Bedford and Scott?
- Thread starter Hailey♥4U
- Start date
Hailey♥4U;4947478 said:
Just because it is when you know about these two women. I would have to find it to quote it properly as she was on CP24 just after the bill was read but I don't think you will see as much concern from their corner like we have over the past few years. I have not even seen Scott in month in the news.
You can check out their site though. SPOC.ca
A number of times in my career I've refrained from speaking up for what's right because it was not what most convenient for me, so I just wanted to make a quick post to say I really admire the integrity of all your posts on this issue.
They didn't create this industry. They also didn't write unconstitutional laws. I'm not sure where you do your reading, but you'd pretty much have to be blind not to see some reaction from them online, especially on twitter and facebook, and in the press.
Maybe check out her blog? http://blog.terrijeanbedford.com/
or her twitter page? https://twitter.com/Madame_deSade/with_replies
Valerie Scott will be speaking at “Building Inclusive Communities with Sex Workers” conference in Sudbury, ON, June 12, 2014
Amy Lebovitch & Valerie Scott will be speaking at the 36th Annual Sexuality conference in Guelph, ON, June 20, 2014
http://www.spoc.ca/
that should get you started ...
They might as well be talking to the MOON....... cause unless putting pressure on the Harper Gov. incl in the media ...... NOT going to make one dam difference!!
I thought Bedford was ill and might not make it to hear the SCC judgment. Nice to see she is still around.
She's not just a pretty face (or a piece of ass, although she has such a fine one).
You must not have been paying much attention over the past 8 years. This government doesn't heed to reason and they're not about to start now.
Sure IN THE MEDIA..... Like public protest & get in the news!!! TERB is NOT the media!!!
Yup.
That's why it was incredibly risky to challenge the law while Harper is in power. While a more moderate party would have (presumably) accepted and understood the spirit of the SCC's ruling, and used it as political cover for the loosening of prostitution laws (like how R v. Morgantaller undid Canada's abortion law a generation ago), the Harper Cons were always more likely to push back, and take things in the other direction.
The mess we find ourselves in today was entirely foreseeable when R v. Bedford was decided. Entirely foreseeable. Sometimes, it's better to let sleeping dogs lie. To not poke the bear (and wonder why he bites back).
I saw Ms. Scott on cbc on june 4th and I saw a video of her from globe and mail or global tv - i forget.
She's out there fighting this. Search.
And this was not forseeable. There was no way 7 years ago when they started this that they knew who would be in government now.
She's out there fighting this. Search.
And this was not forseeable. There was no way 7 years ago when they started this that they knew who would be in government now.
Audio of Ms. Scott today: http://www.cbc.ca/pointsnorth/episodes/2014/06/11/sex-work-discussed-in-sudbury/
this woman never stops.
this woman never stops.
Showing up for court dressed in leathers and sporting a wipe may have given the judges the same impression.
Listening to her, it sounded like she wanted the right to run her brothel openly in a residential building, this was never going to happen. Maybe she was busted or kicked out of her apartment in the past, don't know.
also, Discretion is the better part of valor
There are different kinds of constitutional cases. In some cases the issue really is just legal/academic, and those you just run without a care in the world about how the government might respond.
Others have larger social/political implications, and in those, if you really care about the long term outcome, you do have to take into account the political atmosphere and potential outcomes. Timing is important on those.
True enough, and in this case, the larger social/political implications in 2007 (when the challenge was launched) involved a weak Conservative minority government, which only became a majority in 2011 due to the cumulative ineptitude of Paul Martin, Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff. Shame on those women for not polishing their crystal ball to know what might be coming in four years! (And, might I add, shame on the numerous TERB clients who voted with their wallets instead of their brains, and thought to themselves, "Well, maybe Harper won't be so bad...")
That timeframe also included the Robert Pickton trial, and the public realization of the true extent of his murders. Few people remember that the Ontario challenge launched by Bedford, Lebovich & Scott wasn't the only challenge launched against the laws - a concurrent challenge came out of Vancouver that same year, launched by the Downtown East Side sex workers who lived in fear of Pickton for all that time. The group was called SWUAV (Sex Workers United Against Violence) and represented 35 sex workers & Sheri Kiselbach, with Pivot Legal and Katrina Pacey representing the applicants. The rationale behind two concurrent challenges was that if one of them were delayed or dismissed for procedural reasons, there would still be another one being heard.
Of course, that's exactly what happened - the Vancouver challenge was delayed for several years as various courts debated whether they had standing, an issue that was eventually resolved by the SCC granting them standing in 2011 and kicking the case back to a lower court to be heard. By then, the OCA had already ruled in favour of the original Bedford decision and the SCC had agreed to hear it, so Pacey and SWUAV sought (and received) intervenor status in the Bedford case instead.
For all those directing their anger towards Bedford, Lebovich & Scott, I ask of you this - would you direct the same anger towards the Downtown East Side sex workers who sought relief from Pickton, and were denied it by the police? Because that's exactly what happened. In addition to an appalling amount of disinterest on behalf of VPD, they also shut down a safe-house where street-based sex workers in the DTES would take their clients during the height of the murders - it was called Grandma's House, and was operated by Jamie-Lee Hamilton - and it was closed under the S.210 Bawdy House laws. That was a critical piece of evidence that the SCC cited in their decision, and displayed in vivid detail just how harmful the laws really were.
If not for standing issues, that case would have been heard concurrently with the Bedford case, and I doubt there would be many claiming that the DTES workers were doing it for the attention. Please think about that before attacking the Ontario applicants for their challenge, and consider it within the context of what was really going on at the time.
(By the way rld, I know you know all this and I don't mean to call you out, this post is more to inform those who aren't quite as knowledgeable about the history of the challenges.)
Last edited:
Agreed. This took years to reach the SCC, and I don't think you can ask for judgement to be deferred until a different government is in power.
