"I WOULD RATHER LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY"
- Terri-Jean Bedford

I am writing this letter in response to so many requests for my comments on what has happened recently in the Bondage Bungalow matter. In March 2000 the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision on the Bondage Bungalow appeal. I was appealing my conviction and fine from my 1998 trial. I was convicted of running a common bawdy house. I did not then and do not now believe I am guilty, or that a proper trial was held. Once again there was no sex and no grounds for calling the Bondage Bungalow a bawdy house. But most important of all was that the trial judge did not tell me, as a dominatrix, what I can and cannot do.

For all these reasons, I appealed. I did not proceed without verifying with a number of lawyers that my appeal had solid grounds, and lining up Alan Young and Paul Burstein, two major figures in the legal profession who felt so strongly that I was innocent and that this matter was mishandled by the authorities, that they represented me without fee. Public opinion was certainly sympathetic. Suspicion of the authorities arose because they went to such lengths for such a minor victimless charge, yet refused to clarify the issues.

My appeal did not succeed. The disgraceful behaviour of the authorities continues to go unpunished, the findings of a badly flawed trial go uncorrected and I still do not know why I was convicted. My lawyers cannot explain it to me either. Democratic countries have rules which people can ask about and get answers. I would rather not have the rules being secret, like in my conviction for reasons we are still not given. I would rather live in a democracy. I tried an experiment. I asked some of the reporters who have followed this case for all its years a couple of questions. For instance. Is bondage and tickling for money legal if there is no genital contact? For instance. If a man with his pants on gets an erection while kissing my boots, am I breaking the law? The reporters said that they are no clearer on this after my trial or my appeal. Five trips to court! Are not the authorities paid to be clear about what someone does wrong, or right when there is a trial? I would rather live in a democracy.

Have you at any time seen or heard a crown attorney or policy officer interviewed on this case? Even after the recent decision? In all the media coverage so much as a quote? People in the media tell me that no police officer or crown attorney can tell them what I can and cannot do as a dominatrix. They do not want to answer questions on a case they won.

In a democracy the police and prosecutors account for their actions to the people.

I would rather live in a democracy.

Just before my 1998 trial The Crown dropped the charges on the four other defendants but not my charges. They waited years to do this. They only called one as a witness. All five of us went all the way up to the Supreme Court and were going to fight at trial in full agreement that we were not guilty. Then they told me that I had to dismiss my lawyers because of conflict since they had represented persons who might be called as witnesses. I am told this is often done as a pressure tactic when the accused dares to fight back. Some fair trial. Some justice. I would rather live in a democracy.

The editors of the Globe and Mail, overtly sympathetic to me, in a March 27 editorial ridiculed at length the law and the authorities in this matter. I think the editors, writing for the second time about my matter (they wrote a similar editorial after my 1998 trial), make it very clear that under the prostitution laws everyone can be guilty of everything and nobody guilty of nothing at the same time. When the very law under which we were charged is incomprehensible to authorities and serious media, how can a citizen know what is legal? In other recent cases in Canada, even in Ontario, judges have thrown out bawdy house charges because the law is so vague that they deemed it unfair. But not in my case, even though everyone is wondering which of the many things I did were legal and which were not. I would rather live in a democracy.

The appeal decision itself has disturbed, profoundly disturbed, most of the lawyers who have read it. Some of them said it is "scary". I am told that the way the decision "defines" a lewd act is so broad that even a stripper who has no physical contact with a customer can be deemed a prostitute. The decision can be used as a precedent for calling almost anything "arousing". The decision means, I am told, that unelected authorities can decide what is lewd arbitrarily. In totalitarian countries the authorities decide what entertainment people may find enjoyable and not arousing. I would rather live in a democracy.

The decision itself has disturbed most of the lawyers who have read it in that it ignores facts of the trial. Point 27 of the decision discusses how often clients had orgasms in the bondage bungalow by themselves and quotes percentages testified to at trial. However, the transcripts, on pages 554-5 among others, and my appeal factum, make it very clear that the testimony cited and relied upon so heavily in the appeal decision was, under cross-examination, retracted to much lower percentages, and the circumstances surrounding such activity were clarified to mean other than what the appeal decision relied upon. And other evidence crucial to establishing the preponderant activities in the bungalow was not cited in the decision despite being raised in the factum to establish that this was a role-play facility. The decision thus overtly cited flawed and incomplete information and relied on it for analysis. There were uses of inaccurate information, arbitrarily and selectively applied in what was supposed to be an impartial process. I would rather live in a democracy.

The appeal decision also appalled almost all the lawyers who read it because it so briefly excused the use of the search warrant, which was given for the police to seize evidence, to take almost everything in the house and put me out of business.

The appeal decision said that a violation of rights under the Charter is meant to be cited only in the "clearest of cases" and that this, according to the decision, was not one of the clearest of cases. As the media has so often reported they took over 700 items including: my clothes of any description, the dictionary, chandelier, and furniture as well as bondage gear and the like. How is a chandelier used for prostitution? They tried to hold me without bail, knowing my trial might be a year away. They prevented me from returning to the bungalow, which was my home. They called a press conference to publicize the raid and the officer who called it was reduced in rank and removed from public relations shortly after. The decision acknowledged that the trial judge said the raid involved overkill and called my treatment shabby, but what remedy did I get? A reduced sentence? No! The sentence was pretty standard for the triviality of such a victimless "offence" and for my record. No relief at sentencing despite what the authorities might say. The authorities made the rules as they went along. The appeal decision let them get away with it. What more did they have to do to me to make it the clearest of cases of abusing a search warrant? I would rather live in a democracy.

The decision surprised most of the lawyers when it indicated that expert testimony was not relevant to the outcome of the trial. If ever there was a trial where expert opinion was needed, this was it. There were many activities in the bungalow, something not recognized in the appeal decision. The appeal decision said that what went on in my house was at issue, but not which activities were sexual or aroused sexual gratification, whatever that means. I think I have a right to know. My lawyers, after this decision, cannot give me a clear answer. I think I have a right to know what I did right and what I did wrong, but I don't know. I would rather live in a democracy.

Crown attorneys and the courts are backlogged and overworked. They love to make deals and plea bargain. They also often drop charges when a costly prosecution will only result in a small punishment, especially when the crime is victimless. But in my case they spared no expense. Then they had the nerve to whine about how I changed lawyers. They changed lawyers three times. And in 1998 they had my lawyers disqualified when they could have dropped the charges on the others and avoided the conflict issue many months before trial. They whined about how I was dragging this out, yet did not drop the charges even after the case was originally thrown out, or after I was only appealing a small fine. The media has ridiculed them for spending so much on my matter. And at the end, what has been achieved? They are not even commenting in the media. Taxpayers have been plundered by corrupt and incompetent bureaucrats who want to answer to nobody. The really frightening thing is that they came after us even harder because we were innocent and because we fought back. I would rather live in a democracy.

I am asked why I fight. First of all, all five defendants fought. Not one, not one of the five offered to plead guilty. All of us stood up even though it meant getting lawyers, missing work, public exposure and other possible retaliation and harassment by the authorities. All of us believed we were innocent. We prevailed in that four of us were not convicted, and that means that those other four who would have had a conviction recorded against them did not get convicted.

Even then I felt that it was important to fight. Since there was no sex in the bungalow, this was an excellent opportunity to test, in the courts and in public the questions that are still being asked and will continue to be asked. There was also one little noticed but very major outcome. Peter Westgate, the Crown Attorney at my 1998 trial, who replaced James McKeachie as Crown Attorney (as always with no explanation why) said he would not be citing any of the acts that went on in my bungalow as indecent, because community standards on this matter are too hard to define. Repeat: there were no indecent acts in the Bondage Bungalow. During the trial this was clearly and repeatedly reinforced. The Crown's narrowing of the case to a charge of prostitution and not indecency was in itself a huge success for us.

I want to thank some people from the bottom of my heart. We have had 12 lawyers on our side, some in an advisory capacity and some formally representing us. They were paid a fraction of what they should have been paid, if they were paid at all. There were also many non-lawyers who assisted us in ways too numerous and occasions too often to even begin to list. These many professional people reaffirmed the belief of all the defendants that they were innocent and had been wronged in a number of ways and had to stand up against the authorities. Please read the names of most of my lawyers as I now list them. The consensus has been that I have had tremendous representation. Let us recognize their talent and dedication to their profession.

ALAN YOUNG, MURRAY KLIPPENSTEIN, GEORGE CALLAHAN, PAUL BURSTEIN, LEAH DANIELS, BRIAN BLUMENTHAL, MORRIS MANNING and TERESA SIMONE.

What next? I will try to take this to the Supreme Court, but it may well be that the answer lies with our elected officials. The courts do not seem to be effective guardians of our freedom to engage in consenting adult behaviour. I will be continuing, with others, to fight for reform of the bawdy house laws and the manner in which the authorities abuse this legislation. I believe that our elected officials can be persuaded to protect those like myself who are prosecuted without clear reasons.

And what about me? Believe it or not I am not frightened or unhappy. I have friends, family, representatives, and allies. We are thinking ahead and are realistic. I will continue to practice as a dominatrix and try to remain within the law in whatever way I can. I just wish I had some rules. I want to obey the law, but how can I when they won't tell me the rules? We may have to do this over again. We shouldn't have to. I would rather live in a democracy.