Canada's 'most famous dominatrix' booted from prostitution-law hearings Read more: h

[Guest N***he**Ont**y]

OTTAWA -- The controversial, leather-clad woman at the heart of the effort to rewrite Canada's prostitution laws delivered an unexpected whip-crack of drama Wednesday among the buttoned-down senators examining Bill C-36.

Terri-Jean Bedford, who calls herself "the most famous dominatrix in Canada," was tossed out of Senate hearings on the legislation after exhausting the patience of Conservative committee chair Sen. Bob Runciman.

Bedford was one of three sex workers who successfully challenged the original law before the Supreme Court on the grounds that it violated their Charter right to security of the person.

PRIMER: BILL C-36

Confused about changing prostitution laws in Canada? Bill C-36 primer

RELATED STORIES

Peter MacKay insists new prostitution bill will protect sex workers

Ottawa urged to spend more to help sex workers leave industry

Canada's prostitution bill likely unconstitutional: Swedish expert

PHOTOS

Terri-Jean Bedford at prostitution hearings

Dominatrix Terri-Jean Bedford prepares to testify at the Senate committee looking into the Conservative government's prostitution bill on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2014. (Fred Chartrand / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

The high court gave the government a year to come up with an alternative.

That alternative is Bill C-36, which treats prostitutes as victims, seeking to protect them from almost all criminal prosecution except in circumstances where they are selling sex near a daycare, playground or school.

The bill instead targets pimps and johns, as well as other who profit or trade in sex on an exploitative basis.

Supporters of the bill agree with that narrative, arguing that those in the sex trade are forced into it by systematic issues of poverty, racism and sexism and deserve protection from the law.

And they agree that going after those who are the instigators of the sex trade is a way to better protect those women.

Bedford, however, is not among them -- and she made that abundantly clear Wednesday.

It's not the purview of the government to tell women when or how they can or cannot sell sex, she argued, whip in hand, as she threatened to expose politicians who supposedly avail themselves of the world's oldest profession.

"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.

When asked by Liberal Sen. Serge Joyal how the new law might affect her work, Bedford appeared to opt for a show of force.

She cracked her whip on the desk and said the new law would ensure she was back before government in 10 years, arguing the issue anew.

It's a point of view echoed by other opponents of the bill, who say that as written, C-36 does little other than create greater dangers for women.

Provisions in the bill against advertising sexual services and any element of criminalization of the sex trade will further push women down back alleys, they argue.

Throughout committee hearings by both the House of Commons and the Senate, some have complained that the concerns of those opposed to the bill have received short shrift compared to those who support it.

Bedford said as much Wednesday as she tried to describe how much the court challenge has cost her personally. At one point, with her allotted time running down, Runciman tried to remind her that she needed to wrap up.

"You have given lots of other people lots of time," she complained.

"I have 30 years of your abusive laws, so I should be allowed at least an extra five minutes to talk about it. You pet everybody else on the back but when you know I've got a bombshell to deliver, you want to try and avoid me at all costs."

Runciman asked Bedford to respect the rules of the committee, saying if she didn't, he'd suspend the meeting and have her escorted out. Bedford pressed on, so Runciman banged the gavel to end the hearing. Bedford was escorted out by security.

Later, speaking to reporters outside, she said the government feels threatened by the demise of the old law, which she said was "custom-designed to hurt, maim and kill women who don't want to have sex for free."

"They want to do it again and they want to make matters worse. So, yes -- they are on the attack against strong, independent women who can think for themselves."

The incident was the latest in a series of emotional days before both the Senate and the Commons committee studying the bill.

The issue has show a deep divide among advocates in the sex trade about whether it is work taken on by choice or by circumstance and what the role of the government ought to be in either situation.

France Mahon, who was a law student working with Bedford at the time of the case but is now a lawyer, urged the Senate to see it as an issue of workers' rights, not women's rights.

The debate is about the human rights of women facing extreme desperation, Megan Walker, the executive director of the London Abused Women's centre, said during earlier testimony.

"It is their human rights that need protecting it has always been the human rights of those who are forgotten, those who are silenced that need protecting," she testified.

"Human rights are not granted exclusively to those who have the loudest voice in the room."

A third and final day of hearings is scheduled for Thursday.

[roamingguy 300292]

Isn't this one of those you wish she would but know she shouldn't

As a professional retired companion, discretion still applies to ALL clients/former clients doesn't it. Irrespective of their occupations or opinions

But the ones she would "out" can't sympathize with them one bit. Especially if it was MacKay or Harper

But it goes to show you, what goes around can come around

On a lighter note, when Mike Duffy heard he would be out of the limelight he thought booking an encounter would do it...still hasn't added 1+1 yet

But here's his disguise so the media won't recognize him LOL

 

RG

[cinelli 22184]

I wish she had not done that. It makes everyone in her professional look bad.

[mrgreen760 37785]

Not cool indeed.

 

Peace

MG

[roamingguy 300292]

Definitely unprofessional, no argument. But her actions reflect on her and only her. Saying her actions make everyone in her profession look bad is like saying one bad client makes all clients look bad

Apparently she has apologized for her outburst

Complete story here including apology

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/terri-jean-bedford-kicked-out-of-prostitution-bill-hearing-1.2761325

RG

[cinelli 22184]

RG I wish that were true. We both know lots of women here who are professional and trustworthy. There are women I trust completely and unconditionally.

 

Boards like this are echo chambers. Everyone here has a similar set of values. Some of us forget that we are a tiny minority in the greater society. Our values may be shocking to them.

 

This is television being watched by people who may have never spoken to an actual prostitute. She is the ONLY prostitute they have ever seen speaking in a public forum. And look how she presents herself, how she dresses, how she speaks to the chair. Black leather, and black leather gloves? There's a time for that. Parliamentary Committees are not that time.

 

She clearly made threats that could ruin people's lives, she had previously said she "had a bombshell" to deliver. She repeated that right in the hearing directly to Chairman Runciman. I think Runciman may have felt she was either grandstanding or about to drop the aforementioned bombshell.

 

I fear she has confirmed a lot of people's suspicions about all the unsavoury aspects of this business. Especially the one about women keeping a little black book of information that could be useful down the road.

 

I repeat, I am totally sympathetic to all her arguments but disappointed she wasted a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to speak out for every SP.

[kerrixoxo 33719]

This is a tricky subject to discuss. Clients' anonymity and discretion is always sex workers Number 1 priority in their lives...it's their livelihood!

 

But this whole debate is NOT about clients. Yes, clients experience bad things too sometimes. Bedford isn't about clients though. It's about sex workers' safety. I think her reacting like this is very reasonable for how politicians are treating not only her but *all* sex workers/allies/orgs at these meetings.

 

Bedford isn't about clients though and if a Bill is to respond to Bedford, it also needs to shift it's focus. This isn't about clients: the politicians are making it about clients, the abolitionists are making it about clients and the Bill is about the clients. Politicians are not playing nice. The abolitionists are not playing nice.

 

 

The Bill and everything that comes with it just makes me angry. Grrr. :whip:

 

Note: I don't agree with outing anyone. Like ever. But her anger? Very reasonable for how sex workers are being treated and the Bill isn't even law.

[roamingguy 300292]

RG I wish that were true. We both know lots of women here who are professional and trustworthy. There are women I trust completely and unconditionally.

 

Boards like this are echo chambers. Everyone here has a similar set of values. Some of us forget that we are a tiny minority in the greater society. Our values may be shocking to them.

 

This is television being watched by people who may have never spoken to an actual prostitute. She is the ONLY prostitute they have ever seen speaking in a public forum. And look how she presents herself, how she dresses, how she speaks to the chair. Black leather, and black leather gloves? There's a time for that. Parliamentary Committees are not that time.

 

She clearly made threats that could ruin people's lives, she had previously said she "had a bombshell" to deliver. She repeated that right in the hearing directly to Chairman Runciman. I think Runciman may have felt she was either grandstanding or about to drop the aforementioned bombshell.

 

I fear she has confirmed a lot of people's suspicions about all the unsavoury aspects of this business. Especially the one about women keeping a little black book of information that could be useful down the road.

 

I repeat, I am totally sympathetic to all her arguments but disappointed she wasted a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to speak out for every SP.

 

But if each and every companion testified, articulately and with intelligence, with facts and their experience to back up their opinion, and no companion reacted with any anger to opposing CPC and special interest viewpoints, guess what, the stereotype that the government has about prostitutes would still be negative. The ladies in this profession already look bad to the government, Bedford didn't make them look bad. And no amount of positive actions by this community to make the ladies or this lifestyle look good would be of any help. Conservatives do not want their agenda to be confused with any facts, their mind was already made up. Hearings are just procedural hoops to jump through to pass the bill into law

So Bedford didn't make any ladies look bad. Ladies looked bad to the Conservatives long before Bedford even walked in the hearing room

But I do understand the frustration that leads to that anger. And talking to the Conservatives must be like talking to a wall.

Anyhow, a rambling

 

RG

[kerrixoxo 33719]

But if each and every companion testified, articulately and with intelligence, with facts and their experience to back up their opinion, and no companion reacted with any anger to opposing CPC and special interest viewpoints, guess what, the stereotype that the government has about prostitutes would still be negative. The ladies in this profession already look bad to the government, Bedford didn't make them look bad. And no amount of positive actions by this community to make the ladies or this lifestyle look good would be of any help. Conservatives do not want their agenda to be confused with any facts, their mind was already made up. Hearings are just procedural hoops to jump through to pass the bill into law

So Bedford didn't make any ladies look bad. Ladies looked bad to the Conservatives long before Bedford even walked in the hearing room

But I do understand the frustration that leads to that anger. And talking to the Conservatives must be like talking to a wall.

Anyhow, a rambling

 

RG

 

 

Agreed 100%. When Valerie Scott testified, she was calm and cool. Plett STILL told her that sex workers need to "act like a lady." Translation? Don't act like a whore.

 

 

The only good whore is a repentant whore...at least in their eyes.

[cinelli 22184]

I wonder if she had any media coaching.

 

Her influence on the committee was a foregone conclusion. Her influence on the public viewing was what mattered IMHO.

[kerrixoxo 33719]

I wonder if she had any media coaching.

 

Her influence on the committee was a foregone conclusion. Her influence on the public viewing was what mattered IMHO.

 

This is her. This is what she does. What she said was important: she talked about Bedford and how the evidence that the CPCers are now "parading" through these meetings was REJECTED by the courts, and how she wasn't being asked important questions. No sex worker was being asked important questions or even asked ANY, at all! Some were even cut off at the JUST meetings. And yup, she will continue to work and she will be back. Sorry but no sex worker will have influence on the committee. It's a game to them and it's even more obvious now.

 

If she wanted to say something that needed to be said which obviously wasn't being said, she said it.

[scribbles 6031]

The reality is an ad hominem rejection of a person's opinion or argument is an act of small-mindedness, and is foolish. But, it's also something politicians and those against prostitution will be guilty of without question. The treatment of those testifying serves as proof of this.

 

HOWEVER, the danger here is the perception that more moderate observers will be left with. Black leather, gloves, an aggressive and coarse attitude, and threats of outing clients... That *does* reinforce a stereotype. *Of course* those ridiculing those testifying will do so regardless of how reasoned and professional they act. But acting in accordance with the stereotype only serves to convince the unconvinced that maybe the stereotype is accurate. Ot doesn't help the cause.

[kerrixoxo 33719]

The reality is an ad hominem rejection of a person's opinion or argument is an act of small-mindedness, and is foolish. But, it's also something politicians and those against prostitution will be guilty of without question. The treatment of those testifying serves as proof of this.

 

HOWEVER, the danger here is the perception that more moderate observers will be left with. Black leather, gloves, an aggressive and coarse attitude, and threats of outing clients... That *does* reinforce a stereotype. *Of course* those ridiculing those testifying will do so regardless of how reasoned and professional they act. But acting in accordance with the stereotype only serves to convince the unconvinced that maybe the stereotype is accurate. Ot doesn't help the cause.

 

The stereotype is that sex workers are victims and need to be save. What Bedford did was the exact opposite of that stereotype.

 

But her title as dominatrix, this may be the only time a non-sex worker sees a dominatrix in the media act this way and it may leave that impression they are people who don't play by the rules: those rules being, "act like a lady" (as per Plett's comments). Even she said it herself, "I told myself I would act like a woman and not a dominatrix." That's the message being sent: there are women and then there are whores.

 

This Bill, the politicians and the abolitionists re-enforce that message. Not Terri Jean--she is defying normative standards of what it means to "act like a lady" and CPCers don't like that.

[Ice4fun 78406]

I've never met Terri-Lynn Bedford and if she had spoken to me before her appearance at the Senate hearing I would have told her to speak from her heart and tell her story... to put a true face on the sex industry which is about so much more than Victims. I would have told her to tell her story if the fight she took on to improve the lives of Sex workers and to make their employment conditions safer.

 

I would not have recommended that she threaten to out clients but you know... i have not walked the road that she has... i have not experienced the continued unsafe work conditions that have been imposed on her.... i have not had the government publicly portray me as a victim, as someone who needs to be saved.... i have not been the public face if an epic David and Golith fight that was won on the merits of my arguments only to have someone use their power to unfairly wipe out those hard fought gains.

 

So you know... i understand why she reacted as she did... she has earned the right to speak out to express her anger and frustration.

 

I tip my hat to the lady and simply say Thank You.

[scribbles 6031]

Speaking out only to express anger, expecting that nothing you say is going to be thought about rationally, is presupposing you've lost. I would hope all has not already been given up for lost.

 

And, really? That's the only stereotype you think people viewing this have?

[Meaghan McLeod 179664]

I suspect that if she had behaved "like a lady" she would never have made the news.

 

I might not agree with her methods that day, however without her the law would not have been struck down.

 

I found the senators were in fact the idiots.

 

Thank you Ms Bedford.

[fortunateone 156618]

I wonder if she had any media coaching.

 

Her influence on the committee was a foregone conclusion. Her influence on the public viewing was what mattered IMHO.

 

 

 

Her influence on the public, and the media, is exactly why she did what she did. She knew as well as any pro sex work presenter that these proceedings are nonsense, time wasting, and won't affect the outcome. The con senators also made that very very apparent with their own comments and questions.

 

It is like they created the bill, and they are MPs, they are supposed to be senators not party mouthpieces. it was basically a waste of time for most anti c36s, when we have people there talking about situations that have nothing to do with adult consensual sex work (i.e. pedo sex abuse rings in the 90s, or a daughter who was abused by a classmate when she is in grade 9, and ends up with a bf doing sex work to pay for their drugs, then dies again at the hands of the BF, which again has nothing to do with adult consenting sex workers.

 

C36 is meant to curb the income and ability of adult consenting sex workers to work, it has little to do with sexual assault victims, evangelical church goers, or preteens in group homes being forced to provide sexual services to pedophiles.

 

 

The hearings were repeated on Saturday, and i saw a piece of it with Bedford, but got interrupted. the first time i didn't realize i'd been watching when she was answering questions, mostly because i flipped forward thru Benedet's talking head and missed it.

 

I note that when she mentioned Duffy, that comment was her final one for many minutes, until she got a new question. So in the quote above article, everything after Mike Duffy, she did not say, at least not at that time. And after she said "......Mike Duffy', she threw down her pen, no whip. the whip was in her hand later tho lol

 

I also note that she clearly did not discuss who the senators were with anyone. She was hostile towards the only ones who were willing to ask her questions. Guess who they were? The Liberal ones, two of them, offering her a chance to discuss and explain things that the Cons and their pet witnesses were misleading or misrepresenting or ignoring. She missed her opportunities, twice, (i didn't get to see everything, due to interruptions, and i hadn't recorded it sadly), when she could have done a lot of good.

 

Saying 'ask me something important', should have been something said to any con senator who asked her a question. Sure, none of them would, they are afraid to give anti C36ers, especially one of the ones the whole SCC challenge is named after, but she had a chance, and to me she missed that chance. And that was the problem with how she was acting inside.

 

 

I don't think you can argue that her passion is valuable. And her approach, clearly not a victim. It would be hard for any senators to look her way and think that any community protection legislation is going to help her, in fact, it might be used against her if they have their way.

[cinelli 22184]

Obviously the PCs stacked the witnesses and schedules to get the desired effect.

The whole affair reminds me of the

Mccarthy witch hunt of the fifties or the Soviet show trials of the thirties.

It is so frustrating because this could have been a serious discussion and really effective and fair legislation could have been created.

Sometimes I just want to give up on the whole idea of democracy and mob rule. I know mt local MP personally and he seems like an ok guy but there is a Jekyll and Hyde thing, he will not deviate from the party line about anything.

Posted via Mobile Device