“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.
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
It’s better just to say this part, the longer the explanation, the more their eyes glaze over.
It’s an obvious lie. Even if they somehow find a candidate that fits that scenario, they wouldn’t have been barred by existing policy. Plus, the way to carve out an exception there is to exempt victims of abuse from a policy, not allow any animal abuser in.