They may be miles apart on whether Canada’s anti-prostitution laws are constitutional, but there was a meeting of minds on wardrobe.

Like her legal adversaries, dominatrix Terri-Jean Bedford was costumed in basic black on Monday as the federal government challenged a ruling that — if upheld — would decriminalize prostitution-related activities.

That includes keeping a common bawdy house, communicating for the purposes of prostitution and living on the avails of the trade.

Attired in leather jacket, skirt and boots, Bedford brought a riding crop, as is her custom at these events.

“Prime Minister Stephen Harper, you are a very bad boy,” she said, wielding the instrument for the cameras outside the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Inside the courtroom, a five-judge panel seemed unwilling to accept the federal government’s fundamental argument that sex trade workers are not being placed at risk by Criminal Code provisions that make it illegal for them to hire drivers, bodyguards and work in brothels.

Prostitution is dangerous and the government is not participating in violence against women by enacting laws to discourage johns and pimps from buying and selling women’s bodies for sex, justice department lawyer Michael Morris told the court.

But if the legislation prevents sex workers from taking measures to reduce threats to personal safety, such as hiring security personnel, “why isn’t that a form of participation” in violence, questioned Justice Eleanore Cronk.

Morris argued the connection is “too remote.”

“What’s remote about a law that prevents a prostitute from having a driver or bodyguard so she can pursue her occupation?” asked Justice James MacPherson.

“Isn’t it sort of a matter of common sense that if you take away the protection, there is going to be some risk?” Justice Kathryn Feldman pressed.

The government is appealing a decision by Superior Court Justice Susan Himel, who found the anti-prostitution provisions violate sex workers’ constitutional right to security of the person by denying them an opportunity to pursue options for conducting their business more safely.

Bedford and two other women who are the driving forces in the case say the legislation forces sex workers to conduct hasty and furtive conversations on the street with prospective customers, allowing them little time to assess whether “dates” could be a problem.

Prostitution itself is not illegal. Morris told the court it was open to Parliament to attempt to discourage prostitution by attacking it indirectly with laws that send a message to johns and pimps that they engage in such activity at their peril. And it does not violate the security of prostitutes to do so, he argued.

If that’s the case, said Justice David Doherty, then why couldn’t Parliament also create an exception to Criminal Code assault provisions, so it is no longer an offence to assault a prostitute, thereby discouraging them from getting into the trade?

“I don’t see a big difference, in terms of security of the person, in those two propositions,” the judge said.

It seems “self-evident” the legislation preventing bawdy houses and hiring security staff exposes sex workers to the risk of harm and the only issue is whether the laws are nevertheless valid, said Doherty.

He summed up what he sees as the dilemma on the street.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“I want to engage in prostitution. I want to sell my sexual wares for money. I don’t want to end up in jail,” he said.

“I’m at much greater risk because I can’t take the security steps that anyone else can take in any other business in the country.”

The hearing continues.