Bedford threatens to name politicians - gets thrown out of Senate Hearings

[yazoo]

A high-profile sex worker who led a successful challenge of Canada’s prostitution laws was kicked out of a Senate committee hearing Wednesday after threatening to make public a list of politicians who hire prostitutes...

... "If you pass this bill, I'm going to make you forget about Mike Duffy," she said.

The law's going to pass - at least this gives us something to look forward to

Coverage on
CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/terri-jean-bedford-kicked-out-of-prostitution-bill-meeting-1.2761325

Globe
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...omen-advocates-tell-senators/article20512677/

Toronto Star
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...ng_after_mentioning_proof_on_politicians.html

 

[Ms Erica Phoenix]

Jeez Us!!!
Where are the advocates of 'Discretion, discretion, always discretion"??

Well, there's this...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-prostitution-law-shouldnt-target-women-advocates-tell-senators/article20512677/
Ms. Bedford’s threat comes two months after a National Post report said Ottawa sex workers were compiling a list of MPs who use their services in opposition to the bill. An Ottawa sex worker group called POWER (Prostitutes of Ottawa-Gatineau Work, Educate and Resist), which has testified to MPs considering C-36, refuted that, calling it a rumour and saying it would be career suicide for a sex worker to reveal clients.

 

[Lo-ki]

My new sentence from now on..

"If you..........., I'm going to make you forget about Mike Duffy,"

 

[yazoo]

Thanks ladies, but my comments are about the actions on this board. Whether the story is true or not, whether people outside this forum oppose the idea of the story or not, this board and its members should always uphold the codes of practice we want the industry to follow. Regardless who the clients might be, regardless of how effective politically we might think the 'big reveal' might be, if we'd have SPs do unprofessional things to them, why should any of us expect any better treatment for ourselves?

It's not like it's the priesthood or the legal bar or something. Nobody swears an oath of secrecy.

If we compare the ethics between revealing the name of a customer who is about to destroy the reputation of your other customers, or a sworn member of parliament who speechifies about how these vulnerable women are in need of rescue, and then does precisely what he is condemning. Which is worse?

And then if you can prevent one by doing the other...

I'm loading up the popcorn popper as well.

 

[morementum]

That would be awesome rintin6 if Peter MacKay's name was on the list lol.

Almost positive Justin Trudeau's name will be. He has a huge reputation in Quebec as a "player" and people get a great chuckle how out west he is seen as a family guy.

 

[CJ Tylers]

Well, there's this...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-prostitution-law-shouldnt-target-women-advocates-tell-senators/article20512677/
Ms. Bedford’s threat comes two months after a National Post report said Ottawa sex workers were compiling a list of MPs who use their services in opposition to the bill. An Ottawa sex worker group called POWER (Prostitutes of Ottawa-Gatineau Work, Educate and Resist), which has testified to MPs considering C-36, refuted that, calling it a rumour and saying it would be career suicide for a sex worker to reveal clients.

Appearing at that hearing, having her name made public, being in opposition to a bill that mr. Harper will see pushed through, no matter what...is already career suicide. Once the bill goes through, every woman that testifies as or on behalf of sp's will be the first targets of the new regime, and their customers will be the first people to be made an example of.

And if that doesn't come to pass, people will probably be too afraid to book "just in case".

So, you see, she really has nothing to lose... except her life and liberty, should some powerful senator or mp decide to take matters into their own hands. Sadly, without actual proof, her accusations fall into the category of slander... so let's hope that she, as well as all sp's that have dealt with these scum sucking mp's and conservative d-bags ... have some serious proof. In this case, and this case alone, will I be willing to suspend my outrage at the betrayal of client trust, since many people have far more to lose should c36 come to pass and be enforced.

I hope she makes it rain.

 

[westwoody]

I think it was crass of her to make a threat like that. She was there representing her profession. She confirmed the bad stereotype of an untrustworthy prostitute who is willing to blackmail her clients.
She could have dressed a bit more sensibly.
The fact is she is appearing before a Senate Committee and is appearing on national television. I don't think she portrayed herself very well.

What kind of Democracy is this when they hear something they don't want to hear they just expel you.... good for her for speaking up

She was kicked out for speaking out of turn. Her time ran out and she would not stop talking.

Some politicians may be worried, maybe not. It is possible that this could deteriorate into a he said, she said debate. Remember it is the public's opinion that matters, not the opinion of the few thousand board members. Some here might think she is a hero, the public at large may think quite differently. In fact I am sure they do. Especially after the blackmail threat.

Duffy made a bunch of threats too. Now everybody thinks he's a loudmouthed goof.

 

[CJ Tylers]

It's true,she could've been more matter of fact and less threatening. Running over time isn't a good thing, the question at hand is: was she given fair and equitable time, compared to the time given to those parties in support of the bill?

 

[vancity_cowboy]

I think it was crass of her to make a threat like that. She was there representing her profession. She confirmed the bad stereotype of an untrustworthy prostitute who is willing to blackmail her clients.
She could have dressed a bit more sensibly.
The fact is she is appearing before a Senate Committee and is appearing on national television. I don't think she portrayed herself very well.

She was kicked out for speaking out of turn. Her time ran out and she would not stop talking.

Some politicians may be worried, maybe not. It is possible that this could deteriorate into a he said, she said debate. Remember it is the public's opinion that matters, not the opinion of the few thousand board members. Some here might think she is a hero, the public at large may think quite differently. In fact I am sure they do. Especially after the blackmail threat.

Duffy made a bunch of threats too. Now everybody thinks he's a loudmouthed goof.

bedford has always been for bedford, and bedford alone. she has always been a gaudy, over dressed, over made-up, drama queen. the pictures of her prancing around for the cameras after the scoc decision, were frankly embarrassing. heaven help us if she is the poster-girl for our business, which has ALWAYS been about discretion

i hate to say it, but she should be VERY VERY careful going forward. sex workers have disappeared before... as a matter of fact, the sex industry is known for it. and the boys that she is threatening now are absolutely not going to allow this risk - period

i used to think she was a drama queen, now i just feel sorry for her more than anything else

 

[newatit]

This is war. We have an an enemy who gives no quarter. We need to fight back.

Yes I agree that confidentiality is our creed. But after this law passes I expect gals to be strongly pressured to the breaking point to help in a conviction. There won't be any holds barred by the LE to get convictions.

We should get these people in parliament who are Hippocrits.

However it is never wise th make threats. A message like this could be delivered in a number of effective ways instead.

 

[Vancityads]

Fighting with the Government is always a lose lose situation

 

[HankQuinlan]

I have cheered before when rent boys have outed hypocritical preachers and politicians in the States. This is no different; good for her. And as for exceeding her "time" -- her time was limited against her from the start, while there is lots of time to hear more crybabies like Trish Baptie. I admire Ms. Bedford. I hope some of those bastards are squirming.

 

[westwoody]

Running over time isn't a good thing, the question at hand is: was she given fair and equitable time, compared to the time given to those parties in support of the bill?

When you are in court and the judge says "enough!" you shut up. Period. This is no different, she was told to wrap it up and went off on a rant instead.

Agree that the time allocations are disgustingly unfair, but she is a guest appearing at the invitation of the committee. They have every right under law to kick her out whenever they want.

 

[newatit]

Mmmmmmmmmmm

 

[newatit]

We still have to remember this is about purchasing sexual services. The solution is so simple. Don't purchase services. They must be free. There is nothing illegal about having unpaid sexual services. We have a right to arrange our affairs so that they are done within the law.

SP's can advertise if they don't advertise sex. They can charge for spending time with them. We are still free to have sex with whom we please. There just can't be a purchase agreement for sex between us.

Technically purchases are contracts or agreements to acquire a service. Without that formal agreement there is no sale. But in a private room what goes on is private.

There is no definition of what a purchase is in this act so other rules will apply. This whole thing will be better than the young and restless

 

[vancity_cowboy]

We still have to remember this is about purchasing sexual services. The solution is so simple. Don't purchase services. They must be free. There is nothing illegal about having unpaid sexual services. We have a right to arrange our affairs so that they are done within the law.

SP's can advertise if they don't advertise sex. They can charge for spending time with them. We are still free to have sex with whom we please. There just can't be a purchase agreement for sex between us.

Technically purchases are contracts or agreements to acquire a service. Without that formal agreement there is no sale. But in a private room what goes on is private.

There is no definition of what a purchase is in this act so other rules will apply. This whole thing will be better than the young and restless

the fact remains, that if le 'gets' to the lady in question - and they have their ways... threatening to call social services to get her kids as one example - then she will rat you out SO fast, you'll still be waving your arms about the legality of this and the legality of that as they haul you off to the lockup

make no mistake about it, if this thing passes, we are going to have to conduct our business DEEP underground - and i mean everybody, escorts and all

 

[newatit]

Thank you peace guy. You have some deeper insight. And the same thinking might suggest that every man is guilty of a consideration for buying supper or any gift. Like taking a gal on a vacation or business trip would certainly be a consideration. But in this item how do you separate out a relationship vs a sexual purchase? What about mistresses and the like?

Underground is going to be a long way down. That is for sure.

It would appear that I couldn't buy my wife a car if she suggested a really great night.

Where is my privacy to have sex with whom ever i please. What if I choose a known hooker that I didn't know was and then she lays a heavy on for money afterwards? I would think a guy who goes near any gal who was once a hooker would be defenceless.

Frankly this is the time to form some good relationships with hookers who won't squeal later and thus avoid being without.

 

[johnsmit]

That was part of my intent when I posted about grandfathered in..
Have some one you have know for a while.. I don't think the new law will try to exstend as far as restricting association with a know prostitute.... That is a constitutional mine field .

As for Bedford threating to reveal names.. she did in public. . So every one heard..and did not name and one.. it not black mail . It a promise. .

Also..many of these names come from other women that saw these people .. silencing her will not stop the names or the evidence.
Of course there is far more then just revealing who.. This could go in to the whole rich and powerful sex rings that have been operating for many many yrs...that no one talks about.... The women know what I am talking about.. no one will acknowledge it.. but they have the names and addresses.. None the girls ever forget who they saw or when. If there is any think I have found to be true in this business there is
No anominity. . It is a business of keepers of secrets.. and they are not that we'll kept.

As long as the laws left the bulk of the prostitution industry alone .left prostitution legal and buying services legal..There was no threat to being exposed. Clients were protected from any criminal threat ftom girls.. .. I think Bedford just gave them something to think about.

 

[Pantherdash]

That was part of my intent when I posted about grandfathered .

Hey! If you want to be heard, learn to write! You write like a MOFO!

Panther

 

[johnsmit]

Really Pd

I sure your one mother f#@key that is so well educated and we'll received by others.
That you don't think you are a Mofo like the rest of the perverts on this board

But i must congrat you on using such an old well abused English term of comment
When yoj have no other .useful comment.
Thanks for reading my moronic post .

Now back to the intent of this post
Is it a good idea to threaten the rich and powerfully sex life
I wonder if this is Harpers intent.. ..I am sure their life style totally decusts is moral superiority.

IF the powers be hide the government take this threat seriously.. Harper and Mackay ..my suddenly have a re think on this new bill..

Sex scandals have brought down more governments then revolutions.