Message and question from terri jean bedford....

[Escapefromstress 2976]

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] .

[Cloud 1210]

Unless she has very good evidence, outing MPs has a flaw: they can always say that that was in the past, they realized the error of their ways, they are sorry for victimizing women and their (the MPs) families, and they are repenting by voting in favour of Bill C-36. Throw in some crying and they are off the hook. The antis already accepted Goguen's rape joke, so they'll accept the outings too. Besides, it will just give them more fuel to pass this law.

[piano8950 32577]

Unless she has very good evidence, outing MPs has a flaw: they can always say that that was in the past, they realized the error of their ways, they are sorry for victimizing women and their (the MPs) families, and they are repenting by voting in favour of Bill C-36. Throw in some crying and they are off the hook. The antis already accepted Goguen's rape joke, so they'll accept the outings too. Besides, it will just give them more fuel to pass this law.

 

Unless they voted in support for C-36 before going and visiting an SP

[Cloud 1210]

The SP must have good evidence. Simply naming a person, time, and place wouldn't be enough. If he booked a hotel in his name then that would be useful evidence.

[mrgreen760 37785]

The discussion of outing any client (s) certainly caused me to re-think the whole notion of promised discretion and confidentiality.

 

Peace

MG

[cat 262460]

I genuinely appreciate the fact she has asked. I had a few raised eyebrows when I read the MP voting breakdown so I can understand her frustration and I think it's important that we respond honestly and privately to her. Thank you Ms. Sarah for posting this...

 

cat

[Escapefromstress 2976]

I genuinely appreciate the fact she has asked. I had a few raised eyebrows when I read the MP voting breakdown so I can understand her frustration and I think it's important that we respond honestly and privately to her. Thank you Ms. Sarah for posting this...

 

cat

 

I'm surprised that sex worker org's don't use the boards to promote their projects more often. There's a combined membership of half a million industry people on the Canadian forums, and that's not counting the hundreds of thousands of lurkers who read the forums regularly.

[MightyPen 67414]

Although in some ways it would feel satisfying to see politicians exposed as employers of the very service they're trying so noisily to outlaw, I don't think anything useful can come of it.

 

First: few people would be surprised to learn that politicians are hypocrites. You might take down a few -- hey, maybe many -- but this wouldn't cause a lasting change. Those individuals would just be replaced by others from the same team who were safe from such a charge.

 

Second: it's not unconstitutional or illogical that one of the parties involved in a crime might be safe from charges if the crime was reported. One of the cornerstones of this ridiculous law is the idea that all SPs are vulnerable and exploited, and need special protection from the consequences of their own industry; in effect, children. So no surprise that, just like a minor, an SP could report illegal sexual activity under this law without fear of being charged. There's precedent for asymmetrical risk under the law for two participants in the same act.

 

Third: let's not kid ourselves about the job politicians do and its relationship to their real selves and personal lives. A politician is an actor on a public stage, playing a role dictated by his or her party's script. The script is written in whatever way is most likely to secure votes from the party's base in future elections, and gain/retain office and power. Does the script sometimes match the politician's personal views? Sure, but it's little more than coincidence when it does. Politics is scripted theatre, most people know it's theatre, and I actually don't have a particularly big problem with politicians being human beings who have lives and views that contradict what they do during their workday. They wouldn't be the only ones.

 

Most importantly: this law is ridiculous just on its own legal 'merits', and it can be attacked and defeated that way -- in court if (likely) necessary. There's no reason to make this personal with the individuals who are just reading their lines. Even if that worked for a bit it would fail in the longer term as their replacements picked up the same banner and carried it forward.

 

Defeat the law itself -- based on its own stupid message and all the shallow thinking behind it. Don't target the messengers however hypocritical they are -- it's needless, unproductive, and just looks angry and spiteful.

 

I've e-mailed this response to the address provided.

[Cloud 1210]

Has anyone sent an email to Kathleen Wynne asking her to refer this to Ontario's highest court if/when it becomes law?

 

From my understanding, if the court upholds the bill then it will increase the time it takes to challenge it. Secondly, Alan Young thinks that the communication ban can be struck down immediately, but he wants to wait before challenging the rest of it because he's not sure what approach to take. In short, there's no gaurantee that the court will overturn it.

 

Lastly, Terri-Jean Bedford isn't doing so well. If the court upholds the bill then she wouldn't really lose anything anyway.

 

I have an email drafted, but I think it might be better not to send it and to wait instead. What's the point if thr court upholds the bill