Allegra Escorts Collective
Toronto Escorts

Most recent articles on prostitution related laws, opinions, comments

wilbur

Active member
Jan 19, 2004
2,079
0
36
I agree with D-Fens (see post #1208 above). It would be healthier for everyone involved to ignore the Senate hearings. This is not a serious attempt at governance, it is just one more example of playing politics with social issues, and a very dirty example at that. Pay attention to it and you will just work your nerves up for nothing. Just turn off the news, and wait for the next election. Canada is still a democracy and men still have the right to vote, at least for now.
Do you think that the Liberals or the NDP, if they ever wound up in power, would actually reverse this law?

When Justin speaks, he is perfecting the art of public policy waffling, which means he probably has the same policy in mind, but is afraid of presenting a common point with Harper. Mulcair only talks of sending it to the SCC.
 

lenny2

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2012
3,574
729
113
This is not their job, this is the job of the courts. They have reasonable doubts to arrest you because they saw you leaving the premises of a reputable sex worker .They will just tell you to explain that to the judge.
Sometimes on the job LE do catch or hope to catch people in MP's in the middle of the act. A number of years back, BTW, they caught an NDP leader in the nude in a Toronto MP. And sometimes during raids people come up with creative ways of escaping:

"Naked Man Climbs Down Pipe Fleeing Police Prostitution Raid"

http://www.chinasmack.com/2011/pict...wn-pipe-fleeing-police-prostitution-raid.html

In the entire history of Canada has an officer ever arrested a person under what you described? As a single eligible bachelor i am willing to take the one in a billion chance that it will happen to me, but maybe some of you guys with SO's don't like those odds. If you are that paranoid, then perhaps you should have never been in the hobby in the first place, since there are many other ways you could be outed under the present laws. And they are far more likely to occur than what you spoke of.
 

lenny2

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2012
3,574
729
113
Wrong unfortunately. The law does not even contain the word prostitution. It doesn't matter is she's an escort, a hairdresser or your wife; if you exchange sex for some financial compensation it is a crime in any circumstances, no matter if the money is for a specific service or a specific duration or whatever.

Still, as you say it is very difficult to prove anything and the police are completely left to decide what they think is a sexual service.

Simply put, around December this year 99% of Canadian males will be criminals according to the strict word of the law. It will be up to the police to decide which ones they will bother to arrest. The old laws were the least enforced criminal laws ever and I agree the new one will be the same.

I don't expect any officers will be arresting engaged guys for buying an expensive ring for his fiance, placing it on her finger at the wedding ceremony & shortly after having sex with her. I think a judge or jury would just laugh that, or anything similar, out of court.

Under solicitation laws an undercover Canadian police woman acting as a prostitute had to get the client to verbally agree to pay a price for sex, such as $60 for a BJ. An offer of $60 for 30 minutes of her company or companionship would not have been sufficient to make an arrest. Hence the reason many SP's worded their ads as they did. By advertising money per hour for their companionship, they were advertising as a non prostitute. Just like a girl at a bar who asks a guy to sit with her & buy her a drink. Will sex occur later? Maybe. Maybe not.

For another example, a guy puts an ad on Craigslist for a female to accompany him for the evening for dinner, movie & "maybe something more", with him offering to pay all expenses. If sex occurs would you as a juror vote him guilty or not guilty under Bill C-36?

If female SP's started putting up ads like that, except their "date" would be paying for it all, or maybe also an extra amount for expenses like cab fares, what would your verdict be?

So under the new law i would use the same strategy. Whether or not a judge or jury would see cash for sex as the same as payment for a period of time of companionship that just so happened to involve a "sexual service", is unknown, and might possibly depend on the particular circumstances of the case.

At least it offers me a shot at being acquited, which is better than no shot at all if i clearly paid for sex. So it qualifies as a risk reduction method. Evidently it is the same M.O. being used in the USA & Nordic model countries where the SP industry is alive & well.
 

trtinajax

New member
Apr 7, 2008
356
0
0
I don't expect any officers will be arresting engaged guys for buying an expensive ring for his fiance, placing it on her finger at the wedding ceremony & shortly after having sex with her. I think a judge or jury would just laugh that, or anything similar, out of court.
I agree that a judge or jury would laugh such a charge out of court but that expensive ring is clearly illegal under Bill C-36 as it is definitely a gift of material consideration being given for future sexual services. Section 15.1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly states "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

And that's where Bill C-36 fails the constitutionality test - every individual is not equal before and under this law. The Canadian Criminal Code says you cannot assault, rape or murder anyone. It does not provide an exception that says it is okay to assault, rape or murder a person should that person just happen to be your legally married spouse, your future legally married spouse, your common law spouse or someone that you are in a long tem relationship with, exemptions that Mr. MacKay states are included in Bill C-36. I don't think the police and crown attorneys are allowed to cherry pick which people they will and will not prosecute as is being considered with Bill C-36.
 

Siocnarf

New member
Aug 14, 2014
358
0
0
I don't expect any officers will be arresting engaged guys for buying an expensive ring for his fiance, placing it on her finger at the wedding ceremony & shortly after having sex with her. I think a judge or jury would just laugh that, or anything similar, out of court.
That's true; however, I wonder if a divorced wife could get her husband arrested for trying to coerce her into having sex by offering gifts. Maybe it's too silly as a stand-alone offense, but it could be a charge as part of a bigger trial I imagine.

That's an extreme example, but it illustrates the fact that the line will have to be drawn somewhere between what the LE and judges consider acceptable or unacceptable. Most probably, they will leave that line pretty much where it already is. They have a law with a different wording, but their priority remains the same.
 

Siocnarf

New member
Aug 14, 2014
358
0
0
It does not provide an exception that says it is okay to assault, rape or murder a person should that person just happen to be your legally married spouse, your future legally married spouse, your common law spouse or someone that you are in a long tem relationship with, exemptions that Mr. MacKay states are included in Bill C-36.
Just to clarify: The exceptions in bill C-36 are ONLY for financial benefits of a third party. You will not be considered a pimp if you are just married to a prostitute. This does NOT apply to clients and it does NOT apply for advertisement.

What is possibly the most twisted constitutional failure of the law is that prostitutes are legally allowed to incite people to buy illegal services. Imagine that murder is illegal, but that it would be legal to convince people to kill...
 

Siocnarf

New member
Aug 14, 2014
358
0
0
The problem is that if LE want to close a place they just have to send police to scare all their clients until they are out of business. So workers here still have to choose between a safe brothel or clients. They will need to keep hiding behind the pretense of massage parlors or escort business.

According to my interpretation, escort agencies cannot be illegal. Workers are allowed to hire drivers, security, bookers, etc and that's exactly what an agent provide for a reasonable fee. So long as they are not inciting the escorts to have sex they are not breaking any law. If they are careful in their advertisement and in how they interact with the workers the law has nothing on them.

Yes, I think in many way the new law will turn out to be easier to bypass than the old one.
 

krazyplayer

Member
Jun 9, 2004
485
0
16
Here is a fairly easy summary re: C36

If Bill C-36 were passed, the law would be as follows:

• Sex workers are not guilty of a crime
simply for selling their own sexual services.

• However, any client who purchases sexual
services, even from a consenting adult sex
worker, commits a crime.

• Any client who communicates with anyone,
anywhere and at any time, for the purpose
of purchasing sexual services, commits a
crime.

• Any sex worker (or third party) commits a
crime by communicating an offer of sexual
services in any “public place” that is, or is
next to, a place where people under 18 can
reasonably be expected to be present.

• Spouses/partners, roommates, children
and other dependants of sex workers are
not likely to be criminalized for “receiving a
material benefit” of sex work if they do not
work in the sex industry. Nor are landlords
who rent housing, at a fair market price, to a
sex worker likely liable.

• Third parties who work in the sex industry
remain criminalized and may be charged for
“receiving a material benefit,” “procuring”
and/or advertising sexual services. The
individual third party who provides goods or
services to a sex worker on the same terms
as to the general public, or at a fair market
price, is not guilty of “receiving a material
benefit” of sex work — unless that activity
is considered “procuring” or they provide
the goods or services “in the context of a
commercial enterprise” that offers sexual
services for money.

• Sex workers cannot be prosecuted for
advertising their own sexual services, but
any other party that carries a sex worker’s
advertisement — e.g., a newspaper, the
manager or owner of a website, the internet
service provider hosting a website —
commits a crime, and any advertisements
can be seized.

• In practice, almost any indoor venue
providing sexual services is unlikely to be
able to operate legally. All clients will be
criminalized, and venue operators risk
being prosecuted as parties to the criminal
purchase of sexual services or for receiving
a material benefit from sex work. Any
commercial establishment, and possibly
some of those working within it, could
be prosecuted for procuring. Sweeping
prohibitions on advertising will impede any
such venue from operating.

• In theory, sex workers can work out of
their homes. But other aspects in Bill C-36
will make it difficult in practice to work
anywhere because of clients and third
parties being criminalized and the challenge
of advertising services.''
 

Siocnarf

New member
Aug 14, 2014
358
0
0
Escorts are much more discreet than a hotel/brothel and more likely to be tolerated. For outcalls it is very difficult for LE to track clients and incall usually have no complaints so the police choose to ignore them. If escorts are licensed in a non-sexual way, then they can't simply arrest the clients for dealing with an escort.

An hotel like the ones you described in Spain would get lot of attention, some people would complain and the LE would be forced to apply the law against clients, since they can't do anything about workers or owner.

It's not really about what is legal and what is not; it's about how to do it in a way that the police won't care.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,500
2,718
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Media Advisory - Press conference - Sex workers and allied communities across Quebec aim to rebalance the upcoming Senate debate on prostitution laws
MONTREAL, Sept. 3, 2014 /CNW Telbec/ - The conservative government is rushing through Bill C36 which they hope to see passed as law by December 2014. Bill C36 violates the Supreme Court of Canada's December 2013 decision, which deemed existing prostitution laws unconstitutional. We encourage politicians to integrate sex workers' realities into workable and sustainable community based solutions, rather than proceed with measures which segregate and displace us.

Those present will offer perspectives on the harmful impacts of Bill C36 on female, trans and male sex workers in the sex industry.

- News Conference -
9 a.m.
September 5th,
Stella, l'amie de Maimie
2065 rue Parthenais, Suite 404 - Buzzer 65
Montréal, QC

The following people will be addressing the media at the Press Conference:

Anna-Aude Caouette & Robyn Maynard, Stella, l'amie de Maimie

Frank Suerich-Gulick & Betty Iglesias, ASTT(e)Q : Action Santé Travesti(e)s et Transsexuel(le)s du Québec

Claude Poisson, Rézo, projet travailleurs du sexe

Karine Hudon, l'Association québécoise pour la promotion de la santé des personnes utilisatrices de drogues (AQPSUD)

Viviane Namaste, Professor, Simone de Beauvoir Institute, Concordia University

SOURCE Concordia University

For further information:
regarding the Press Conference, please contact:
Jenn Clamen, Community Mobilizer - Stella, l'amie de Maimie
Tel: 514 / 285-1599
Email: jenn.chezstella@gmail.com

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/140...e-upcoming-senate-debate-on-prostitution-laws
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,500
2,718
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Senate invitation list shuts out sex workers on law reform that affects them the most

Looks like the Conservative-controlled Canadian Senate is taking extreme measures to avoid hearing anything that might shake up their conviction that all sex workers are exploited victims when the Senate's legal and constitutional affairs committee considers Bill C-36 next week.
The bill will add even more criminality to sex work if it becomes law, making the purchasing of sex a crime for the first time in Canadian history. It's a controversial bill, coming on the heels of a Supreme Court of Canada decision in December that threw out as unconstitutional three of the country's major laws against sex work.
A wise government would have taken a step back to really consider the implications of the highest court in the land ruling that Canada's anti-sex-work laws hurt more people than they ever helped. It would have taken a long look at the significant research in Canada and all around the world that has found that the best way to improve the safety, equality and lives of sex workers is to decriminalize the work.
But the Conservatives had their minds made up long before that Supreme Court decision was handed down. They opted for a different tack, choosing to just shut out the voices of anyone who doesn't think like they do on this issue. The invitation list of those requested to present to the Senate committee on Bill C-36 next Tuesday is blatant confirmation of that.
Only two of the 11 organizations and individuals invited to present hold a view different than the Conservatives. These two groups will be alone in the crowd in their support of decriminalization, and their view of sex workers as capable people able to make their own choices and deserving of equality, safe workplaces and respect.
Three presenters are traumatized parents of missing or murdered daughters. I'm sure their tragic and emotional stories will play well on the news that night, even though it's hard to see that C-36 would have changed anything about the circumstances of their children's deaths had it been in force back then. None of the presenters are sex worker organizations, even though Canada has quite an abundance of well-informed groups armed with convincing research in support of decriminalization.
Instead, the Senate committee will be hearing mostly from groups that support Bill C-36. They are passionately against prostitution. They're all supporters of the muddled version of the so-called Nordic model that the government is proposing, in which the buyers of sex are especially targeted for criminal charges, but the sellers nonetheless remain at risk for a variety of charges as well (not to mention are forced to retreat even deeper into the shadows to try to protect their customers).
The Senate presenter list was clearly carefully crafted to ensure that most of the day will be devoted to groups saying exactly what the Conservatives want to hear. You wouldn't want to be the two groups in the room with something different to say facing a lineup like this one:
Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. Member of the Women's Coalition For The Abolition of Prostitution, which believes no one makes a truly free choice to work as a sex worker.
Native Women's Association of Canada. Also a member of the Women's Coalition for the Abolition of Prostitution.
Walk With Me Canada. An anti-trafficking organization that opposes decriminalization and supports C-36.
Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution. The name of this group pretty much speaks for itself. The group sees all sex work as male violence against women and wants prostitution abolished.
K. Brian McConaghy, Director of Ratanak International, which describes itself as "a Christ-centered organization committed to serving the people of Cambodia by being an agent of change in Cambodia’s social, economic, and spiritual landscape." What that's got to do with sex work in Canada, I don't know.
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. A coalition of 160-plus church denominations that have strong opinions against gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia and sex work.
Ed and Linda Smith, a Regina couple whose teenage daughter left home, got into drugs and ended up murdered in 1990 while working the streets in Victoria. Fighting against prostitution has been a cornerstone of the Smiths' lives ever since.
Mothers Against Trafficking Humans. Anti-prostitution group founded by the mother of a young woman who went missing in 2006.
The two presenters who will speak that day in support of equal rights and equality for adult, consenting sex workers are Pivot Legal Society and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. Both are fine organizations with thoughtful, well-considered positions, but I fear their voices will be lost. I note that both have also been placed in speaking positions that are just before a break, which makes me wonder if they will also end up rushed through their presentations after the more Conservative-friendly groups have had their say.
Like all the other Canadian sex-work organizations, PEERS Victoria didn't get an invitation to present. But they sent in a presentation anyway. Read it here if you're still not sure what's so bad about Bill C-36.
Let's hope at least a few senators will have the decency to seek out the points of view of the other side, that at least some will feel foolish supporting a law opposed by the very people who it aims to "save." You'd think that before you rode off on your white horse in the certainty that there was a nation of exploited, helpless victims needing rescued from prostitution, you might want to hear from a few of them first.

http://closer-look.blogspot.ca/2014/09/senate-invitation-list-for-feedback-on.html
 

Meister

Well-known member
Apr 17, 2003
4,117
134
63
I don't know why this is so complicated.

Legalize brothels and incalls to provide:
safety
income
taxes through registration
mandatory health checks
brothel zoning

it would greatly reduce traffickers, pimps, diseases

fine tune as you go along.

The thing I don't like about the sex worker movement is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want all the safety and decriminalization, but they don't want the taxes, health checks etc...

Gotta have both
 
Last edited:

Meister

Well-known member
Apr 17, 2003
4,117
134
63
CRA industry code for SPs is 812900
Haha and what do you think the percentage is of all SPs actually claiming their income? 2%, 3% maybe 4%?

The reason the sex workers skirt around the license and registration issue is that they want to stay underground (ie. no taxes).
Staying underground gives them the opportunity to make 100k cash, tax free (if they are good)

Well, you want safety and protection then get licensed and come above ground.
 

oneshot8

Active member
Feb 3, 2013
621
31
28
Schedule of Day Three of the Senate Hearings now posted:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenCommitteeB...&ses=2&Language=E&comm_id=11&meeting_id=15373

Notice of Meeting

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Agenda

The subject-matter of Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts


Panel 1: 9:30 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.

Witnesses
Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter
- Keira Smith-Tague, Front Line Anti-Violence Worker
Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres
- Lisa Steacy, Representative
- Other witness to follow
As an individual
- Chris Bruckert, Professor, Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa

Panel 2: 11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.

Witnesses
Maggie’s - Toronto Sex Workers’ Action Project
- Nicole Matte, Vice-Chair, Board of Directors
- Jean McDonald, Executive Director
Stella, l'Amie de Maimie
- Anna-Aude Caouette, Spokesperson
- Other witnesses to follow

PAUSE: 12:30 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.

Panel 3: 1:30 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.

Witnesses
As Individuals
- Maxime Durocher, Escort for women
- Other witnesses to follow
As Individuals
- Chris Atchison, Research Associate, Department of Sociology, University of Victoria
Coalition Of Body Rub Parlours of the Greater Toronto Area
- Konstadia Spooner, Representative
Good to see the body rub parlours banding together and trying to voice their opinion.
 

Siocnarf

New member
Aug 14, 2014
358
0
0
If they open as hotels in an industrial area nobody would care and there would be no complaints.
I imagine many abolitionist groups would complain and make such a fuss that authorities would do something. Buying sex is not illegal in Spain. They only have a law against pimping, which these hotels can circumvent. Here, clients will want to avoid attention as much as possible. There's not much point for owners putting their business in the spotlight when they can simply run a discreet incall agency in private apartments.
 

lenny2

Well-known member
Jan 18, 2012
3,574
729
113
I agree that a judge or jury would laugh such a charge out of court but that expensive ring is clearly illegal under Bill C-36 as it is definitely a gift of material consideration being given for future sexual services.
Is that how Bill C-36 reads? If so, then i would consider a wedding ring is generally NOT "being given FOR [the purpose of] future sexual services". In general the reason it is being given is FOR love, romance, symbolism of the same, to be worn so others will know your wife's status/she is not available, it's the cultural trendy thing to do, etc. In the Western world, anyway, i think.

When it comes to giving a "donation" to a courtesan FOR [the purpose of] enjoying her "company", & sex occurs, a jury or judge would have to determine if anything criminal occured there based on the particulars of each individual case. But the much bigger problem for the prosecution is proving sex occured. Like the LE officer i quoted earlier in this thread, apart from admitting to the act yourself or having someone rat on you, they more or less have to catch you doing it. What are the chances of that, or of being struck by lightening? And even then, what's the penalty, a mere 1000 CDN for a first offense? John's school?

Re post 1231 on "sugar babies", i read somewhere a while ago an opinion that mistress type of relationships in the USA are a way some there work around the laws re prostitution. IOW such arrangements are legal there. How about that LA Clippers ex owner, Donald Sterling, & his "girlfriend", for an example?
 

Siocnarf

New member
Aug 14, 2014
358
0
0
Is that how Bill C-36 reads? If so, then i would consider a wedding ring is generally NOT "being given FOR [the purpose of] future sexual services". ...
Re post 1231 on "sugar babies", i read somewhere a while ago an opinion that mistress type of relationships in the USA are a way some there work around the laws re prostitution.
The problem with prostitution laws, is that it's a crime that's fundamentally defined by the intentions, not by the actions. If a woman says I will marry you for your money and you can have sex with me, then the husband could be a criminal according to the law. Of course, no one says that even when it's true. Prostitution can only be recognized as such when it is formalized in a very obvious way. It is very easy to hide behind marriage, casual relationship or massage service. That's in fact the purpose of these law: to make it as invisible as possible.

That's one reason demand-reduction tactic will not work. Merchandizing of sexual favors is pervasive and most of it is not perceived as prostitution. You can't convince normal guys it's bad to pay prostitutes when they see rich men with young mistresses and trophy wives.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,500
2,718
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Sex workers in Papua New Guinea (PNG) are hopeful that following the recent International AIDS Conference (IAC), held in July 2014, Melbourne, Australia, Papua New Guinea’s Health Minister, Honourable. Michael Malaba, will keep his public commitment to introduce legislation that decriminalises sex work and same sex relationships. In an UNAIDS led Community Dialogue Space session, Mr Malaba stated that he recognised that the decriminalisation of sex work was a key reform essential to tackling HIV/AIDS and that he was committed to reforming PNG’s “colonial era laws” which currently criminalise both sex work and same sex relationships.

Mr Malaba also stated that he recognised the stigma associated with sex work and sexual diversity in the highly religious, Christian-majority nation of PNG was a barrier to highly marginalised and at risk communities accessing education, support and treatment for HIV. He said, "We must remove the stigma. We are all equal."

Mr Malaba’s commitment to advocating for sex work and same sex law reform follows PNG Member of Parliament (MP) Malakai Tabar’s call earlier in the year for recognition of the rights of people with diverse sexual orientation and sex workers. Mr Tabar first publicly raised his intention to submit a paper to the government advocating for the recognition of the rights of sex workers and sexually diverse people in April, 2014. In subsequent media forums, Mr Tabar stated that previous proposals to allow same sex marriage and sex work legislative reform had been “shelved between the Government Caucus and the National Executive Council” after outright rejections of both.

Mr Tabar said his specific concern was on the growing number of people affected by legislation which criminalised their work spaces and life choices. In an online interview with the East New Britain Today forum, he asked, “How do we recognise and protect their rights within our society?” Mr Tabar also said that “Many families in PNG now have family members with different sexual orientations” and that he called for PNG to give people legal rights to feel safer in the communities they live in. “They have the right to be accepted into the society and be productive in their participation within the societies they live in.” He also said that issues relating to sex work and same sex relationships had been long ignored due to dominant evangelical Christian beliefs and political expediency, adding that, “It is about time people talked more openly about them and found positive ways to encourage sex workers and sexually diverse people to be active participants in development.”

Despite operating in a highly religious, volatile environment which condemns sex work as immoral, sex worker activists from the peer-led national sex worker network, Friends Frangipani, have long been advocating for changes to current PNG sex work legislation. PNG sex workers have expressed optimism at the increasing number of MPs publicly supporting the decriminalisation of sex work and the repeal of sodomy laws, which male sex workers are routinely charged under.

Prior to Mr Tabar and Mr Malaba expressing their support for sex work law reform, PNG sex workers have worked closely with the country’s Minister for Community Development, Dame Carol Kidu. In using her parliamentary privileges to support PNG sex workers, Ms Kidu has requested the PNG Law Reform Commission to review the laws surrounding sex work and same sex relationships.

http://www.nswp.org/news-story/papu...ntroduce-legislation-decriminalising-sex-work
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,500
2,718
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
http://blog.terrijeanbedford.com/2014/09/07/dominatrix-to-testify/

Bedford is back!

Canada’s most famous dominatrix will be testifying before the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs at 1:15 on Wednesday September 10th. The hearings are in Room 257E, East Block, Parliament Buildings in Ottawa.

Miss Bedford a plaintiff in Bedford Versus Canada, the case which overturned some of the Canada’s major laws against prostitution. The final appeal was ruled on by the Supreme Court in December. The Court gave the government one year to replace the legislation

The hearings are about the Federal Government’s Bill C-36, the new set of laws being brought before Parliament in the coming session. The hearings follow the July hearings before the House of Commons Justice Committee, which Miss Bedford did not attend.

She will be available outside the hearing room prior to and after her session, which will conclude at 3:00. She will be joined by two other witnesses.

Miss Bedford has been in correspondence with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne. She asked the Premier to refer Bill C-36 to the courts if the federal government continues to refuse to do so, in order to determine if it is constitutional – which most knowledgeable observers believe it is not. The Premier has publicly acknowledged this request and stated that her main concern about any new laws was safety. She has written to Miss Bedford since.

If you wish to write to or interview Miss Bedford she advises that you get in touch with her at terrijeanbedford @ gmail.com.

This message from the friends of Terri-Jean Bedford.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts