Terri-Jean Bedford is Madame deSade

The 2012 Prostitution Appeal Decision: An Expression of Gratitude

On March 26, 2012 five judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled on the governments appeal of the 2010 decision of Justice Susan Himel, which struck down the three laws seeking to prevent prostitution, whatever that is. Those laws were against living off the avails of prostitution, keeping a bawdy house for prostitution and communicating for prostitution.

First, the court upheld Justice Himel on the avails provision, so basically prostitutes can now have security, chauffeurs, accountants, landlords and so forth. Second, they told Parliament it would have to rewrite the bawdy-house provision to remove the reference to prostitution within 12 months or the provision falls. And third, they left the communicating provision intact, although the judges split 3-2 on that.

The media recognized that the Court has essentially legalized brothels in Ontario and thrown the matter to Parliament. Remember, the communicating provision remaining intact is essentially to deal with street prostitution and the penalties so minor as to be on the level of a traffic ticket. Police officers sympathetic to us have told my supporters that they are no longer going to act against indoor prostitution because it is prostitution, whatever that is.

This is an historic victory because it shows that we were right about the laws being unfair for a whole host of reasons and have now ensured that the debate will not be suppressed and changes will come. In the coming weeks I will be writing about fairness in any new laws that might be brought in. However, for now, I want to express my gratitude to many wonderful people.

Professor Alan Young has worked on this case for a decade, and against these laws for years before that. He supervised, in my estimate, about 50 students who assisted as part of their studies. He had to advocate for funding. He devoted summers and worked extra hours when he had teaching duties. He did this on the heels of publishing his wonderful book profiling the terrible shortcomings in our legal system. He defended me in the past when I was arrested under these laws despite offering no sex. He has inspired scholarship and advocacy in an area of the law desperately crying out for attention from governments. The Order of Canada award was created for people like him.

My fellow plaintiffs Amy Lebovitch and Val Scott deserve the nations thanks for coming forward and exposing their private lives and taking a position, so as to make the challenge legally viable. They have stood against these laws for years prior to this challenge coming to maturity. They have walked the walk in every way. Val has also served as Executive Director of the Sex Professionals of Canada (SPOC), and as such has led others who have helped to work towards more fairness in these laws and in societys treatment of sex workers. Val has been an amazing spokesperson. Nikki Thomas has succeeded Val and has also spoken for the current initiative with amazing insight and effectiveness.

I also want to pay my thanks to lawyers besides Alan who have represented me and assisted me in the past, and generally enabled me to carry on and tell my story. As they defended me or represented me in appeals and other ways they too fought these laws. I will, as I have in the past, list them now in the order they participated and they all have my gratitude: Ken Danson, Morris Manning, Theresa Simone, Murray Klippenstein, Charlie Campbell, George Callahan, Leah Daniels, Paul Burstein, Justice David L. Corbett and Sender Herschorn. Their assistants and staffs are not to be forgotten either.

Finally, let us not forget the many activists from the past. There have been coalitions in the past seeking to amend the bawdy-house and related laws. In the middle 1990s Robert Dante headed up the coalition formed after I was raided. Andy Anderson and the late Richard Hudler and so many others over the years are not to be forgotten. Their stories will be told, and it is my intention to do so or see that it is done. This is their victory too. Long live freedom.

BONDAGE BUNGALOW DOMINATRIX TERRI-JEAN BEDFORD COMMENTS ON THE APPEAL OF THE DECISION STRIKING DOWN CANADA'S PROSTITUTION LAWS

October 6, 2010

It has been just over a week since the Canadian judicial decision striking down our laws restricting prostitution, a legal occupation. I am one of the three plaintiffs. The proceedings lasted almost 3 years, with thousands of pages of evidence, many weeks of closed testimony from dozens of experts and 9 days of public argument. The 131 page decision took the judge almost a year to prepare. But the federal government announced an appeal within hours of its release.

Politics, not prostitution, is the world's oldest profession. It was in all probability the Prime Minister, without even having the time to read the decision, who decided to appeal it. His justice minister is a transient name and face between cabinet shuffles. His party never draws a breath unless he signs off first. It must have been the Prime Ministers decision.

The appeal process may take years. If the government wins each appeal, prostitution will remain legal yet the law will criminalize those who are involved. The Prime Minister will have preserved a status quo that nobody understands, few obey, that is rewarding organized crime, that responds to stiffer penalties with more recruits and that puts the vulnerable at risk. All this while he has a comprehensive constitutional judicial ruling as proof that the laws need to change. I am not even talking about which direction that change should take. I am simply talking about Parliament finally getting around to making decisions.

The people want Parliament to act. If the status quo remains intact, Canada will become a laughing stock. The polls on this that I have read or heard reports about generally indicate that 75% of the people asked approved of the judges decision. The rest are split between not approving and having no position. Almost everyone dislikes the status quo, whatever their views on prostitution. Some charges have already been dropped.

I have also read and listened very carefully to the views of those who were opposed to the judges action in striking down the laws. To me it seemed that few of those people have read the decision. And if they did read it they failed to tell their readers or listeners that every objection to striking the laws that we have heard these last days received a detailed analysis in the decision. The judge explained why the current laws are wrong no matter what your values or your views on prostitution.

The judge relied on proof. The government legal team, despite their vast budget, did not have the evidence that the laws were constitutional. Professor Young and his team of students and experts had the evidence that the laws were unconstitutional. I think that we all understand that the word unconstitutional is a code-word for wrong.

Those who think that a judge should not have been the one to decide the issue of whether the laws are constitutional should remember that the Prime Minister has just enlisted more judges via appeal. He had the alternative of not doing so and instead taking his position before Parliament and the people. I am not as concerned about what the specifics of his position may turn out to be, as I am about his willingness to keep things the way they are - even as an interim measure. That is bad government.

Terri-Jean Bedford

Historic Court Case

Canada's prostitution laws were struck down in Ontario on September 28, 2010. In a 131 page decision the judge said, "I declare that the bawdy-house provision, the living on the avails of prostitution provision, and the communication provision... are unconstitutional... and to strike the word 'prostitution' from the definition of 'common bawdy-house'". The judge also said that the laws, "... are not in accord with the principals of fundamental justice and must be struck down".

Case Background

I am a plaintiff in a court test of Canada's bawdy-house laws. This law suit against the Federal Government has been proceeding for almost three years. The decision was released on September 28th, 2010. Professor Alan Young, a very prominent Canadian lawyer and Professor of Law at Osgoode Hall York University, heads the legal team for the three plaintiffs. The case was heard by Judge Susan Himel of the Ontario superior Court.