So what I am telling you is that our opponents are either ignorant of what the current debate is about, ignorant about the realities of the sex trade issues, and they are trying to prevent Parliament from framing new legislation. Just think of what will happen if Prime Minister Harper has to bring in new legislation. He will have to define what is and what is not a sex act. He will have to define who is and who is not a prostitute. I will have plenty to say about all that in the future, but the thing to remember is that laws cannot be impermissibly vague. That means he must tell us exactly what we can and cannot do in private and why, if he wishes to make prostitution illegal. Do you want the Prime Minister to control your sexuality and what you choose to do with your body in the privacy of your home or business? Our opponents do not want that discussion to happen. They just want some vague and indirect legal and moral condemnation of sex for money to appear to be the policy of the country. I say to you here today what a number of academic papers that have been sent to me since this began are saying. We must move away from a moral basis for legislating on this issue and towards a safety basis. We women must not lose control of our bodies and our lives. Other countries are hopefully moving forward in emancipating women. Don’t allow Mr. Harper to take us backward.

Thank you all very much.

– Terri-Jean Bedford
http://DominatrixOnTrial.com

Now let me talk about the first group. The federal government announced an appeal before they even had time to read the decision! The lawyers who argued on their behalf at the hearings from 2007 to 2010 and the appeal in 2011 were merely following orders. They couldn’t even get credible experts. But what were those orders? I think the orders from Ottawa were to make the debate go away. Those who have read the Himel decision and seek to overturn it are looking after themselves for sure. But they are also seeking to maintain a status quo that benefits organized crime at the expense of women.

To be Continued

– Terri-Jean Bedford
http://DominatrixOnTrial.com

And something else. Human trafficking and women being illegally exploited in this country occurs across a number of occupations such as household domestics, farm labourers, office cleaners and, I could go on. The judge did point out that the negative aspects of human trafficking and so on are addressed by other laws: such as those against immigration, confinement and assault. And they say prostitution is bad. Well guess what. I say it’s good. Who the hell are they to decide I say it is wrong to allow women to have premarital sex for free yet make them criminals if they get a dinner or favour or money for it. We are not slaves! They say smoking is bad. They say overeating is bad. They say getting drunk is bad. So why when women exercise free choice in the bedroom does it have to be illegal – even if it is bad, which it is not?

Why do I say prostitution is good? It’s not just me. All over town men and women are paying for sex acts now. Would they do it if it was not good? And what about acts that may or may not be sexual. Some of you may have tied up your boyfriends and tickled them, or had them do it to you. What’s wrong with that? Is that a sex act if your clothes are on? And of course, if they paid you to do it are you a criminal? I think we should get a medal when we punish men or take their money.

To be Continued

– Terri-Jean Bedford
http://DominatrixOnTrial.com

Judge Himel said her decision was not about whether prostitution is good or bad, or whether it should continue to be legal, or, for that matter, what prostitution is and is not. Her 131 page decision, after two years of hearings from experts and lawyers, was that the laws seeking to restrict prostitution (whatever that is) were unconstitutional. In a nutshell she said that those laws impacted negatively on those they were supposed to protect. For example, they prevent prostitutes from hiring security or working from a regular location. She also said that these harmful laws impacted in a discriminatory and arbitrary fashion on a narrow segment of society– on women. Yet, many voices rose saying that prostitution should not be made legal. First of all they forget it already is. These uninformed voices tell us that prostitution and pimping will increase dramatically, as will human trafficking, if the decision is upheld and nothing else is done. They also tell us that prostitution is bad. This is all crap. The judge said the evidence does not support those assertions. You can read her decision where she looks at other countries and the evidence at length and says why. I would like to add a couple of other considerations. For one thing, do men who pay prostitutes have unlimited money to ramp up their demand. For another, prostitution is rampant today and the current laws, as the judge said, are rarely enforced anyway. And something else. Human trafficking and women being illegally exploited in this country occurs across a number of occupations such as household domestics, farm labourers, office cleaners and, I could go on. The judge did point out that the negative aspects of human trafficking and so on are addressed by other laws: such as those against immigration, confinement and assault.

To be Continued

– Terri-Jean Bedford
http://DominatrixOnTrial.com

“Before anything else I want to thank Nikki Thomas for being such a wonderful spokesperson for our successful motion to strike down those appalling laws which were supposedly against prostitution. Nicki has told and can tell you about what is likely to happen if Judge Himel’s ruling is upheld. I am going to speak to you today about those who oppose Judge Himel’s decision. It seems to me there are two types of opponents First there are those who know what the decision said, and may even have read it. Then there are those who do not know what the decision said yet have an opinion on it. Let me deal with the second group first. Judge Himel said her decision was not about whether prostitution is good or bad, or whether it should continue to be legal, or, for that matter, what prostitution is and is not. Her 131 page decision, after two years of hearings from experts and lawyers, was that the laws seeking to restrict prostitution (whatever that is) were unconstitutional. In a nutshell she said that those laws impacted negatively on those they were supposed to protect. For example, they prevent prostitutes from hiring security or working from a regular location. She also said that these harmful laws impacted in a discriminatory and arbitrary fashion on a narrow segment of society– on women.”

To be Continued

– Terri-Jean Bedford
http://DominatrixOnTrial.com