Terri-Jean Bedford to Publish Memoir

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

I'm sure many of us have been waiting for this. Thanks for posting the article, WiT.

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

For information on where to purchase Terri-Jean Bedford's "Dominatrix on Trial" (either in electronic or paper form), follow the link:

 

http://www.terrijeanbedford.com/dominatrix_on_trial.htm

 

[Guest W***ledi*Time]

In addition to the various on-line purchasing options, Terri-Jean Bedford's Dominatrix on Trial: Bedford vs. Canada is now available in-store at many Chapters-Indigo locations across Canada.

 

261 pp, including 15 pages of photos. Self-published, 17 June 2011.

 

This book is well-written. Self-published books often suffer from the lack of a proper editor, and I was not hopeful after reading the rather clunky preface, but rest assured that the preface is a false alarm - the story quickly picks up and is a good read. It's a serious book; but that doesn't mean there isn't plenty of fun along the way.

 

The contents of the book break down into four broad topic areas, which of course overlap each other:

 

34 p - Biographical (describing her life)

91 p - Dominatrical (describing her business, equipment, sessions, psychology of her clients)

96 p - the Bondage Bungalow Legal Case

25 p - the current Constitutional Challenge

 

The so-called Bondage Bungalow case is recounted from Bedford's point of view. Being a dominatrix, her establishment in Thornhill ("Madame de Sade's House of Erotica") offered no sexual services (at least by Bedford's definition). Nevertheless, it was raided in 1994 by an entire tactical squad of the York-Region Police, and she and four of her employees were charged with keeping a common bawdy house.

 

Bedford was punched several times in the head during the raid. They were strip-searched on the spot. Her house was virtually stripped bare, almost everything seized as "evidence", including beds and other regular furniture, Bedford's personal clothing, even a chandelier, a dictionary, etc. Police took money from her cash box and gave it to one of her employees - who was later called upon to testify by the prosecution. The 15 officers cavorted through her house, laughing and joking, playing with her whips and other equipment while wearing her wigs; one officer repeatedly kissed the foot of an assistant domme while other officers howled with glee. Police held a splashy press conference the next day, replete with whips and spanking benches as props.

 

Bedford's case was initially thrown out of court in 1995 because the charges were too vague. The crown appealed, and the dismissal was reversed in 1996 by the Ontario Court of Appeal. In 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear further appeal. Bedford was re-tried - but first, in pre-trial motions, the crown dropped the charges against her co-defendants, and stated that they intended to call one of them as crown witnesses; this tactic put Bedford's lawyer in conflict of interest, since he would be representing both Bedford and a crown witness. Bedford was thus forced by the crown to find a new lawyer. Enter Alan Young.

 

The second trial took place in 1998. This time, Bedford was found guilty, but the judge sidestepped the core issue of whether sadomasochistic acts constitute sexual acts. As the convicted Bedford said: "The judge still hasn't said what I can or can't do". On the other core issue, the conduct of the police during the raid was ruled as not having been a serious violation. Bedford was fined $3000. Bedford appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1999, and in 2000 they upheld her conviction, still without clarifying whether sadomasochism in itself constituted sex in the eyes of the law. In 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear further, bringing the case to an end.

 

Bedford paid her fine and reclaimed her possessions, which had been held in a police warehouse for more than 6 years.

 

Note:

 

Bedford is often inexact in describing the legal nuts-and-bolts, and glosses over some of the points involved.

 

Useful companion reading to Bedford's account of the case in her book is the text of the 2000 ruling: http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2000/march/bedford.htm

 

In the ruling itself prostitution is defined as "[19] .... lewd acts for payment for the gratification of the purchaser ... [26] The phrase 'lewd' ... is broad enough to encompass acts that do not include genital touching but are

intended to be sexually stimulating." This seems to be a rather looser definition than that used elsewhere in Canada's jurisprudence; for example, the 1990 Reference case defined it as "the exchange of sexual services of one person in return for payment by another". (The legal question of what exact acts are considered in Canada to be "sexual acts" still remains very much in play and at issue today.)

 

[SamanthaEvans 166767]

Thanks for the review, WIT.

 

We often forget that, when someone is charged with keeping a bawdy house, the police simultaneously seize the entire contents for the place, some of which may be used as evidence, and all of which may eventually be deemed to be "the proceeds of crime." As proceeds of crime, the state can order the goods to be sold at auction. Any money found on the premises is also deemed to be the proceeds of crime and may be forfeit. In addition, the Crown will frequently seize all bank accounts and the contents of safety deposit boxes--the balances in the accounts and whatever may be found in the safety deposit boxes may also be deemed to be the proceeds of crime.

 

The courts do not always order the sale of the goods, but they can, and, in any case, they will happily hold the goods in storage for years.

 

Also, be sure that the CRA pays attention to these cases, as well, and will generally swoop down on the individuals involved in case they haven't made full declarations of their income. While bank records may match or verify income tax returns, the CRA takes a dim view of money, jewels, gold and silver coins or bars being stored in a safety deposit box, or a safe or vault in one's home. If you do tend to invest in these real things, you will need to provide proof of purchase documents if you want to have any hope of recovering these things if they are seized by the court.

[Carrie Moon 68826]

I have a copy. I'm really enjoying my read :)