405
submitted 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) by Aatube@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

“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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Tippy@sh.itjust.works 12 points 7 hours ago

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.

[-] RamRabbit@lemmy.world -3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

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.

new FBI hiring standards are aimed at protecting “victims of bestiality.”

“Applicants who have engaged in bestiality means they were victims of bestiality because they were forced to do so,” replied Patel. “At this FBI we are not going to criminalize and prevent victims from serving.”

multiple individuals have been disqualified from applying for the agency because they were victims of human-trafficking-related bestiality.

the FBI has had a number of applicants in previous years who suffered sexual abuse in their past, causing questions about prostitution, bestiality, or other similar issues to affect their background check process through zero fault of their own. Previously, those applicants would be barred from consideration. Now they can be considered.

It is false to suggest criminal behavior like this is no longer disqualifying at the FBI—any applicant who has engaged in criminal sexual acts like those referenced would of course not be eligible for employment, and it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

[-] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

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.

[-] Tippy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 hours ago

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

this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2026
405 points (99.3% liked)

Not The Onion

22485 readers
1656 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS