Toronto Escorts

Message and question from terri jean bedford....

escapefromstress

New member
Mar 15, 2012
944
0
0
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 terrijeanbedford@gmail.com .
 

escapefromstress

New member
Mar 15, 2012
944
0
0
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.
 

d_jedi

New member
Sep 5, 2005
8,765
1
0
If she's talking about outing MPs who vote in favour of this law, I support it 100%.
If she's talking about outing just regular clients.. that is a complete clusterfuck.
 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
17,886
12,294
113
If she's talking about outing MPs who vote in favour of this law, I support it 100%.
If she's talking about outing just regular clients.. that is a complete clusterfuck.
Agreed, outing reform party members who voted for this or claim this to be a good law for Canada should be exposed but definitely not regular folks or MP's that are on our side.

They want to harm the rest of us while they sit in their ivory towers, hire mistresses at a very expensive price and look down on the little people.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
46,710
7,990
113
Toronto
If she's talking about outing MPs who vote in favour of this law, I support it 100%.
If she's talking about outing just regular clients.. that is a complete clusterfuck.
I think she was talking about how easy the bill makes it for SP's to out clients and as such they are open to being blackmailed while the SP has legislative immunity.

Basically, it is another major flaw in the law and she is pointing it out, not necessarily advocating it.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
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.
So Terri-Jean Bedford agrees with blackmail and outing? If she doesn't she has a very peculiar attitude, that most of the world will fail to grasp the nuance of.

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.
T-J B. How can you honestly believe what you wrote above!


However, concerns come to mind too. Does exposing set a bad precedent for the sex trade overall. . . .
Really Ms. Bedford what on earth would give you the idea that outing clients or former clients of yours who have no direct connection with Bill C-36 might be a monumentally bad idea and might merely confirm in the public mind that to describe you as a loose cannon might be a true understatement!
 

krazyplayer

Member
Jun 9, 2004
485
0
16
If a client in the government votes to criminalize other clients (who aren't him) he should damn well be outed!
The hypocrisy is palpable. Why should a CON MP or senator be spared the wrath they have thrown onto us?
 

Scarey

Well-known member
When this things passes, it's going to go one of two ways. A LOT of sex scandals in the first year of it passing.Or, there will be a very lucrative "hush money" business that becomes some( I say SOME) of the ladies new sources of income.
 

MPAsquared

www.musemassagespa.com
Ummm clearly she is talking about politicians & the like. Guys, she by no means referred to general public. Come on! She is asking the sex workers community for input on potentially exposing a list of political figures, celebs, and financial backers of c36. Isn't that clear as day in her letter? Did you guys watch the hearings to know context? Oh boy ya'll.

Anyway, emailing her now. I'm torn. I've been outted. It fucking sucks. But I get her fury over the hypocrisy. Politicians are high volume sex trade users. The temptation to call their bs is real. I appreciate her not making this decision alone & involving the community, thinking long term, and of others. She probably has a golden nugget or 2, but enough to make Cons retract/change their vote?? I don't know. Would that be worth it? I don't know. History repeats the "sacrifice one for the betterment of many", yet those scorn suffer. Ah...off to write TJB.
 

d_jedi

New member
Sep 5, 2005
8,765
1
0
Ummm clearly she is talking about politicians & the like. Guys, she by no means referred to general public. Come on! She is asking the sex workers community for input on potentially exposing a list of political figures, celebs, and financial backers of c36. Isn't that clear as day in her letter? Did you guys watch the hearings to know context? Oh boy ya'll.
Not quite. Specifically, this line:
"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." (emphasis mine)

She probably has a golden nugget or 2, but enough to make Cons retract/change their vote??
Well, I've heard one name dropped (2nd, or likely 3rd or 4th-hand info.. so it'd be irresponsible for me to spread it) that would be quite embarrassing to the Cons. Maybe not enough to change the outcome of the vote, but it'd certainly expose their hypocrisy.
 

TeasePlease

Cockasian Brother
Aug 3, 2010
7,740
4
38
I thought she meant only politicians when I saw her testimony. Her letter clearly states that the potential net is cast far wider. However, that's quite besides the point. Her point now is to illustrate the inherent leverage that C-36 creates for sexworkers, and the obvious risk that any sexworker can out any john.

(It is a valid point. I've had an MPA call my office and threaten to tell my boss. I wonder whether if this was always TJB's objective, and she merely misplayed her hand at the Senate committee. Or, if this is damage control to win back some industry support for losing her cool and making us look bad...)

Frankly, naming names doesn't really matter. Anyone can say anything. Unless they have proof, they'd just be asking for a lawsuit. Embarrassing? Yes. But it's not like it would be earth shattering news. It wasn't that long ago that a senior member of the PMO and close advisor to Harper got caught greasing contracts....and putting his escort girlfriend on the payroll. (Which btw, the Cons are the king of playing dirty. If Con MPPs get outed, you can bet that Liberal and NDP clients will find themselves with some embarrassing publicity)

As for hypocrisy, no shit. That's life. It's also well known. There are rules for the masses and rules for the elite. Are you offended that elite politicians can jump queues for getting MRIs? What about disgraced mayors who can get a cancer treatment that others must wait 6 to 8 weeks for? Should we talk about their environmental record? International human rights? Food safety?

The question is whether hypocrisy about sex really pisses people off. IMO, it certainly adds to their shames, but it's pretty far down the list of things that really matter (or should) to Canadians.
 

whitewaterguy

Well-known member
Aug 30, 2005
3,190
21
48
The question is whether hypocrisy about sex really pisses people off. IMO, it certainly adds to their shames, but it's pretty far down the list of things that really matter (or should) to Canadians.
Well stated. the whole thing seems like universe central for some folks here, but in the big picture where Joe and minimum wage Sally, working their three jobs between them to make ends meet are concerned, it's simply a laugh nor not even a blip in their day

Most Canadians are having a hard enough time simply managing their debt load, never mind worrying about how privileged fucks like us are pissing away their recreational "hobbying" dollars

People with sufficient disposable income to blow on sex, complaining about their rights. Truly a reflection of the extremes in disparities within our nation
 

Viggo Rasmussen

New member
Feb 5, 2010
2,652
0
0
I think she was talking about how easy the bill makes it for SP's to out clients and as such they are open to being blackmailed while the SP has legislative immunity.

Basically, it is another major flaw in the law and she is pointing it out, not necessarily advocating it.
I agree with shack, by making us criminals on top of the taboo we already have they are creating the higher likelihood of blackmail.
She's pointing out a reality with her honesty.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
23,932
3,679
113
If it were contained to JUST Members of Parliament who voted FOR Bill C-36, I would not be outraged if they were outed. I admit. But I'd be worried if she simply figured that "powerful men" somehow fell into the same category as MPs who voted for C36. For example corporate executives, banking officials, high profile men. (As good as politicians right?? Powerful men have powerful friends in politics. I threaten to out John Q Warbucks - one of the richest most powerful business leaders in Canada and John Q Warbucks calls up Stephen Harper and Peter McKay on their personal cell phones and asks them what the fuck they are thinking and to just drop it. )

And how exactly is she going to PROVE THIS? Does she have video evidence? Credit card receipts? Did she keep a log book? If she did, it then begs the question, is she accumulating evidence on ALL her customers? (Or does this proof also come from other SP's (more likely) because TJB would not be seeing a lot of (if any) MPs. But again, the fact would be that the women (or men) in question are keeping records - so think about that for a moment.

For that matter, how would she even recognize a conservative MP. I wouldn't know 90 percent of them. (Did they identify themselves to a sex worker that they were using? "Hi, I'm Joe Blow, Conservative MP from Lethbridge Alberta, now what say you pee on my face girlie, Yee Hawww." I somehow doubt it. No guy would be that stupid (I hope.).)

Blackmail is never a game you want to play.

I think she's blowing smoke. She may have a name or two at best and whole lot of rumour.
 

SexyLacy

Sensuality At It's Finest
Mar 11, 2007
61
0
6
Windsor
www.YourGirlLacy.com
my first reaction is hell no! part of being an SP is having discretion - I take that pretty serious and would not jeopardize my clients like that

however, maybe I am not understanding this properly because I am shocked others are agreeing with her.. I have a lot of respect for Ms Bedford I am just not understanding the point in outing our clients.. I wouldn't like it if I was outed to the masses so why would I do that to anyone else.. especially someone who pays for my services

unless someone gives me a really valid reason, I will pass on the outing
 

Viggo Rasmussen

New member
Feb 5, 2010
2,652
0
0
If someone from Harper's cabinet was outed, he would throw them under the bus and move forward with the bill.
Nothing would change.
 

Ms.FemmeFatale

Behind the camera
Jun 18, 2011
3,127
0
36
www.msfemmefatale.com
I had my issue with her in the past, things I disagreed with. I have no respect for this woman now. I am sorry. She is fucked.

I get that people are mad, frustrated, etc. but this is not the way.
 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
17,886
12,294
113
I've heard rumors and names second hand myself. If there is proof and they are outing names of individuals who voted in favor of this bill then I say its all fair in love and war.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts