“Why would you even get into bestiality?” he asked. “We’re not into bestiality,” said Patel.
In a further exchange, Patel explained to Senator John Kennedy, the Louisiana Republican, that previously, regulations had barred anyone who engaged in bestiality “on either side of it.”
“Either side of what, the bestiality?” asked Kennedy. “So you disqualified the animal?”
“We have great canines, but we’re not going to disqualify them,” said Patel.
The body is talking about no longer barring trafficking victims who were forced against their will to perform sexual acts with animals. It’s pretty obvious one should not bar the victim from a job.
The only ‘not the onion’ part of this article is the title which does not make the facts clear.
are you not amused nor concerned by the quotes i’ve put into the body that others are calling “SNL skit”–worthy?
Are you somehow under the impression that victims of sexual abuse are convicted of the felonies perpetrated against them?
The policy was to bar FELONS, as is the case at any law enforcement agency.
The article repeatedly states this is about sexual victims. It doesn’t use the word ‘felon’ a single time. Not only that, it even points out that those convicted of such crimes are still not eligible for employment.
Yes, we’re aware that articles are reporting what Patel is saying the reasoning is. What you’re ignoring is that being the victim of a crime has never been a disqualifier and clearly was not the intention of these policies, because it would be ridiculous to believe someone forcibly raped by an animal chose to engage willingly, regardless of what the sexual abusers themselves claim.
The only reason that this is being altered is because, as we have already seen, many of the people being recruited by the federal government to form the gestapo are convicted sexual predators and this can lead to legal accountability down the line if and when they are no longer in power