Terri-Jean Bedford threatens to name names if C-36 passes
- Thread starter groggy
- Start date
Cyberbullies, pimps and child predators will serve more time behind bars if Bills brought forward by the Conservative government get passed into law, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice said at a town hall meeting in Streetsville tonight.
Bob Dechert, also MP for Mississauga-Erindale, spoke at Vic Johnston Community Centre as part of a town hall meeting focusing on crime and justice issues in Canada. The meeting was hosted by Mississauga-Streetsville MP Brad Butt.
Dechert said his government has a strong track record keeping neighbourhoods in Canada safe. This includes 30 measures enacted since 2006 that honed in on crime and restoring the rights of victims.
However, Dechert said, there are new challenges such as cyberbullying the growing number of brothels in the GTA, that have compelled politicians to introduce new bills to combat the issues.
He said numerous spas and massage parlours in Mississauga double as bawdy houses and brothels. Some, including several along the Queensway in Etobicoke that are open until 3 a.m., disguise themselves as holistic health services.
"These are not places that offer shiatsu massages and such. These are brothels in our community," he said. "Many of the people in there are in there against their will."
Bill C-36 makes prostitution illegal for the first time for those who purchase sex (fines as high as $1,000) and pimps who exploit others through prostitution. It also makes it illegal to sell sexual services next to a school, playground or daycare centre, Dechert said.
http://www.bramptonguardian.com/new...es-targeting-cyberbullies-pimps-in-new-bills/
Bob Dechert, also MP for Mississauga-Erindale, spoke at Vic Johnston Community Centre as part of a town hall meeting focusing on crime and justice issues in Canada. The meeting was hosted by Mississauga-Streetsville MP Brad Butt.
Dechert said his government has a strong track record keeping neighbourhoods in Canada safe. This includes 30 measures enacted since 2006 that honed in on crime and restoring the rights of victims.
However, Dechert said, there are new challenges such as cyberbullying the growing number of brothels in the GTA, that have compelled politicians to introduce new bills to combat the issues.
He said numerous spas and massage parlours in Mississauga double as bawdy houses and brothels. Some, including several along the Queensway in Etobicoke that are open until 3 a.m., disguise themselves as holistic health services.
"These are not places that offer shiatsu massages and such. These are brothels in our community," he said. "Many of the people in there are in there against their will."
Bill C-36 makes prostitution illegal for the first time for those who purchase sex (fines as high as $1,000) and pimps who exploit others through prostitution. It also makes it illegal to sell sexual services next to a school, playground or daycare centre, Dechert said.
http://www.bramptonguardian.com/new...es-targeting-cyberbullies-pimps-in-new-bills/
,,,,and there you have it, folks. The 'King of Self-Contradiction' hard at work. Well done, I say. :thumb:
Negatory! The law will give you a criminal record of you run afoul it, even through a $500 fine. Whereas breaking a law under Provincial Statute does not give you a criminal record.
The law is not really vague. It is too broad. It gives police too much power and the citizen too little safeguards. Too much power that police cannot use is selective application of the law, and open to abuse.
We talk a lot about the severity of US anti-prostitution law enforcement. But it's not so bad considering that most offenses fall under the misdemeanor class, which is not as harsh as even our summary conviction. Breaking the law as a misdemeanor does not make you a felon in the US. You don't normally lose your job over it and don't lose your firearms. There is no such thing as a misdemeanor in Canada.
I never thought about that, but it's possible. That would be great. On the other hand, the government at that time might still appeal just to pass on the potato to the next gov. Because once it's de-criminalized, citizens will want to know how it's going to be controlled and no government want to address that.
True. I simply meant it's going to be regional/provincial in the way that it's going to be enforced (what the police will tolerate and not prosecute). For example, I think that across Canada there is a lot of variation in what is tolerated in strip clubs. For escorts and massage, in Montreal I am confident that police will not really modify their priorities. Elsewhere I don't know... The law is one thing, well established local customs is what will really matter I think.
Go sleep it off 'Party Boy'. Unlike some of us for which it's no longer a concern, you ole' buddy, got to go to work tomorrow! :wink:
Actually no, she didn't fight a conviction. That is incorrect. She was convicted and then a few years later she went for the challenge. The challenge would not even change the outcome of her conviction. If that was the case, I may have a slightly different opinion of her.
And NO, MJL has already said she would gladly take any charge over risking her clients.
Sorry, but you are not chaging my opinion on this. She was told, warned, red flagged waved in front of her face and she said "I don't care what you say". I could a flying fuck what she says either. I just want her shut the fuck up already. She created enough problems. Intent or not, the damage is done. Get the fuck out and let's others clean up your mess.
I agree with Ms Falale, It was very foolish and ignorant for this Dom to have pulled out the outing card, especially at this point in the proceedings.
If anything, she has single handedly, hurt our stance and fight against this bill.
This present Government, will not be bullied, by such tactics, its just to far into the game at this point.
And what do you think, the pro activists, for this bill, are saying right now ??? All escorts, good or bad, will be compared to this nutbar !
This was not, a smart move !!!
Yes. What's going to stop LE from going ape-shit over the new law is going to be the burden of proof: uncooperative SP/witness, act behind closed doors so reasonable doubt, unfavourable cost-benefit: a prosecution will cost tens of thousands to the crown in exchange for a measly $500 fine. But punters will have to learn to keep their mouths shut if confronted by police. The low hanging fruit for police are people who unwittingly confess through blabbing too much.
They can't outlaw massage parlours, at least not federally. If a MP has a business license, it means to me that the city has permitted citizens to frequent it for the purpose it was licensed for: receiving massages or body-rubs. Once the door is closed, well........! So cops can't use as evidence that I frequented a place that has a bona-fide business licence, even if they staked it out and got evidence that 'stuff' was going on there. If they knew that and wanted to prosecute those that walked out because of what they found out through investigation what was 'really' going on inside, then they would have had to warn the public by taking away their business license. Until then, it would be business as usual for the unaware.
I do not believe that is correct.
The only time she was charged (years ago) she was convicted and lost.
This run came from an application to challenge the law IIRC, not a conviction.
She made a choice to run this thing with the able assistance of some lawyers pro bono (which makes her comments about costs really bizarre).
Today just proves this lady is a very, very poor spokesperson for people in the sex trade.
Threats aren't the right way to gain support on this issue. She should have made the point that she has those names and about the hypocrites makings these laws, without resorting to the threat. While she may have some a little hot under the collars, the rest probably have their backs up because of it.
That her challenge was not the result of a conviction is a technicality. The law was unfair and she challenged it. She wanted justice and she got it. For a person who wound up pretty much destitute after her arrest and later conviction, her background and humble beginnigs, it was a very tenacious and courageous journey. It's not as if she was a lawyer who had too much time on her hands.
It may not have cost her personally $500,000, but is a warning to anybody else who wants to undertake this process again, getting justice is not cheap.
As for 'threatening' anybody: playing reasonable with politicians (especially the hypocrites in power) in order to show civility just gets laughed at, and those people often get called a bunch of losers. Respect is shown to those that plough ahead no matter what. That's what it takes to be successful in politics anyway. Being nice doesn't get you anywhere.
It's not a technicality when someone is suggesting that she was some sort of victim of the system and she was fighting her conviction. It is a fact.
I am not convinced her motives are as pure as the driven snow as you seem to be. Her recent appearance, and her activities during her first trial and appeal could easily lead one to the conclusion that she is not playing with all of her marbles. She said it cost her $500,000. It didn't. Do you think some who lies and acts out childishly is a good leader on an important issue?
She remains a poor figurehead for an important issue. The movement would be far better off without her.
Respect is not shown to people who act like idiots. Perserverence is a great quality. Being a clown is not. Rob Ford showed plenty of "plow ahead no matter what". Is he deserving of respect?
It's more the other way around I think. Lawyers wanted to challenge the laws and chose three defendants to build the case on. This is something that has to be done for human rights and personal freedoms. The new law is a setback and it's bad for us now, but in the grand scheme of things 5-10 years delay is nothing.
I don't think we should use threats, but just to be honest, MacKay is the one using insults (perverts) and threats (criminal records for consensual acts). He's just better at playing for his audience.
By the way, it did cost half a million. I read that somewhere else. That's not what she personally paid, but that is the cost nevertheless.
If I am ever caught and arrested all I have to say to Police is "my Lawyer" and "Supreme Court Of Canada".
You think ?? You'd be small potatoes at that point. Unless you got yourself a connected lawyer. Very expensive !!!
Feds trump munis. Crim code trumps bylaws. A city cannot license an illegal business. If MPs become illegal, the city will revoke the licenses.
There is nothing illegal about a body rub. Bill C-36 will not make body rubs illegal. It only makes the purchase of sex illegal. Body rubs get business licenses on the premise that they operate within the law. Until that's proven in a court of law, they'll be around for a while. Anyway, I know of body rubs that do not offer sex. It's sensual but no line is crossed. However, nobody is naive enough to think that no hanky panky is taking place inside the majority. It will be up to police to investigate if they want to stop the activity they suspect. Until they do, I think it's going to be business as usual, especially if SP's can't be prosecuted and they don't cooperate with police.
Another thing: Feds might trump provinces and munis, but whereas criminal legislation is federal, the enforcement of the CCC is a provincial matter. There has already been one provincial attorney general who has instructed his Crowns not to prosecure crimes under the struck down laws, over the objections or Petey.
And another thing: Bad laws are not respected and police tend to not enforce them.
