. If we give up on it without any scientific reason, we´re no better than the Islamic State. What values do we defend then? I proposed regulation before: give freedom to zoos who accept unschedueled visits from neutral vets to ensure the animals wellbeing, physically and psychically. No harm = no reason to act.
This way you would act more in favor of the animal than by forcing a whole scene into the obscure and uncontrollable underground. Research and regulation instead of restriction.
Can you, just for a second, prove your assertion that sex with an entity unable to give consent does NOT constitute rape?