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

[Muffdiver69]

so reading about the hearings i came across the recent testimony from a male sex worker.
"A Montreal escort who bills himself as a "quality companion for ladies" will be the first male sex worker to testify on the government's bill to revamp"

so all these women who use his services will be criminals after C-36 and both male and female clients will be prosecuted equally? <laughs>
And i just cant get over how selling something is legal but buying is not. I can imagine business will drop off and decline for many ladies. I have already
stopped going to AMPS. I may just drop this hobby post C36 as it not worth the risks.

 

[Slapshot1]

so reading about the hearings i came across the recent testimony from a male sex worker.
"A Montreal escort who bills himself as a "quality companion for ladies" will be the first male sex worker to testify on the government's bill to revamp"

so all these women who use his services will be criminals after C-36 and both male and female clients will be prosecuted equally? <laughs>
And i just cant get over how selling something is legal but buying is not. I can imagine business will drop off and decline for many ladies. I have already
stopped going to AMPS. I may just drop this hobby post C36 as it not worth the risks.

Yep, I agree, I've said to myself from day one about this retarded bill, " I can do immoral, but I won't do illegal". It really does suck as I have just entered this hobby recently, and for it to be made illegal by a bunch of holier than thou wacko church nuts, simply just pisses me off!

 

[Muffdiver69]

i also fear for the ladies this bill purports to protect because i believe what the male sex worker said rings true

"By driving away "nice clients," he said, he fears the new laws will leave "only the worst" ones, "those who are more inclined towards aggression and who aren't seeking out an escort for general benefits, but more for a twisted way of having control."

 

[Lo-ki]

When she was slapping her leather gloved hand with her riding crop, I was waiting for her to yell....

"ORDER IN THE COURT"

PS Why were some people licking there lips..??

 

[Vancityads]

When she was slapping her leather gloved hand with her riding crop, I was waiting for her to yell....

"ORDER IN THE COURT"

PS Why were some people licking there lips..??

lol:clap2:

 

[susi]

please remember people that inside the city of vancouver we have policies with police and with the CoV which protect us from enforcement and which the police have said they will honor.

so please, don't panic!! just stick to ladies with reviews or whom are really well known.

out in ontario and on the prairies its a different story. they seem hell bent on enforcing this law and i can see them targeting the workers who spoke up.....

on another note, i thought chris from john's voice did well.....unbelievable the way they treated him though.....

love susie

 

[Ms Erica Phoenix]

Sex scandals have brought down more governments than revolutions.

*

He's not wrong, folks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profumo_affair

 

[westwoody]

out in ontario and on the prairies its a different story. they seem hell bent on enforcing this law

The Winnipeg Chief is a total Bible-thumping whacko. Don't be surprised if he is chomping at the bit over C36.

Good luck to Susi and everyone in YVR you are a beacon of hope.

 

[huggzy]

Jeez Us!!!

Yes I get it that we are pissed off and don't think of politicians as real persons. But since when do we in this hobby ADVOCATE indiscretion regardless of who the client is? We have, literally, run some SPs out of the mainstream business for things like this (e.g. Jessica PRabitt for one). And here we are cheering on another person to do this because we hope that some of the clients are politicians that we have heard of and do not like.

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

One of the reasons stakeholders who partake in this industry are ostracized when they are outed to the general public is because there is a perception amongst the public that what participants are doing is evil/wrong/morally reprehensible etc. In Canada the largest factor that contributes to this perception is the fact that lawmakers continually implement laws that attempt to criminalize this activity - and that lawmakers are considered to be the moral authority of the people (despite the fact that most don't seem to give two shits about what the majority of the public thinks).

The problem is that many of the same people who continually make moves to implement these laws to curry favour with the special interests who push to criminalize the activity are also participants themselves. They are contributing to all of our misery and they are hypocrites because they are breaking their own laws.

Lawmakers should NEVER break their own laws. And if it turns out that they are in fact doing so then they should for sure be outed 100%. Absolutely. The consideration of privacy to save them from being ostracized should not be extended for these same people. They are the ones that are making life miserable for us to begin with.

 

[Man Mountain]

Yes, I believe Susi is right... I don't think we have a lot to worry about out here....

I doubt they are going to put a whole lot into tracking down what goes on behind the closed doors of people who consensually meet. Street work may be a different story, but the way we conduct business here, I think Susi is right.

please remember people that inside the city of vancouver we have policies with police and with the CoV which protect us from enforcement and which the police have said they will honor.

so please, don't panic!! just stick to ladies with reviews or whom are really well known.

Notice that susi is being very specific that she's referencing the "city of Vancouver". Does anybody know what we can expect from law enforcement in Burnaby, New West, Surrey, etc.? I'm going to be honest. I'm not even sure which municipalities are under RCMP enforcement and which have their own city police forces. And think about what the climate in Surrey is like with regards to the business?

I wrote more but have decided that it may be best to keep my opinions about this to myself. I think each one of us needs to decide how much risk we're willing to take and if the reward is worth the risk. I'll leave it at that.

As for the Bedford threat that this thread was about, I agree with Peace Guy and westwoody. I'll leave it at that.

 

[susi]

yes, MM and EG are right, its only the CoV proper that is protected but remember, if a worker is well known, she is not LE so safe....as well as the law is not in effect yet....and they specifically are saying that indy workers will not be affected....however....LE are not well known for using their "discretion" for the actual right reasons....there are new "human trafficking officers" in burnaby already...

rest assured....we will fight this...all the way....again.....

i sympathize with terri jean....i am so frustrated....after 12 years of my life working in advocacy....to face this level of shit....its rough...

love you all!!
susie

ps. i read badger john's letter last night at our event and people loved it!! thank you so much BJ!!!!

 

[deathreborn]

Burnaby, Coquitlam and Surrey are the RCMP. Vancouver, West Vancouver and New Westminster are the own police department. As for the climate in Surrey, I think that there are so many people and other issues going on out there, that as long as people are discreet about what they are doing it isn't going to be a huge issue. The cops have enough stuff on their plate. I am not sure they are going to go all out to go after people who are discreet about what they are doing, but that's just my personal opinion and not based on any kind of facts.

delta, port moody and abbotsford have their own forces as well.

 

[HankQuinlan]

This isn't war as some have said, this is politics. And in politics, the long game is what matters. A salacious sex scandal that is largely forgotten in six months is not worth the damage to the slowly changing brand of the industry. The law will likely pass. But eventually it will come before the courts and has a high possibility of being tossed out. If we don't want exactly the same law again after the next court decision (with a few more tweaks), the industry's brand will matter.

Disagree. It is a war -- a cultural war. Hypocrisy among lawmakers and religious figures is the one unforgivable sin. If you oppose gay rights, don't be bangin' rent boys or blowing guys in the park or havin' a secret gay lover. If you want to send people to prison for using drugs, don't be using them yourself and pulling favours when your kid is caught. If you oppose abortion, don't be having one. If you favour making prostitution illegal, don't be paying for prostitutes. Doesn't matter if it was legal -- if you want to make it illegal, don't have it in your past -- or man up and do the right thing and speak against the law. It is one of the few black and white rules on social issues.

I hope there are pics and videos and sound recordings out there and that she has them.

Their hypocrisy simply trumps concepts like industry discretion.

 

[CAEC]

If we start burning public figures for seeing SPs in Canada while it isn't against the law I see that as undermining all the work that the advocates have done.

Perhaps MPs and Senators should not get burned for seeing SPs when it was legal but perhaps they should get burned for voting in support of Bill C-36. The hypocrisy is what should matter to all voters.

 

[huggzy]

Why call it hypocrisy???

If a politician started to drink alcohol at the age of 18 in a jurisdiction where that was the legal age should that person be excoriated for voting for a bill to raise the drinking age to 19 or 21 if that is what the electorate wanted? If they once legally owned a pistol and now vote for a bill to make ownership of pistols illegal, where is the hypocrisy? Is it hypocrisy for a woman who was an unwed teen mother to try to ensure that her daughter makes different decisions? People can change their ways.

Hypocrisy is to present one face to the public WHILE acting different in you private life. It isn't hypocrisy to have seen a SP before this bill gets first reading in the house and to subsequently vote for the bill. Hypocrisy would to vote for the bill and then see an escort.

Being a political leader isn't simply about cowtowwing (sp?) to the electorate...that isn't leading. Being a leader is also taking a moral stance and sticking with it when required, even when it isn't always a popular stance. Just because an act is "legal" or "illegal" doesn't always mean that the act is moral or immoral (as the case may be). There are good laws, but there are also oftentimes very bad laws which make no sense for many people from a moral standpoint.

If a politician is partaking in an act that he thinks is immoral - he should never do it whether it is legal or not. On the flip side - if a politician is partaking in an act that he has no moral problem with - then its not only completely hypocritical but is also immoral in its own way to openly support a law that will bring harm against the people that it will criminalize.

And no matter what, a politician should NEVER commit an act that is against the laws of this land, regardless of his views on it, simply on the basis that he must set an example because he is a lawmaker.

A lawmaker must lead and must take the morally correct path when he can. If one is partaking in this industry then one has to assume that he has no moral issues with doing so. If he supports a bill that criminalizes other people in this industry then he must be exposed as a criminal as well then. Period.

Politicians are not normal people. They are supposed to be held to the highest standard and the whole idea that the "unwritten code" that an escort ought to protect his identity carries zero weight if that same man is going to attempt to criminalize those same women that he is seeing in the industry and the other men that are doing nothing different than him. Fuck him.

 

[huggzy]

Morality has no place in the law because morality is a cultural variable; what is moral in one culture is immoral in another.

There is personal liberty and there is harm and the sole valid purpose of law is to strike a balance between the two. Thus my position as previously stated: a person can change. One's personal understanding of the where the balance should be on a legal issue can change over time and with experience. That one personally saw little harm in an activity in the past and they now think differently is not hypocrisy. If it was, we must also call hypocrite those politicians that once thought as the government does and now support our view because their moral stand has changed.

What is "the highest standard"? Not that many decades ago the highest standard required the government remove first nations children from their homes and send them to boarding schools, arrest homosexuals and sterilize the mentally ill. Upholding the highest standards is exactly the same as cow-towing to the current consensus of society.

The reality is that we as a group disagree with the majority of the electorate, and their current whim. Because we we feel betrayed that some politicians apparently once were members of our tribe (who knew?) and have chosen to defect to the other tribe, our group wishes to embrace the oh so flexible concept of what is moral and twist it to cast our opponents as morally corrupt and thus fair targets for mob justice. As soon as someone tells us who these evil defectors are.

The main intent of the rule of law (in a democracy) is to uphold a set of commonly held values of a given community. Of course its variable from culture to culture - that's why there are different laws everywhere you go. I can't understand how you could think otherwise. If the community believes in personal liberty then you would presume its laws would reflect those beliefs.

Of course people's views can change over time. But I'm pretty certain that in this specific circumstance we're not talking about men who made "a mistake" 20 years ago and now they're being threatened of being outted for something they would never do now. These aren't guys who were teenagers when they did this. You'd be naïve to think that all these guys they're talking about aren't still involved...we who partake in this business all know its hard to leave once you get started doing this hobby. These are men who are 40, 50, 60 years old...not 20 or 30 somethings who made a "stupid" mistake a few years ago. These are men who either act against their own moral code, or they don't have a moral issue with this business but choose to criminalize everyone else anyways. That is the worst kind of hypocrite in this world.

Upholding the highest standards is not cowtowing to the current consensus to society - it is maintaining a standard higher than the norm. These are the people most of us would want in office - apparently you don't have a similar standard. But that's how and why you occasionally find the Rob Ford's of this world getting their way into office - because sometimes some people have the bar set a little lower than others.

Outing them wouldn't be "mob justice". It would be justice period. If these activities are considered to be criminal in their own minds and they choose to support laws that criminalize it then they should be punished by their own laws, outted and shamed at the very least. And if these activities AREN'T considered to be criminal in their own minds but they still support laws that criminalize then they can all go to hell for their own hypocrisy - and fuck this bullshit "honor code" you find so near and dear to your heart (and who gives two shits if they aren't provided this protection considering they couldn't give two shits about anyone else obviously). They chose to change the rules of the game (and they've even now been given a shot across the bow) If they want to continue down that course then boo hoo.

 

[Lo-ki]

"Lastly, as I've said on many occasions throughout the various boards, if the goal is to demonstrate that this industry is a profession then it is essential that we act professionally."

I couldn't agree more Erica :clap2::clap2:

 

[westwoody]

Erica is absolutely right!
Discretion is absolute, either you have it or you don't.
Threats make the entire industry look terrible. You cannot selectively out people because you disagree with them. That is a very slippery slope. Next they get outed over tax policy, or traffic laws.

 

[huggzy]

Discretion is not a relative variable that is contingent upon whether or not one feels as though he or she has been mistreated. Instead, discretion is - and should always be in this industry - an absolute.

This industry already has an often negative reputation and we are only doing ourselves a disservice when we reinforce that stereotype. Threats and other such irreverent behaviour has no place in respectful public discourse, regardless of how frustrated we may personally feel.

Lastly, as I've said on many occasions throughout the various boards, if the goal is to demonstrate that this industry is a profession then it is essential that we act professionally.

Every profession has exceptions to the rule. Lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. There is no such thing as absolutes and in any true profession either. Why you would decide that this industry, whose participants are bound by nothing except their reputations, would choose to put yourselves and your liberty at risk to protect the very people putting yourself into that position is confusing at the very least. If a lawyer, or doctor, or accountant found themselves in a parallel situation I think you would be hard-pressed to find one that wouldn't protect themselves and their profession from a similar type threat.

 

[yazoo]

It's called having personal integrity. Some folks here already get that. Others? Well, we try to coach them along...

I think that it is possible to disagree on strategy and still have personal integrity. Saying otherwise is just using a lot of vocabulary to hide name-calling.