Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Message and question from terri jean bedford....

  1. #1

    Message and question from terri jean bedford....

    This was originally posted by Susie on perb and I have reposted it here with her permission.
    Susan Davis, British Columbia Coalition of Experimental Communities

    Dear Susan,

    I am writing to many of the groups and persons who have stood with Valerie, Amy, me and our legal team against the prostitution laws that were struck down. These groups and persons have voiced their support in so many ways and their messages were heard across the country again and again. I thank all of you for that support. I have done so in person when able.

    The new law, Bill C-36 is of course an outrage. It will of course fail before the courts, fail in its implementation, and in the process its supporters will again be discredited. You and all the others have already been to helping to ensure that failure will happen.

    Recently I testified before the Senate and in the question period after opening statements I was ejected. This got a lot of attention. One of the things I said, which also got much attention, was that I would expose some clients of sex workers. Everyone thought I meant politicians who supported C-36.

    I have an advisory group working on the legalities and mechanics of that process. Part of that process, if in fact I do follow though, is determining what sex workers think about exposing some clients, and I am writing to ask you to tell me what you think. Please ask your colleagues to tell me as well by sending me an e-mail at the address below.

    One reason for exposing some clients is to show how unfair the law is when sex workers can report clients to the police and only the client is charged. This means, it would seem, that blackmail and entrapment have largely been legalized. This would probably add fuel to constitutional challenges.

    Professor Young also pointed out at the Senate that immunity from prosecution has until now only been given by prosecutors, not in legislation, as C-36 does. So exposing clients would show how irrational the law is, as well as illegal itself. exposing would probably also add this fuel as well to constitutional challenges.

    Another obvious reason for exposing is to show the hypocrisy of those who want to impose their will on others while themselves engaging in the very behaviour they want to others to stop.

    Yet another reason is to ensure the public remains aware of this issue and of the dangers and are unfair hardships the government's approach would create for those in the sex trade. Nothing attracts media attention as much as politics combined with scandals of this kind. I could mention other reasons, but enough for now.

    However, concerns come to mind too. Does exposing set a bad precedent for the sex trade overall, even if the law is not implemented to any extent or frozen in the courts right away? What other negative repercussions there be for sex workers if I did release part or all of my list? What would the consequences be if I just released one or two or a few names? What should be the criteria for names chosen for release? Would you and your members and colleagues prefer me to back off exposing clients altogether, and if so why? I seek your help in answering these questions.

    Please share this with all you wish to share it with. I will read all e-mails sent to me and take all advice very seriously when I decide what to do. I appreciate that feedback every bit as much as the support shown over these years which, I say yet again, I am sincerely grateful for.

    Yours truly,

    Terri-Jean Bedford

    Email your replies to [email protected] .

  2. #2
    Releasing names violates ethics and professionalism. The other side would like the world to believe those things do not exist in the sex industry. Releasing names confirms their viewpoint.

    A long time ago Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes asked Joe Comforte of Nevada's Mustang Ranch what he thought of all the legislators, preachers and community leaders who spoke out against his establishment. He said that when had sees them at his place, had just smiles and waves.

    Miked Wallace loved that. The impression was given that they all regularly went to the Mustang Ranch. That was a lot more effective than actually naming one or two of them, which would have made Comforte look petty.

  3. #3
    My thoughts:

    Having spent the last year educating the online community, protesting against 'Outings', and after witnessing many outings of SP’s, clients, and agency/board owners, etc. by industry members on industry forums, along with the resulting devastation – I cannot support the idea of deliberately outing innocent clients.

    The only circumstance where outing might be appropriate is if Terri had the names of clients who have broken the law and committed serious crimes against SP’s. Bill Russell comes to mind. Is there a list of criminal (rape, assault, murder, etc.) clients and would there be any advantage in outing guys like that?

    One more thought - outings still occur regularly on some industry forums, and this would set a dangerous precedent and encourage unscrupulous people to continue doing it, imo.

  4. #4
    With all due respect to Terri-Jean, and she deserves a lot, I think this is a feel good strategy that could backfire on sex workers, adding some loss of confidence by the clients who will already be shattered by the law itself, in other words adding a loss of revenue to another one. If clients are to be used in this battle, it should be in a positive way, not a negative one.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    I don't think it's a good idea either (but the Schadenfreude of it is almost too much to resist). I would compare that list to an atomic bomb: it can be useful to let people know you have one, but it would be a very bad idea to actually use it. The point should be made that entrapment and blackmail are a real consequence of this new law, but they have to make it clear that they are above using that strategy.

    But the law also applies to men who have mistresses and sugar babies and those amateurs have no need for work ethics...
    “Truth, Justice, Freedom, Reasonably Priced Love.”

  6. #6
    An interesting response from a terb/perb/merb advertiser on terb last night:

    09-30-2014, 04:25 PM #39
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms. Sarah
    What would you advise Ms. Bedford to do?

    To make a long story short, Copycraigs told her that I would call Go Daddy and pay for her very own site to out whoever she pleases.

    The catch is that I am the Super Moderator and can edit or delete as I please.

  7. #7
    Former dominatrix to receive civil liberties award

    The former dominatrix who overturned Canada’s prostitution laws will receive the second annual Ontario Civil Liberties Award in Ottawa next month.

    Terri-Jean Bedford, who operated a bondage dungeon in Thornhill, Ont., until it was shut down by police in 1994, challenged Canada’s prostitution laws in court, leading to last year’s landmark Supreme Court decision finding the laws were unconstitutional.

    “It’s an outstanding example of what the Ontario Civil Liberties Association stands for,” said Joseph Hickey, executive director of the organization, in an interview Monday morning.

    “I want to be remembered for standing against secret rules” said Bedford in a news release. “My motto is that I’ll fight for my rights whether you like it or not.”

    Bedford last made headlines when she appeared at a Senate committee hearing in September, in her trademark leather.

    Bedford was ejected from the hearing after she threatened to name politicians who employ sex workers.

    “If this law passes I’m going to make you guys forget about Mike Duffy, because I’ve got more information and more proof on politicians in this country than you can shake a stick at, I promise,” she said, smacking the table with her riding crop.

    Bedford and her supporters are threatening to name names in protest against the government’s bill C-36, which will ban the purchase of sex.

    The government introduced the law after Bedford’s successful court challenge. The court gave the government a year to come up with a new law.

    Bedford and sex workers argue that the new law will pose the same risk to their safety as the old law, since prostitution will remain illegal, preventing sex workers from taking steps to work safely.

    The bill’s supporters argue that the law will help sex workers leave the industry by cracking down on clients and pimps.

    The law passed third reading in the House of Commons earlier this month. It is now headed for final hearings in the Senate.

    Three weeks ago, Bedford sent a letter to sex workers’ advocacy groups across Canada seeking their input on a plan to publicly “out” politicians who employ sex workers.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts