'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'

[forgethell]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml

[NNadir]

1. Now that's wierd.

[LisaL]

3. They made prostitution legal, so, apparently, it's like any other

job. Thus, an un-employed woman who refuses this "job" can have her benefits terminated. They wanted to stop sex trafficking so now they are forcing un-employed women into prostitution legally. Shocking and crazy.

[Up2Late]

2. 55!?! Outrageous!

"...Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit..."

O.K., Make the cut-off 40, and I could see that.:silly:

Warning: I'M KIDDING!:hi:

[MADem]

4. Sounds like GENDER DISCRIMINATION to me!!!!!

From the cited source: Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.

The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars. As a result, job centres must treat employers looking for a prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse.



That is absolute horseshit--outrageous, unseemly, and beyond the goddamn pale. Unless they are forcing MEN to take these jobs as well, I'd say there's simply got to be some sort of Equal Rights law that can be invoked. This warrants further checking, I simply cannot believe that Germany would insist that women be required to fuck for their supper. It just does not compute!

[forgethell]

5. If they are forcing men to do it too,

that doesn't make it right. I don't really know if this is true or not, but if so, the Germans are entering a new Nazism.

And how is it difficult to distinguish a bar from a brothel? As you say, this is horseshit.

[imenja]

12. the article doesn't mention men

By omission, it suggests women are the only ones forced to take jobs as prostitutes. It certainly seems to be discriminatory.

[forgethell]

49. Doesn't the forced sexual

slavery part seem worse than the discrimination? I think you missed my point. It doesn't matter WHO they doit to. The fact that it is done at all is horrific.

[imenja]

57. yes but only women are subject to the law

so by nature it is discriminatory. The justification of the German govt is that women must take any available job, including prostitution. No such provision is discussed for men, though one can imagine demands for male prostitutes are high. It is forced, but forced against one segment of the society, designed to make women subservient. Both of these aspects are fundamentally violent. Slavery has always been discriminatory in it's application. Some enslave others. Creating a society based on subjugation where one group dominates another is central to slavery itself.
Your distinction between enslavement and discrimination in this context is false.

[forgethell]

67. I don't think so.

Would it be better if it applies also to men? No.

[imenja]

71. No

but you miss my point entirely. For a system of inequality of this degree to function, one group assumes dominance over another. In this particular case it is men, armed by the sate, over women.

That is like asking would slavery in the US South have been better if whites had also been enslaved. Of course not. But that was not how the system functioned.

[forgethell]

86. No, not men over women.

Government over the people. In any event, it is not the inequality that disturbs me. It is the slavery.

[imenja]

90. slavery does not exist without support from the state

and the government is not autonomous. It represents interest groups or a dominant class, depending on how you see the relationship between state and society. Again, you are creating a false dichotomy. When discussing the state (government), you must always ask the question: who is the state?

[forgethell]

94. Still, there

is no need to make a simple situation complex. This is just wrong, and heading down a post-modern route is not going to make it better. Repeal the law, or revise it.

I don't give a flying f*** who the government is. Any government that would try this stunt should be replaced, even one consisting completely of women, or 50-50, or whatever. it's not who they are, it's what they do.

[imenja]

96. I never suggested it wasn't wrong

but to imagine this has nothing to do with the oppression of women is mistaken. You insisted that the gender element in this was irrelevant. I insist it is not, just as enslavement of Africans involved racial oppression.

[forgethell]

99. And yet, there were

aos white slaves, even in the Americas.

Concentration on who is being wronged distracts from the attention on the wrong itself, and contributes to erroneous solutions to the problem, IMO.

[imenja]

118. white slaves?

really? where? when?

[forgethell]

126. Well, try this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

Look in the section on Slavery in Colonial America. Be sure to click the link "white".

Or this:
http://www.referendum.1hwy.com/custom3.html

or this:

http://www.scoilgaeilge.org/academics/slaves.htm

[imenja]

133. indentured servitude

This happens to be something I know about, because I teach college level courses on slavery.

Indentured servitude was fundamentally different from slavery. Servitude was a temporary status, generally seven years, and servants were entitled to land upon the expiration of their contract. Their
children were not born into bondage. During the course of the seventeenth-century, slavery emerged as a racialized institution in the mainland English colonies. It was codified into law as an inherited system limited to Africans alone. Edmund Morgan's _American Slavery, American Freedom_ is an old (1975) but important work on the subject. The first episode of the PBS series "Africans in America" covers quite well the evolution of slavery in Virginia, it's birthplace as an economic system in the English mainland colonies.

In Marxist analysis, indentured servitude and slavery are both forms of forced labor, as is sharecropping, debt peonage, and the Spanish American systems like the mita, repartimento, inquilino,
and enganche. They are forced because there is an element of coercion outside of the marketplace, whereas in free wage labor systems, the only force that compels us is the need to make a living. Historians distinguish slavery from other forms of coerced labor because it is inherited. The landowner took more than the slave's labor. He owned the enslaved's person, made choices concerning marriage and sold children and spouse's at will. Children born to enslaved women inherited the status of their mothers. More than an economic system, slavery influenced the development of the law, our nation's political systems, religion, culture, and even science. Indentured servitude and slavery were fundamentally different institutions.

The example of the Irish in all likelihood refers to indentured servants. The quote itself refers to "servants," a legally distinct category in the Americans. Another point to consider is that the Irish were not considered white by Englishmen. They were literally seen as a separate race until the early twentieth century. There is an interesting book called something like _How the Irish became White_
If indeed the Irish mentioned on that website were enslaved, the idea of racial difference no doubt helped support this. Race, after all, is a cultural construction rather than biologically defined.
Under the law, Virginia permitted inherited slavery only of Africans, but it certainly is possible that there were some extralegal exceptions. There was not, however, an economic system based on enslavement of whites.

The other example you provide refers to ancient and medieval slavery outside of the American, before the era of the transatlantic slave trade. For most of world history, religion was the prevailing justification for enslavement. Muslims enslaved Christians and vice versa. Once a slave converted to Christianity, he was to be freed. This changed with the Atlantic slave trade. Slavery became a racialized and institution of a level of brutality previous forms of slavery had never approached.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to deny prevailing forms of exploitation that modern society has been built upon. Race was not inconsequential to slavery in the Americans, just as gender
is not inconsequential to sexual exploitation. Who is oppressed is of enormous importance. These forms of exploitation are not merely abstractions. Individuals experience them. Those who oppress invariably invoke such difference, whether religion, race, gender, or poverty, in order to justify their actions. That is not to say that white men are responsible for all forms of oppression in the world or
have not themselves been victim to exploitation. They were not, however, the population enslaved in the Americas.

[forgethell]

137. Never said that

race was inconsequential to slavery in America, just said that there was non-black slavery, or white slavery. I guess you can differentiate between these things in order to advance whatever agenda you have. Simple-minded little me, I think it's all slavery, and all contemptible.

How about those people transported to Barbados at the end of the Monmouth Rebellion?

http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Maids_of_Taunton

The ladies-in-waiting at James's Court made a handsome profit out of the Monmouth rebels who were sold as slaves to Barbados. White slaves commanded good prices in the seventeenth century

[Pithlet]

144. Slavery was justified in the US purely on racial grounds.

The secessionists didn't refer to the GOP as black republicans because they all wore face paint, did they? The "fact" that blacks were inferior to whites was the primary justification for enslaving blacks in a country that was dedicated to equality for all people. To argue that because there were a handful of white slaves in the countries history that race was not the primary factor in American slavery is to be the historical equivalent of a member of the flat earth society.

I'm sorry, but I just couldn't let that go. Acknowledging the hugely racial aspects of slavery isn't advancing any kind of agenda.

[imenja]

149. thank you

and succinctly put.

[forgethell]

159. I disagree.

I never said that there was not a racial component. I never said "in the United States". I said "in the Americas". Deliberately misreading a clear statement may be a sign of poor reading skills, but more likely is simply ignoring inconvenient facts to advance an agenda, IMO.

[Pithlet]

165. Ah, the old criticize reading skills trick.

You can't counter anything I said, can you?

[imenja]

146. agenda?

It is called history. The interpretation I offered is entirely standard. Historians differentiate between labor systems. Indentured servitude is not slavery. Pick up a US history textbook if you don't believe me. Go to the library and read some books written by professional historians and reviewed by academic presses rather than random websites.

Let's concede your point that a few whites were enslaved. The point, however, is that the institution in the Americas was a racial one. Odd examples do not represent a pattern. Planters throughout the Americans enslaved Africans and used racism as a justification. Any publication by anyone other than a white supremacist will make that clear to you.

You evidently feel uncomfortable acknowledging the role race as played in our national formation. To continually insist that whites were a principal target of slavery is like claiming millionaires dominate the US prison population, using John Rigas and Martha Stewart as examples. Any instances of white slaves number far fewer than millionaires serving time in American penitentiaries.

All forms of oppression are horrendous, but they are not all equal in their brutality.

[forgethell]

160. You persist in

misinterpreting what I have said.

[Petrushka]

145. Here's another one on "White Slaves" from Chapter Three of . . .

"The Forgotten Cause of the Civil War: A New Look at the Slavery Issue" by Lawrence R. Tenzer: http://www.multiracial.com/readers/tenzer3.html

[imenja]

148. Antebellum Americans referred to them as mulattos

These were children born from master's raping or otherwise sexually violating enslaved women. Such offspring were commonplace. The comments about children with blue eyes show the extent to which masters used enslaved women for sexual purposes. Sally Hemmings, for example, bore a number of children from Thomas Jefferson. But Sally herself had been the illegitimate child of Jefferson's father in law. Sally, thus, was Martha Jefferson's half sister. Sally's status of slave was inherited from her mother, as was the case for all of these mixed-race children born into slavery. This provides evidence of racial mixture. Not for the idea that people's of European decent were widely enslaved. Even after the 13th Amendment proclaimed emancipation across the US, freed people born of such sexual unions were considered "Negro." With the rolling back of Reconstruction, they found themselves subject to the same Jim Crow laws, voter disenfranchisement, and lynchings. A few were light enough that they could "pass" for white and find some better opportunities. The personal, family costs of doing so, however, were tremendous. They had to deny their own parents to get by in a world that accepted them only if their parentage was not disclosed.
Racism has indeed operated in strange ways in this country.

[Petrushka]

150. Tenzer explains about "mulattos", "quadroons", etc. . . . AND . . .

He also tells us that (quote) "Antislavery newspapers published and read in the North contained articles and accounts of white slavery gleaned from Southern newspapers as well as other references. . . . A sampling of such articles includes "A White Girl Kidnapped and Sold as a Slave" which involved being lured to New Orleans under false pretenses; "White Woman Sold as a Slave" where Violet Ludlow was sold several times despite her legitimate claim that she was white; "A White Girl Nearly Sold Into Slavery" which related how an orphan named Madeline, 'aged about nine years...a lovely girl, delicately formed, white as the purest of Circassian race,' was to be sold at auction but was reprieved with the intention 'that a Jury shall pass upon her blood.' "The Sally Miller Case" told readers about how eleven jurors found the defendant to be a white German girl, 'while one insisted on believing her to be a colored woman, a slave by birth, and rightfully the property of the demandants.' An untitled piece related the story of how a young white boy was kidnapped and was about to be auctioned off when his father appeared on the scene, grabbed him, and exclaimed, 'My child a slave? a slave? Have you dared to seize and sell a white child?'" (unquote) . . . and on and on . . . trouble is: I'm having computer trouble right now . . . the enter-key (among others) isn't working. Sorry 'bout that! In any case: Wasn't "forced prostitution in present-day Germany" the topic at the head of this thread? ;-)

[imenja]

154. your point?

What does this tell you about slavery as an institution? Does the fact one white girl was illegally sold into slavery make you feel better about the institution and it's role in the formation of our nation? Does it help you imagine there isn't continuing racism that is the legacy of slavery? Is an institution defined by odd exceptions or common experiences?
I feel as though I've wandered on to a KKK site. This is very strange.

[Petrushka]

158. "What does this tell you about slavery as an institution?"

Tenzer goes on:

There were other interesting accounts as well. An article entitled "Curious Case of White Slavery" appeared in the National Era, wherein a teenage girl with white parents was sold as a Negro slave by her father and was rescued by her mother. In speaking of Georgia where the event had occurred, the newspaper said, "This fact proves that white slavery in Georgia is not so uncommon that a case of it is likely to excite any remark....Slavery has no 'prejudice against color.'" Another piece was entitled "Woman, Apparently White, Surrendered to Slavery" and had to do with a woman named Pelasgie who was claimed as a fugitive slave even though she had been living as a free person for more than twelve years. In "An Arkansas White Girl Sold as a Slave", Alexina Morrison's lawyer argued that she "had not claimed her freedom because she had brown hair, or fair skin, or blue eyes, but because she had been born free, and was kidnapped." Likewise, in "White Slavery in Alabama", readers were told of a white girl from Georgia named Patience Hicks who was kidnapped and sold into slavery. Three different accounts were presented in an article entitled "White Slavery". In the first, a seven-year-old white boy named Washington was placed in the care of a Negro woman when his mother became ill. He was subsequently kidnapped and sold into slavery. In the second, an aristocratic Virginia couple had an illegitimate love-child named Eliza who was placed in Negro quarters and raised there from infancy. She was subsequently sold as a slave. In the third, a white girl was purchased out of slavery for $400 and then freed.

And . . . on and on and on until Tenzer ends the chapter with the following paragraph:

Travelers who spoke of white slaves in the South, advertisements for white runaway slaves, newspaper articles about white slaves, and light and white heroes and heroines in "tragic mulatto" fiction all served to validate that there were white people who were enslaved in the South. Disbelievers were shown, in the words of the newspaper cited earlier, that "Slavery has no 'prejudice against color.'"

You say in one of your replies above that "Historians distinguish slavery from other forms of coerced labor because it is inherited." In Black's Law Dictionary, "slave" is defined as:

A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. One who is under the power of a master, and who belongs to him; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his labor, without his being able to do anything, have anything, or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery.
Slavery. The condition of a slave, that civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery.

So . . . "What," you ask, "Does this tell you about slavery as an institution?" It tells me that, if it hadn't been for folks in the industrial North becoming appalled at the very thought of white slavery , people of black African heritage in the South might still be a plantation owner's "chattel".
As for your other questions? Hm-m. What is your point in asking? Don't bother to reply. I mean: There's no "point" . . . unless, of course, you want to have the last word--which is fine by me.

Pax!

[imenja]

182. hmm, that is not how slavery ended in the US

Do some reading on Lincoln and the free soil movement. Your grasp of history is poor. Indentured servitude ended long before the Civil War. Free Soil was not a moral response to enslavement at all. It expressed concern for the upward mobility of free whites in the new territories. The morally, Christian based abolitionist movement exemplified by William Lloyd Garrison declined greatly, essentially collapsed, in the 1840s, and Free Soil emerged in it's place. You really need to educate yourself before you try to speak so authoritatively about history. Do some reading. Any recent US history textbook that covers the pre-1865 period will suffice.

I don't care about having the last word, but I am concerned by how little Americans know about the history of their own country.

[Petrushka]

187. What's your opinion of . . .

. . . Free Hearts and Free Homes: Gender and American Antislavery Politics by Michael D. Pierson? The introductory pages--found at the following URL--piqued my interest:

http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/pierson_free.html

Also: When it comes to "...how little Americans know about the history of their own country.", let's just say that what I learned--back in 1949, BTW--about "History" was nothing more than the memorization of names, dates, and places (BO-ring!) in a 2-room coal-and-steel town elementary school where we second-generation out of the Old Country honkies, wops, spicks, etc. were taught our "place". Kapish? ;)

[MADem]

66. OF COURSE

I agreed with your assessment, and noted that requiring women to fuck for their supper was egregious. I was simply offering an alternative method of getting at the issue.

If you go at things from one direction only, you can sometimes find yourself cut off at the pass. Apparently, from this article, the authorities are relating the task to the equivalent of serving drinks in a bar. Quite frankly, unless the German standard is for the women bartenders to open the beer bottles with their vaginas, I see no relation whatsoever to the two functions. Alternatively, if sex with bartenders is on the menu at every bar in Germany, they might have a point, but I do not think that is the case (and I've been to a few German bars, and never saw it listed...in fact, I don't think many of the fat, mustachioed bartenders I saw would be in great demand, to be honest).

The problem, here, clearly, is with employment classification procedures. I think I see what they are doing--they are grouping types of work, so that an unemployed accountant, for example, can't stay on the dole when there is an accounts receivable job available, and he or she only 'wants' to do accounts payable. But a prostitute/rent boy, for that matter, is NOT a bartender. They are a horse (or a whore) of a different color!

[LisaL]

6. I bet they would say there just is no demand for man

prostitutes...
I find it pretty outrageous myself. They can not distinguish between been a prostitute and working in a bar? Hello? I think there is a big difference.

[MADem]

60. I suspect that if they did a little market research

...and the appropriate advertising, they'd find out otherwise!!!

[XanaDUer]

7. I agree.

This really pisses me off.

They want women on their backs, no matter what.

[Colorado Blue]

8. I do NOT believe this.

[LisaL]

9. Well, why not? If prostitution is made legal, it's like any other job.

Thus, any "qualified" woman who refuses this job can have her un-employment benefits terminated. Something to think about when arguing about legalization of prostitution for sure.

[Solon]

11. I think its more damning of welfare reform than any legalization...

of prostitution, but that is my opinion. No one should be forced into a job they do not want to do. Whether its vegans at a meat packing plant, or a woman in the sex industry.

[LisaL]

16. Well, I understand why they might not want to pay un-employment

benefits to someone refusing the jobs they are offered? But to force someone to work as a prostitute? That sounds nuts.

[Solon]

23. Forcing someone into prostitution is sex trafficking or...

coercion for rape. They legalized prostitution to prevent that, now with welfare reform mixed in it has government approval. That's is outrageous alright.

[XanaDUer]

19. I do.

N/t.

[Yupster]

82. I doubt if it is

I think the welfare law applies equally to men and women.

It's just there's not a shortage of men to work in brothels.

[Dirk39]

10. Hello from Germany...

this is what's happening, when you have a "sexual revolution" in neoliberal times with the neoliberal Greens being part of the Government, still supporting a kind of "cultural revolution" while completely abondoning the social revolution.

The Greens did force this change in law, while the majority of prostitutes don't care about it, don't want it and most of them are illegal immigrants without a permission to work anyway.
The socialdemocratic-green government we have since 1998 is the worst since World War II.
But to U.S.-citizens confronted with the fashist puritan Bush-Regime, this might sound pretty weird:-)
BTW although I don't have any illusions about our government: there might be one or two cases like this, but it's not the rule.

We have so many beautifull women and no jobs, should I consider to vote for the olive-greens or the (a)social-democrats next time:-)?

At least I gave up voting since 10 years, I'm innocent!

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[imenja]

13. It's horrifying, but we have our own sexual perversions

Check out Maureen Dowd's column.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/opinion/30dowd.html?oref=login&oref=login&hp

By the way, not voting doesn't absolve you of responsibility. In fact, it makes you all the more complicit. Not voting is in effect supporting the prevailing power structure.

[Dirk39]

22. Not voting...

is the only thing one can do, if there is nothing to vote for and all the parties have the same neoliberal agenda. Corporations and bankers do decide anyway, what's going to happen. To vote under these circumstances means nothing, but to keep the facade of a democracy alive.
When the social democrats and the greens did win in 1998, I knew before, that they wouldn't do what they did promise and they would act even worse than the conservatives. And this is, what did happen and I'm proud that I didn't vote for these assholes and war-criminals like Schröder and Fischer.
Dirk

[ProgressiveConn]

25. So not only does the entire country of Germany have no

acceptably parties for you to vote for in ANY election but there is no write in place on the ballot?

[imenja]

26. Americans who didn't vote help put George Bush in office twice

are you going to say that doesn't make a difference, that the Democrats are just as bad?

[Dirk39]

30. I don't know, if it makes a difference..

I'm pretty much sure that the democrats would have invaded Iraq, too. It might have even become worse with the support of Europe...

Change your perspective: what if those Americans helped Bush in office, who did simply vote for the democrats instead of asking themselves, why the majority of the people, who could vote, don't vote anymore and don't care if the democrats or the republicans represent corporate interests against them? And this is going on for decades. If the people would not have allowed the DLC to take over the Democrats and replace participation and representation of the people and party members and voters with PR-agencies and advertising, to manipulate people, maybe Bush would not have become possible?


For me, it's not a kind of "religion", if people vote or don't vote.
But it's much more important that corporations are completely removed from power and cannot determine our lives and our parliaments anymore. The privatisation of politics has to be reversed.

Dirk

[Conservativesux]

32. Democrats would not have invaded Iraq, Dirk. Its The Bush/PNAC.

..gangsters that have illegally invaded Iraq.

And they are all Republican chicken-hawks.

[imenja]

39. the Democrats would not have invaded Iraq

Clinton never did when he was in office.

The scenario you describe has long been the pattern in the US. Half of eligible voters do not vote. That is why we have the current system we do.

If you don't participate in political change, you allow corporations to dominate. There is nothing they like better than to see people not vote. It solidifies their power. Republicans make of practice of suppressing voter turnout. They resist all efforts to make voting more widespread. Ask yourself why.

If you don't care about voting, why on earth do you care about the DLC. Talk about ridiculous. Advertising and PR has dominated politics long before the DLC formed.

[Dirk39]

41. Sorry, but do you allow me to remind you...

- that Clinton is responsible for the death of nearly a million Iraqis, most of them children.
- that Clinton started an illegal war against former Yugoslavia and all of the reasons given were as much lies as Bushs' stories about WMDs in Iraq. All of the reasons given did fall apart like a cardhouse. Esp. during the last months, if you still follow the ridiculous lawsuit that is still going on.

- that Clinton decided to bomb another country and to kill innocent people, just to make U.S. citizens stop talking about his dick!

- and as sad as it might be: most of the 300 illegal wars and invasions, the U.S.A. has started since the end of WWII, were started by "Democrats".
Among them the genocide of millions of vietname people.


I would never ever vote for people like this and allow them to do, what they are doing in my name.

Dirk

[yankeedem]

78. Gee I didn't know Hannity broadcast to Germany

nt.

[imenja]

88. yeah, what a shame Milosovich isn't still in power

The world needs more of his type. Shocking that we stopped ethnic cleansing.

The Iraqis you accuse Clinton of killing, I assume, are deaths from UN sanctions. Germany, France, and the rest of the UN signed onto those sanctions as well. Clinton does not bear any more responsibility than the Europeans.

If you really think Clinton and Bush are the same, you're mind has long ago checked out. Is there no difference between Adolph Hitler and Schroeder? If your answer is yes, I really don't want to hear it.

[WillieWoohah]

117. So you accept the killing of innocent Serbian civilians?

If you think that civilian casualties from the US bombing of Belgrade are acceptable in a "ends-justfies-the-means" kind of way to get rid of Milosevic, but you think that killing Iraqi civilians to get rid of Saddam is immoral, then you are a hypocrite plain and simple. Stop trying to have it both ways.

I've never heard Sean Hannity speak (I live in Australia) but if this is his point, then he is right, whether he is a right-wing-pundit, a liberal, a neo-Nazi fascist, a Green or whatever.

[imenja]

genocide

Is your point that military intervention or war is never justified? If we had intervened in Rwanda, civilians would undoubtedly have been killed. As it stood, millions died. We were wrong to ignore the problem. Bill Clinton considers it his greatest failure as president, and I certainly agree. There the problem was inaction, not military intervention.

How many people should Milosovich have killed? Did he have the right to murder thousands, even millions if he had continued unfettered, because he claimed political jurisdiction over the territory? Do you actually believe he should not have been stopped?

Civilian deaths are always tragic, but they are sometimes the consequence of necessary military action. You probably have a better sense of how many German and Austrian civilians were killed by allied forces in World War II. I'm quite certain the numbers were far higher than in the Balkans. Yet they paled in comparison to the lives that would have been lost if Hitler had continued his imperial conquest and unfettered genocide. Or the lives the Third Reich
took before their empire was militarily defeated. War is sometimes necessary. I am most certainly not hypocritical to oppose the war in Iraq. Your full-scale opposition to all military intervention is troubling. Inaction is some circumstances can lead to millions of deaths. We found that out in World War II.

All wars are not the same. Yugoslavia and Iraq are not comparable. NATO participated in the Balkan intervention. No international organizations have authorized military actions against Iraq. Apparently I need to remind you that Austria is also a member of NATO. So if you are so quick to blame my government, you need to consider your own country's role in that military campaign. I cannot speak to the tactics of the Belgrade bombing. You may be quite right that it was not necessary. But to argue that the wars in the former Yugoslovia and Iraq are equally unjust is not defensible.

I'm not sure what kinds of murder you object to. Is it only action by the US government? Is mass murder acceptable as long as it not an American doing the killing? I suggest you examine your own hypocrisy.

This all began as a conversion in which Dirk claimed he had no responsibility for the policies described in the article linked because he doesn't vote. I pointed out that not voting is allying oneself with the dominant power structure, because those who preside over the state are the ones who benefit from political apathy and
inaction. If you oppose a war (whether Iraq, Yugoslavia, or World War II), you need to take action to oppose it. To fail to do so only allows the existing policies to continue.

By the way, it was another poster to mentioned Sean Hannity, not I. It took me some time to figure out why you even mentioned him. But go ahead and support him. Since you seem to consider genocide acceptable, he's a good role model for you. He's an apologist for Abu Ghraib, torture in Gitmo, and every other hideous thing this administration does.

[WillieWoohah]

153. The short answer is...

You can make all the same arguments against Saddam Hussein. So why don't you?

In fact, the case is stronger against Saddam, because it's known that he ordered the gassing of the Kurds, whereas the ICC trial of Milosevic was unsuccessful in convicting him of genocide (due to lack of evidence) because it was shown that he was not aware of massacres committed by Serb paramilitaries until after they happened.

So if anything, you are supporting intervention to stop genocide where the case is weak, but opposing it where it is strong. Why?

P.S. Austria and Australia are two different countries.

[imenja]

183. I certainly don't have a extensive knowledge of European politics

(I screwed this up because I misread your first post. I apologize. Only the second part is remotely relevant now. )

but at least I know which international organizations my own country belongs to. Austria is listed on NATO's website as a partner country: http://www.nato.int/pfp/eapc-cnt.htm
I checked that before writing my response to you.

PS. Australia is not in NATO, not a partner country, or anywhere near the Atlantic ocean.

Your argument in favor of war against Iraq might hold if Saddam's worst human rights abuses had not occurred during a period when he was aligned with the United Sates. It might also hold if the American intervention had anything to do with human rights or if any international organization had approved the action. None of those circumstances are true.

[Dorian Gray]

184. Right, and that poster

claimed that he was from Australia, not Austria. So his country had nothing to do with NATO.

[imenja]

185. my bad

I misread it. I obviously had the German area on my mind because of Dirk.
:spank:

[Raised_In_The_Wild]

115. no, no, no. americans never vote for bush. only diebold voted. n/t

[JVS]

92. Oh come on, the PDS could have used some votes to clear 5%

Or do they support the neoliberal agenda too?

[forgethell]

53. Yeah, but

how does our acts make Germany's any better? In fact, I fail to see any connection between them. And seeing as how I am opposed to both, don't try the old crap on me.

[imenja]

54. try the old crap on you?

What would that be? Neither is remotely acceptable. I never said it was. I read the two stories in close proximity to each other and found them somewhat similar.

[forgethell]

68. I wasn't talking about you specifically. Sorry.

I was referring to a general tendency to excuse almost any atrocity because something with superficial similaarities may occur in American society. Both would be equally wrong, and neither excuses the other.

[imenja]

72. I know what you mean

I see it all the time on here and it infuriates me. Human rights abuses are wrong no matter where they are perpetuated.

[Solon]

14. I have a question...

does Germany have a guaranteed right to Freedom of Religion? And if so, how would they handle forcing lets say, an unemployed Mormon to work in a bar serving alcohol?

[Dirk39]

20. Hello!

Germany has a guaranteed right to Freedom of Religion (but no Mormons:-))
Interesting question: at the one hand, I can't imagine that a catholic would be forced to - as an example - work in a job that's evidently against his beliefs. On the other hand, female teachers, who are muslims, are not allowed to wear headscarfs during their work. This was one of the most discussed public issues during the last years in Germany as in France.
The welfare-reform did just start in January, 2005. Before, people, who were unemployed could not be forced to take any kind of job that's paid worse than the one they had before or that isn't related to their profession. After two years of being unemployed their wages would be somehow lowered to about 60% of what they did earn before, but they would get this amount of money as long as they are unemployed.
Now, after one year of being unemployed, people just get welfare, about 320,- Euro a month besides their rent. And that's all. And after one year they are forced to take every job.

Dirk

[LisaL]

21. I am sorry, but it's crazy. Forcing women to work as hookers?

That's just nuts.

[Solon]

27. Actually that would be different...

People are expected to follow dress codes at work, unless such codes are unreasonable (nude days on friday :)). I would imagine female muslim teachers have a job that doesn't conflict with their religion in a egregious manner. This can be a big problem not only in Germany, but here in the states, I wonder how they handle unemployment claims in the counties around Las Vegas for example. Prostitution is legal there as well.

[Eric J in MN]

29. Free excercise of religion includes reasonable accomodations.

Letting a Muslim teacher wear a head scarf is reasonble.

[Solon]

34. I would agree, in the United States...

I don't know too much about Germany's laws regarding that, so I defer to Dirk on that matter. As far as my personal gut, yes it should be allowed, we had a Sikh student in my high school, he could wear his Turban, but the school drew the line at the dagger. He was cool though, I hung out with all types back then (Goths, Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims).

[Eric J in MN]

28. did you say that the Greens passed the new unemployment law? nt

nt

[Dirk39]

31. They did...

they are even worse than the Blairist DLC-like Social-Democrats.
Since the Greens had a chance to participate in governments, they are completely in the hands of careerists and opportunists.

The people, who once were part of the grassroot movements and who did somehow founded the Greens long ago, have left the party for long.
Small parties are a paradise for careerists, who otherwise might have found no other job at all...

Dirk

[MADem]

70. Uh, oh, Dirk, look around!!!

http://lds.about.com/library/weekly/aa081602a.htm

You DO have Mormons in Germany! And Muslims, too, who don't care for handling alcohol, either.

As I noted, I think the real issue here is job classification. There clearly needs to be some demarcations in the "Service Industry" job classification scheme.

This does make your country look bad, and sexist, but then again, we have a ways to go ourselves in a number of areas before we can hold our heads up again....

[Dirk39]

171. Mormons?

You cannot overlook the muslims in Germany, but - I admit it - I wasn't aware that any mormons live in Germany. Are they terrorists, who hate us for our freedom:-)?

Hiding in shame,
Dirk

[MADem]

172. No, they eat a lot of jello, though

They tithe a lot to their chuch, and they may convert you after you have died. If they are very devout, they do not touch caffeine or alcohol, and they may have unusual tastes (religious in origin) in underclothing, too.

But your freedom is safe with them, at least so far!

[Dirk39]

173. Damn!

I'm frightened.
They can come here everytime. When I did travel all through the USA, I did visit their "state". I did even enter their government building.

And there was a cool little coffee-shop a few streets and corners away from the government-building, where tattood and not so tattood people were listening to independant and not so independant music and most of the people were gentle and tattood, some of them were gentle and not tattood. None of them told me that the "mormons" have any plans to liberate them:-)


Sorry, but this is the somehow strange memory I have of visiting the mormon state in 1989, when I did try successfully to escape the german reunification.

Dirk

[Nobody]

77. Thanks for your responses

I am curious about something:

If prostitution is a job that some women are being required to take or lose benefits, how is it determined whether or not they're qualified?

Virgins, for instance. Sexual orientation (since I wouldn't think a female heterosexual would be much good with a female client and lesbians probably wouldn't be much good with a male client) Also suppose the applicant has AIDS, gonorrhea, syphilis, genital herpes, or some other form of sexually transmitted disease? What if she's liek me and has long and heavy periods?

Would there be an interview and what are the qualifications? Are we talking about a low rent sleazebag rent by the hour motel or are we talking about high class companions like the ones on the sci fi TV show Firefly? (good show, too bad they canceled it)

[w4rma]

42. !!!

If you haven't been voting for 10 years then you are as guilty as the folks who voted *for* this stuff. Apathy KILLS democracies.

[Dirk39]

45. Conformism and opportunism kills democracies...

And under the conditions, we experience now: from Berlusconi to Blair to Clinton to Schröder etc. One has to be very apathic to vote at all and think it will change the state of things.
I'm not apathic.
To vote for an alternative that isn't an alternative is apathetic.
And to move other people to vote for an alternative that isn't an alternative and deliver them to just one government more, that will not care about them at all is apathetic.
We don't talk about a real democracy anymore, where compromising between different interests is a necessity. We talk about the stalinist one party system, capitalism has become.

Dirk

[w4rma]

46. I'm sorry but **hoping** for some radical far-left political party that

doesn't appear to exist in Germany and refusing to vote because there isn't a radical party or because all the other parties don't fit your own exact beliefs is just making excuses for your apathy.

The folks who actually get out and spend the time required to vote aren't the apathetic ones.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

65. Which change in law did German greens force?

I suspect you mean the law legalizing prostitution, not the welfare reform law forcing citizens to take any available job or starve. I agree with Solon that this is more damning of the welfare reform laws than the prostitution legalization laws. It's not difficult to imagine an equally distasteful scenario without the prostitution aspect. What if the available job was working out on a fishing boat where the risk of being swept out to sea was very high -- or some equally dangerous job?

And, I don't understand why it is so hard to distinguish between a bar and a brothel anyway.

[neweurope]

152. My dear Dirk, saying that our government right now is the worst

since WW II shows me which corner you're coming from... I don't like them either overly much, but if the CDU/CSU/FDP win the next elections they'll be sitting on Cheneys lap.

And another thing: Somebody who doesn't vote is NEVER innocent!

--------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Dirk39]

168. This is what I'm saying!

And this is the corner, I'm coming from: The corporations and banks in Germany support the Greens and Schröder, 'cause they do a better job for them. If the CDU/CSU/FDP would do, what Schröder and the Greens are doing, at least the unions would fight back, and the SPD and the Greens being part of the opposition might support them. They could never destroy our welfare system and introduce something like Hartz 4 as the SPD and the Greens did it. Schröder was put to Power by Springer and the BDI in order to silence any resistance.
That's all and "that's the corner I'm coming from"

To a lesser extent: without a neoliberal Clinton, Bush II would never ever have been possible in the USA.

"Somebody who doesn't vote is NEVER innocent!"

Might be true, but those, who did vote for the Greens or Schröder are responsible for Hartz 4 and the illegal occupation of Yuguslavia.
I'm rather guilty of not voting for any of them.

Dirk

[neweurope]

178. I can't share your opinion at all.

But I didn't vote for either Schröder or Fischer. There's an opposition left of the Greens.


----------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Sterling]

15. I think we are missing the point. These hookers can get unemployment

That is a vast improvement to here. I think you guys are seeing this the wrong way. Can you imagine going into the SS office here saying "I am a hooker can I have my health care and unemployment now. I am used to making $500 a day."

I don't think she has to take a job as a hooker to get here beni's. Just a job. She just happens to chose to be a hooker.

[LisaL]

17. I don't think you read the article at all.

You are not making any sense. The woman was not a hooker, but the un-employment agency tried to force her to work as a hooker. Furthermore, looks like there is a big demand on hookers down there, so hookers are not un-employed. In fact, there appears to be not enough people wanting to take the hooking jobs.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. And I don't think some of you read it carefully at all...

I missed the bit where the 'agency tried to force her to work as a hooker'. Can you point it out to me? The article actually didn't say what the response of the employment agency was. The 'quote' that was the title of the article didn't appear anywhere in the article at all and seems to have been invented by the Telegraph, and that's no surprise for a tacky newspaper that thrives on sensationalism and gutter journalism and steers away from the slighest whiff of credibility...

Wouldn't any job-seeker have to be interviewed before being offered a job? If Dirk's still around, he might know, but I live in a part of Australia where there's legalised brothels and the employment agency stuff sounds similar to here, and there's not been a single case of this happening, so I'm finding it impossible to believe that any potential employer would just look at someone's profile and insist they take a job. Or that a job-seeker must take the first job they're offered regardless of their experience or willingness. Otherwise wouldn't we be seeing out of work McDonalds managers losing their benefits because they knocked back a job offer from someone wanting to employ them as a mechanic?

The article also tries to make out that there's not enough people interested in working in brothels, but if you read the article carefully, you'll see that what's being talked about is the refusal of employment agencies to list jobs in brothels because the employment agency claimed it couldn't fill them. Germany must be a very strange place if the only way jobs can be advertised is through an employment agency. Here, jobs appear in the newspapers. And here, there's a high demand for the services of brothels, but there's no shortage of sex-workers..

I kind of suspect the article may be written with a focus on how evil it would be to legalise prostitution. So I'm a bit sceptical that this woman has been forced to do anything...

Violet...

[forgethell]

50. Hi, Violet.

You never got back to me.

There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the sex industry," said Merchthild Garweg, a lawyer from Hamburg who specialises in such cases. "The new regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits."



....


Miss Garweg believes that pressure on job centres to meet employment targets will soon result in them using their powers to cut the benefits of women who refuse jobs providing sexual services.

"They are already prepared to push women into jobs related to sexual services, but which don't count as prostitution,'' she said.

"Now that prostitution is no longer considered by the law to be immoral, there is really nothing but the goodwill of the job centres to stop them from pushing women into jobs they don't want to do."


:)

[XanaDUer]

18. No. I read the article

and the woman was not a prostitute. She had been in IT. However, because prostitution has been legal for two years, it is considered a legitimate job now. Thus, turning it down may lead to the state stopping your unemployment and benefits, just like here you have to prove you are looking for jobs while on unemployment.

It is not prostitutes looking for benefits, if that is what you mean.

[Solon]

24. Read the article...

This woman is being threatened to have benefits cut if she doesn't work as a prostitute, she was before in IT, never worked as a prostitute, and doesn't want to work as a prostitute. The state there is trying to sanction rape, apparently.

[forgethell]

52. That's the way I read it, but

suppose she had been in prostitution? Suppose she, having gotten out of the business, did not want to go back? Should she then be forced to return simply because she had done so before?

[Sterling]

119. She could find another job.

Nothing in the article says they were forcing her to be a prostitute except the misleading header.

[imenja]

58. you didn't read the article

Women who have had other occupations--teachers, book keepers, doctors, lawyers--are forced to take jobs as prostitutes if those are the only job available. They are denied benefits if they refuse to take those jobs. If they take the job, they are employed and do not draw benefits. This is is no way a step forward by any measure. It is sexual slavery.

[Skittles]

33. this is f***ing SICK

anyone who tries to tell me prostitution is a perfectly acceptable "profession" can GO TO HELL.

[Conservativesux]

35. You have to admit that this is one thing the Bushies will never force

American women to do.

Go to Iraq and die?: Yes

Become a <<<GASP>>>> hooker?: No

[imenja]

59. Read Maureen Dowd's article today

Women in Gitmo are told to use sexual "interrogation techniques" with prisoners. "Torture Chicks Gone Wild"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/opinion/30dowd.html?oref=login&hp

[Yupster]

81. Bush would say

that this just shows why morality is so important in the government.

Therefore I have this list of immoral things that congress will now vote to make illegal.

It's truly an interesting situation.

Falwell and Bush would have a simple solution.

"The government should legislate good Christian values and things like this would never happen. Prostitution should be illegal."

This is an interesting case. Obviously it is stupid, but I think it must be handled in a different way than the government has decided that this job is immoral and needs to be treated differently than other jobs. In that case what is imoral would be completely up to the interpretation of which party has the most votes in the legislature, and I don't think we want the government legislating morality.

[Dirk39]

36. If the free market becomes the only religion...

and supply and demand it's holy grail, what do you expect?

On the other hand: no one can compete with Bush, when it comes to a mix of free market fundamentalism with puritanism and the christian right. He's really good at this.

And to offer a carreer opportunity like being a killer and a sex worker at the same time in Abu Graib in the liberated Iraq isn't bad either...

Amen in Germany,
Dirk

[forgethell]

87. This is not the free market.

In Germany? Our markets are much less regulated. We have prostitution. But the government is not passing laws saying people have to enter into it in order to obtain benefits.

[Dirk39]

169. This is the FREE MARKET....

Our government just supports the unemployed in giving them lectures about what FREEEEEEDDOOOOOOM means.

There's a demand and if you resist to be the supply, fine with us: shut your mouth and die or deliver.

That's capitalism.
Our government doesn't pacify capitalism anymore, 'cause the competition has gone. Now it only gives lectures about capitalism.
And if I'm informed correctly: a german unemployed, who rejects to become a prostitute, still gets more money from our state, than any unemployed in the USA, or am I wrong?
Dirk

[Violet_Crumble]

38. I feel much the same way about accountants and soldiers...

LET THEM ALL F********ING BURN IN HELL, I SAY!!!! ;)

[DrWeird]

40. It's perfectly acceptable to me.

Jesus loved prostitutes.

[w4rma]

43. Sarcasm (about the first part)? (nt)

[DrWeird]

44. No.

nt

[w4rma]

48. So forcing folks into prostitution is okay with you?

Prostitution is just another "job", just another way for people to "serve"/"service" others?

Being *forced* to take a job in a brothel for other folks to use your body to hump on is perfectly acceptable to you?

You do realize that in Germany they have a system where you must accept at least one of the job offers offered to you, and if all you get are offers to prostitute your body you *must* take one of those.

[geek tragedy]

155. So you're pro-rape then.

Forcing women to have sex with men is rape.

[barbaraann]

64. I'm with you Skittles.

But every time there is a thread about prostitution, DUers overwhelmingly take the stand that it is just an act between consenting adults and nothing else.

I repeatedly post FACTS about prostitution but few here can deal with those facts.

[MADem]

74. Really???

I haven't noted that. I've noted that some people take the position that if a person chooses that line of work, fine, but no one should be FORCED to do it. I haven't seen anyone say that women should be forced to do it, or men either, for that matter.

It's like cleaning up crime scenes. The money is good, the work is disgusting. Some people have a strong stomach, can put the reality of the job out of their mind, and just go for it. Others could not do it if their lives depended on it.

There's a big difference between allowing people to perform a task that clearly has a market and that they have no problem performing, and forcing people to do something that is personally, morally, religiously, or physically distasteful to them.

[barbaraann]

79. Really.

I've posted on a dozen or so prostitution threads. IMHO, there's a difference between evil and disgusting/distasteful.

[Red State Blues]

47. In the United States...

They pretty much cut off your unemloyment at 6 months, no matter what.

They pretty much cut off your unemployment if you refuse a job, even if it isn't even close to what you had or are qualified for and that can be long before the six months are up.


None of this makes the situation in Germany "right", I just felt that it should be mentioned.

[Eric J in MN]

62. Good point.

While the situation in Germany is wrong and messed up, the US policy of ending unemployment benefits after 6 months is problematic for other reasons.

[forgethell]

89. Why mention it?

As you say, it doesn't make the situation in Germany "right", and moreover, has nothing whatever to do with it. In other words, a total distraction.

[Red State Blues]

103. Distraction

Well, I suppose you are correct. I just want to say that I have no ulterior motive.

As someone who has gone over the six months in the United States, and had Congress tell me that there wasn't a 13 week extension for me. As someone who has had to go through the humiliation of getting signatures to prove that I'm looking for work when you would never ask anyone you actually wanted a job from to sign your "book", because It's looked down upon round these parts for even accepting unemployment. As someone who has been threatened with being reported to the state unemployment commission as refusing a job when I refused to sweep the floors of a business for 50 cents an hour! (Yes the person who did it was completely in the wrong and I was in no danger, but it was quite humiliating)

So as a person who has gone through all of this when I read the article two things came to mind, 1. It's wrong 2. Damn!, what a sweet deal they've got in Germany!

[forgethell]

105. I feel for you, as one

who has gone through the whole unemployment hell myself.

[Red State Blues]

116. Thanks

Sorry you've had to go through it too.

[forgethell]

127. More than once.

Sometimes it was my fault, sometimes just filthy bad luck. But they can't beat you if you don't give up. Keep at it.

[forgethell]

51. Kick because

I don't think this has gotten the discussion it deserves, yet.

[KissMeKate]

55. prostitution and other sex services should be exempt.

these services require a willing woman- this is nightmarish.

[KissMeKate]

56. legal prostitution- good- forced prostitution- unconsionable.

I can see why Germany legalised prostitution- it cuts prostituion off from the crime industry, and helps women get help if they need it as sex workers, and reduces trafficing, by bringing it into the light.

But I cant imagine this case will stand.

[LisaL]

61. It seems like the case will stand. Prostitution is legal, thus, the

woman refuses a legal job. Obviously, they need to change this stupid law so people are not forced into prostitution and other sex jobs, but it doesn't look like they are going to.

[Eric J in MN]

63. The standard could be whether the job is similar to your previous job,

which was the standard in Germany before the recent change.

[forgethell]

69. But should a woman

who wants out be forced to continue working as a whore?

I find the whole thing repulsive.

[Eric J in MN]

80. No, with that exception (nt)

nt

[Yupster]

83. Agree it's repulsive, but

a solution needs to be found based on more than that the business violates some people's morals.

Government shouldn't be in the business of passing laws based on one group or anothers morals.

[forgethell]

84. No, but they shouldn't

be in the business of forcing people to violate their own morals either, do you think?

[Yupster]

95. I guess I have two answers

First - the government isn't forcing her to do anything. They're saying she can respect her morals but not to expect the government to change their rules to suit her particular morals.

Second - I guess I see why the government would be in the business of forcing people to violate their own morals.

I'm thinking of a family who would refuse to pay their income taxes based on the idea that part of their tax money would go to pay salaries of homosexual employees of the government. Since homosexuality is against their morals, they shouldn't be forced to support it against their own morals.

I think there can be a million similar arguments that can be made, so I guess in short answer, I guess I do see times where it is appropriate for the government to insist people do something whether the something violates that indivisdual person's morals or not.

However, I believe this law needs to be changed. I don't want the philosophy behind changing it to be that the practice violates some people's morals though because groups like Falwell and Robertson will make much better use of such a philosophy than the left side ever will.

[KissMeKate]

112. sharing your body with someone is more than a "morals" issue.

I think bodily integrity- that is, not having to spread your legs- should be a factor here.

[Pithlet]

113. Not to mention unwanted pregnancies, STDs, AIDS

This isn't anywhere on the same level as the "moral majority" like Falwell and his ilk, and their stance on social issues.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

73. Sometimes things like this happen because lawmakers don't think about it.

Sometimes the interaction of two laws (like a law legalizing prostitution and a law forcing an unemployed person to accept any available legal job) results in unintended consequences. Bad lawmaking, but understandable to some degree. That does not appear to be the case here. Apparently lawmakers DID consider that this could be a possible consequence and yet they decided to go ahead with the law anyway and not make any special provisions. Mind-boggling.

[MADem]

75. I think you nailed it -- "unintended consequences"

followed by political/economic expediency.

I must say, I enjoy your NAME!!! A magnificent summation in three words!

[LisaL]

76. Cause they couldn't distinguish between being a waitress in a bar

and being a hooker. I have never been to a German bar. I wonder what is going on in there if it can not be distinguished from a brothel.

[Conservativesux]

136. I may have to fly over to Germany to investigate this matter further :)

[forgethell]

85. Mind-boggling?

No it's not. It is perfectly predictable.

[JVS]

91. Die Regierung als Hurentreiber....darum CDU

That's a campaign slogan, I'd love to see.

[Cleita]

93. It's still sexism and treats women like property.

She should sue the government for forcing her into sexual slavery, because that's what it is.

[Yupster]

97. Of course anyone could sue for anything, but

I don't see where her case would be.

First - the government isn't forcing her to do anything. She can say "keep your damned check" and the issue is over.

Second, if the occupation enjoys the same legal standing as any other occupation, she couldn't claim to be in sex slavery anymore than any other employee could claim to be in _____ slavery.

If it's ruled to be just a job, then legally it's just a job.

[Pithlet]

98. They ARE forcing her into prostitution.

They are telling her that she can either die or sleep with strangers. This is no different than if they had said her children must become kidney donors or they will cut off providing money. A person should not be forced to put their body and their psyche at such drastic risk.

I'm not against legalizing prostitution or denying an unemployed prostitute benefits. But, if prostitution is to be legalized, it HAS to remain 100% voluntary. Holding food and shelter over someone's head is NOT 100% voluntary.

[Yupster]

100. You are exaggerating

A person does not get unemployment benefits or die.

In the USA unemployment runs out after six months. Those millions of people don't keel over and die after that.

Not to exaggerate the other way and say people who are refused unemployment benefits have it okay, but let's not exaggerate the other way either.

For this lady, she can call Jerry Falwell and he will make her a millionaire overnight. He will make her the poster child for how liberal Europe is taking Christ out of society and turning their women into government forced prostitution.

[Pithlet]

101. Exaggerate?

Unemployment benefits can mean the difference between a roof over your head and the streets. It most certainly is life and death. And, I'm sorry, but if the government says "Do B, or lose benefits" that is a form of coercion to get someone to do B, whether intended or not.

[Yupster]

108. We agree

the government threatening to take away her check is coercion.

I just don't agree that the choice is an unemployment check or death. That was exaggeration. There are many ways a person can survive without an unemployment check from the government.

[Pithlet]

110. Tell that to the person

who faces losing unemployment or any other benefits, and they're about to be evicted, and there's no food in the fridge and their kids are hungry and the temperature is freezing. Tell them that it's an exaggeration. Just because it is possible that losing benefits doesn't always mean absolute catastrophe doesn't make what I say an exaggeration.

There are families right this second in the US who are living in their car parked behind an old abandoned warehouse and digging in dumpsters for food. Some don't even have that much. And many of them work. If you think that maintaining that situation is a threat to life is an exaggeration, then I don't think we could possibly see eye to eye on this. If you think no one has ever starved to death or frozen in the US or anywhere else because they had nothing, then you're naive.

[Yupster]

123. Agree

We won't see eye to eye.

You said

"They are telling her that she can either die or sleep with strangers"

I think that's an exaggeration. You stand by it. Oh well - different strokes I guess.

[Pithlet]

124. That was not a direct quote.

They are telling her to accept a job where she has to sleep with strangers, or they will cut off her benefits. The consequences of denial of benefits can be quite harsh, and sometimes deadly. I never said that the government told her she would have to die. You know that. But, you have no real argument against anything I've said, so you try to make it look like I said something I did not.

[Yupster]

129. It is a direct quote

It's your first sentence of your post # 98.

It's just a few posts above. Take a look at it.

I'm noy saying your full of crap. I just think the above quote is an exaggeration.

If you're now denying writing it, maybe you agree with me?

And on edit, I haven't addressed your other arguments because I only have one argument with you. I think you exaggerated in the post I responded to. The exaggeration was the passage I quoted. That's all I accused you of.

I quoted the passage I think was an exaggeration. If you stand by your quote, fine. We just disagree but don't expect me to respond to your other arguments because I don't have any other arguments with you. I just made one point. That's all.

[Pithlet]

139. Yes. I used hyperbole to make a point.

In response to your posts that seem to defend the government in such a policy. Your contention that there is no reason to discontinue this practice if it is based on someone's moral objection. I'd forgotten that I'd used those exact words, but it is obvious to anyone who isn't trying to distort my position that it was indeed hyperbole. It's obvious from the rest of all my posts what my position clearly is. And frankly, if you have no money and no means to obtain food and shelter, you die. They may not be putting a literal gun to her head, but in the end, the result could very well be the same.

If this story is indeed true, please explain to me how the government cutting off her only means of food, medical care and housing, unless she sleeps with strangers against her will, is materially different than what I said? The government may not actually be killing her, but it is clearly telling her that it will do nothing to help her stay alive unless she sleeps with men against her will. There is no moral code that I feel obligated to respect that would defend such actions. If you do; if you think there is nothing wrong with denying people the means food, medicine, and housing unless they sleep with people against their will, then I'm not particularly obligated to respect your moral code. No matter how you parse this, no matter how many outs you look for, no matter how much you try to soften the language, this all boils down to a very simple choice. Fuck these people whether you want to or not, or we will take away your ability to pay for food, medicine and housing. That's it. That is all that is about, and there is no other issue. If you defend the government in any way in this issue, and that is what you're defending. Period. End of story.

[Yupster]

140. I don't know why you're trying to

pick a fight with me.

I just said I thought something you said was an exaggeration. That's all.

Then you denied saying it even when I quoted it word for word from your own post.

Now you're saying it was hyperbole.

That's fine - It was an exaggeration or a hyperbole.

That's close enough for this old Texan. For a minute there I was starting to think I had gone nutty as a peach orchard sow.

[Pithlet]

142. I was countering your points in this thread, not picking a fight.

Instead of addressing what I actually said in response to you, you parsed out one little part, and acted as if that were my entire argument.

It may be close enough to you, but being told that my arguments against a government who will discontinue a woman's benefits because she didn't take a job as a hooker are an exaggeration really get my hackels up. If you actually agreed with me, I don't understand why you would pick at my argument the way you have. It seems clear to me that you really don't think that what Germany is doing is all that big of a deal. I don't understand why someone who is appalled at what happend to this woman would pick apart at another person's arguments and accuse them of exaggeration!

But, that's okay. I'm done.

[forgethell]

107. Jesus! n/t

[LiberallyInclined]

102. She should accept the job-

but on her first day, state in no uncertain terms that she will not do anything she finds immoral- she will be fired, and sent back to the job centre, and can continue getting her benefits.

[Conservativesux]

125. I wonder if this law would apply if she was to marry someone...

after all, then this job would be tantamount to cheating.

[Yupster]

130. I wouldn't think marriage would make any difference

And cheating wouldn't either since it isn't against the law.

Cheating is moral to some people, immoral to others. I wouldn't think the law would factor individuals' views of morality into it.

[forgethell]

132. I don't think cheating

is moral for anybody, especially if they are the cheatee, i.e, the one cheated on.

[Yupster]

141. I don't know about that

I think there are a lot of people who consider cheating quite moral.

Some people who call themselves swingers even go to group events for the purpose of cheating.They think it perfectly moral and even go to the events together.

Other people justify their cheating as moral for all kinds of other reasons.

Anyway, I'm an old married guy who has never even come close to cheating, and I would consider it immoral to do so. Yet, I am very sure that there are many people who do not share my moral views on the issue.

I don't think I want the government legislating based on my morality because if they do they will just as easily legislate based on someone else's morality, and it seems in most elections, I end up in the minority of late.

[Conservativesux]

134. If having sex with other men was cause for a divorce in Germany,

..then wouldnt the state be liable for any problems caused by this woman being forced into working as a prostitute?

What if she was to transmit the AIDS virus to her husband?

Couldnt the state be held accountable for that, since she was forced to take a job as a prostitute by the state or starve?

[left is right]

104. I have read the article and every comment

and i just don't buy the premise. A married woman forced into prostitution would have to contend with an irate husband. Said husband would either take out his anger on a.) his wife; b.) her clients; or c.) the bureaucrat that forced her into the job. The same would be true for the father of an unmarried younger woman. This would disrupt families to such an extent that it would tear the very fabric of civilization.
Next, it subjects the woman to all manner of STD's and even the after-effects of sexual assault from a client-nut case. In a country that has universal health coverage, the costs would far exceed the cost of unemployed insurance.
Finally, it sets the nation up for condemnation from their religious leaders, the secular-humanist within their borders and other nations. In Germany, the comparisons to Hitler's era would be staggering.

[Pithlet]

106. You bring up a good point about the health risks involved.

So, even if we go along with those who maintain prostitution is just like any other job, and/or we should not consider the moral implications; the fact that this is a inherently dangerous job should factor. I do not believe that turning down ANY high risk job should result in termination of benefits.

[forgethell]

109. Are you saying the article is untrue, because

I would certainly be glad to hear it. After all, Germany is a liberal country, I've been told. But this is NOT a liberal policy position, IMO.

[LiberallyInclined]

111. it's a way to start a myth about liberal policies run amok...

kinda like ronnie-raygun's faceless(but identified as black by the cadillac stereotype) "welfare queens" and the plight of the "family farmer"(in actuality, they're talking about ADM et. al.)

[forgethell]

131. That's opinion,

do you have any facts?

[LiberallyInclined]

135. all i know is what's in the article posted-

but it seems unlikely on the surface.

[forgethell]

138. Actually it seems very likely.

But I do not have a high opinion of politicians, lawyers, or bureaucrats, or actually, people. At any event, you have no countervailing evidence. Believe me, I would be happy for this to be wrong.

[LiberallyInclined]

162. you've been drinking too much of the kool-aid.

if you're buying into the article as fact, then your thinking is exactly where the MSM wants it to be....congratulations.

apparently the scare tactics about life in a PC-addled Liberal society are taking hold.

[forgethell]

163. Excuse me,

I'm allergic to Kool-Aid. I'm not buying into anything. I don't know that it is a fact, but I don't know that it's not, either. I'm asking for evidence, one way or the other. So far, none has appeared that says it is not.

[LiberallyInclined]

164. what kind of proof do you require...?

proving a negative isn't always a straightforward thing- what would convince you besides common sense & the multiple posts from german citizens on this board stating that it's bullshit, and that their unemployment system doesn't work that way...

[forgethell]

166. Oh, I don't know.

As I understand it, this is relatively new, co maybe, like citizens in this country, they aren't aware of what is going on. Common sense says that this could actually happen. People, especially bureaucrats, and other people who are not accountable to the public, can be pretty shitty.

I would accept a retraction by the paper. I would probably accept it if I don't hear any more about it. I would probably accept a statement to the contrary by a German official. There might be any number of things I would accept. But unsubstantiated comments by anonymous posters on a discussion board do not number among them.

But as I said, I haven't accepted that it is true. Right now I am open to persuasion.

[LiberallyInclined]

167. Thank-you for proving my point!!

from your post:
"Common sense says that this could actually happen."

WRONG!!

Common sense says that it could not happen.
if your "common sense" tells you that it could happen, then the MSM has succeeded in brainwashing you as to the horrors of life in a world of a PC liberal agenda gone mad.
the fact that you can't recognize it may signal that you're too far gone to make it back to reality.

[forgethell]

179. Golly!

So much judgmentalism, so little facts. I said nothing about a PC liberal agenda. I am referring more to human nature. Careful which kettles you call brainwashed, Mr. Pot.

[LiberallyInclined]

181. you don't read so good, do you...?

"... I said nothing about a PC liberal agenda."

ummmm...did i say that you had?

btw- it seems that snopes already has debunked this 'obvious to anyone who's not a moran' bullshit article...is that valid enough proof for you? :hi:

for a link, see the post futher down the page.

[forgethell]

186. And you don't

understand too well.

then the MSM has succeeded in brainwashing you as to the horrors of life in a world of a PC liberal agenda gone mad.

Thanks for the link. As I read the article, there were a lot of "we suspect"s in there. So maybe they don't know either. Still, it is interesting that both you and they had an immediate knee-jerk reaction that this was about PC liberalism run amok. And, it may well be.

Still, there is no end to what evil people will do to each other, or to the total stupidity of petty careerists and bureaucrats. If you don't realize this, then I guess the Iraq war is OK with you?? What about judges who think that even death penalty cases must be finally settled, and no new {i]evidence, not some technical point of the law, but real evidence pointing to innocence need be considered after some legal deadline has passed?

Liberalism run amok? that may be Stalinist Russia. Wasn't it Eleanor Roosevelt who said, "Communists are just liberals in a hurry"?

So why so defensive about liberalism? Are you afraid it may be true? I'm not. I don't think it is liberalism so much as humanity.

But cheers.

[Sterling]

121. This story is made up bullshit.

Not at all credible.

[Pithlet]

122. Why is that?

Do you have the links stating that this is false? It may very well be BS, but no one has provided a lick of evidence that this is not so.

[forgethell]

128. I hope you're right.

I'd sleep better tonight. Do you have a link?

[Kellanved]

114. my BS bells are ringing

There is no word on it in the German press, and my understanding of the laws is that fields like the sex industry are not considered "acceptable work". It is a pretty well done reform of the wellfare regulations, yet a few weird effects were to be expected. This however, has the sound of an urban legend.

Contrary to the opinions of other posters, this German government is the best in the past 20 years -by far.

[LisaL]

120. Did they or did they not changed the laws?

Aren't' you supposed to accept the job offered to you or lose benefits?
Isn't prostitution a legal job like any others in Germany?
So, why do you find this hard to believe?

[Kellanved]

157. Why indeed.

:eyes:

A job at a hooters-equivalent would probably be covered by the new regulation.
If the brothel pays social security, health care and taxes, then it can demand the help of the job-agency to fill vacant positions - as waitress for example.

Anyway: Prostitution is off-limits; there is a commitment by the Job Agencies not to force people to take a job like the one described in the article.
Considering the uproar a case like that would cause in Germany, I think it is safe to assume that the story is 95% grade A Bull.

[Petrushka]

147. Reminded me of those "news" stories in the . . .

. . . tabloids found at checkout counters . . . the ones that are raunchier than "The Enquirer" . . . if that's possible!

[98geoduck]

143. The U.S. forces girls into prostitution by the republican backed mafia

Although, I find there is no excuse for Germany's legal decisions.

[forgethell]

161. Mafia?

republican -backed? First I've heard of it. Do you have a link? There is a considerable difference between private citizens acting illegally to do horrific things, and the government acting legally to do horrific things. Or wouldn't you say so?

[neweurope]

151. Crap. I'm German. Forget it.

Theoretically it might be possible, I don't know and won't even bother to find out. It'll never happen.

---------------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[MHalblaub]

156. The article is a good and old joke.

Even saw it on TV.

True is that prostitution is now as legal as a working as a barber.

But promotion of prostitution is still illegal and the law is neutral about the gender. So according to the article even a man might be forced to work as a prostitute.

I have another story.
There are no jokes about W!
All is true!

[Dirk39]

170. You're wrong...

but you're right empirical: this isn't really the practise in Germany and until today, I did never ever hear of a single woman in Germany, who was forced to become a prostitute by our Federal Employment Office.
But - as I know from a friend of mine - people, who are unemployed are told this...
But merely as a joke.
But this is, what you got wrong: prostitution in Germany isn't illegal. And it's that way for decades.
But we still had a passus in our civic law that prostitution is "immoral". And as a result, it wasn't allowed to enforce prostitution or to promote it.
The Greens and the Social Democrats did change this passus of our civic law. Now, prostitution is considered to be a job like any other job.
As a leftist, I would like to add: what's the difference at all between working at McDonalds, killing in Iraq, or let everybody fuck you.
But I don't. For me, there is still a difference.


It's really funny somehow, if you're not affected:

The (cultural part of the) '68 revolution did win, at least the sexual revolution.
But capitalism is stronger than ever.

All I can tell you is that the majority of the prostitutes in Germany, most of them illegal immigrants don't care about that law and even the majority of german legal prostitutes are against this law and don't care about paying tax and being legalized.
The more those former "leftists" and "cultural revolutionaries" come to power, the more I appreciate those "dark corners" of capitalism that were allowed to stay in the dark and somehow accepted without talking about it.

The '68 and Greens are still as far away from reality as they ever were, but now they are at the center of capitalism and accepted. A funny constelation, as long as you're not affected by their nonsense.
The Greens and "Socialists" in Germany fuck with BMW, Volkswagen and Mercedes - another kind of legal prostitution in Germany - and talk about people, they don't care about or know and make laws for minorities they don't care about or know. But they know Mercedes and Volkswagen now. Welcome to Realpolitik.
Still not voting in Germany,
Dirk

[Yupster]

175. I saw a bumper sticker once

"Don't vote - It only
Encourages them"

Cynics can be so cynical sometimes.

Grussgott from Texas. I spent my junior year in Brgenz, Austria. Wonderful year - beautiful place.

[tinrobot]

174. Snopes has proved the story false

I think we need to call off the outrage patrol.

Snopes has looked into the issue and thinks the article is the result of bad translation

www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp

A news story about a 25-year-old German woman who faced cuts to her unemployment benefits for turning down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel was carried by a variety of English-language news sources in January 2005. It has struck a chord in many readers as an example of liberal morality and bureaucracy run amok: if prostitution is legalized (as it was in Germany back in 2002), this story suggests, then society has conferred its approval upon that trade, and prostitution can therefore be proffered to (and even foisted upon) women as a valid choice of employment.

We remain skeptical about the literal truth of the version reported in the English press, however, because the issue seems to have received scant attention in the German press (at least that we can find). Most German-language sources on this topic point to an 18 December 2004 article from the Berlin newspaper Tageszeitung, which (as far as our rusty command of German allows us to discern) does not report that women in Germany must accept employment in brothels or face cuts in their unemployment benefits. The article merely presents that concept as a technical possibility under current law —it does not cite any actual cases of women losing their benefits over this issue, and it quotes representatives from employment agencies as saying that while it might be legally permissible to reduce unemployment benefits to women who have declined to accept employment as prostitutes, they (the agencies) would not actually do that.

We suspect this is another case where, like a game of "telephone," a story has been garbled as it has passed from one news source to the next, and somewhere in the rewriting and translating process what was originally discussed as a mere hypothetical possibility has now been reported as a factual occurrence

[Dirk39]

176. Just to highlight this again: you're right!

"The article merely presents that concept as a technical possibility under current law"

Hello from Germany!

This is all, what it's about. No less, but as a technical possibility still worth a discussion.

My two Cents as a German: if this would happen to only one German woman: twenty-five german news and radio channels, not to forget a few dozen newspapers would report about it 24 hours a day....(what a nice occasion to show some tits and dark corners, no decent citizen would ever visit, along with the moralizing comment!)

But it's still a technical possibility and it's "in the air".

When my girlfriend did have to report being unemployed, she was forced to visit a kind of seminar every single german unemployed is forced to visit - if you don't, you don't get any benefits anymore.
And the woman, who hold this seminar, did tell them about that possibility.

It's rather interesting that it has become a technical possibility at all. The rest is for the yellow press anyway. At least till today.

But to put everything else aside:
One thing would be still worth discussing: In Germany, an established cultural - not social - (former) left and "green" movement, who has abandonned all social issues and never ever had any kind of connection to the working class, came to power accepting the most radical and brutal free market capitalism, one could ever imagine: and it works somehow, while in the USA, Bush has "fraternized" christian Fundamentalism and an even more radical "free" market ideology.

We might live in the worst world, one could ever imagine at the start of the 21. Century, but it's still absurd and funny.
(Except for so many people, I don't wanna think about, as long as it's not a Tsunami)


Dirk

[MHalblaub]

177. No way, IT IS A FAKE: § 180a StGB

You still can't force somebody to prostitute:

http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/180a.html
"Ebenso wird bestraft,wer...eine andere Person..., zur Prostitution anhält oder im Hinblick auf sie ausbeutet..."

I think any auto translation will get it wrong because of some legal terms. So that is my approach:

"Also is to punish,... someone who ... encourages another person to prostitution..."

So cutting down someones welfare for not working as a prostitute is therefore illegal.


By the way, the whores had to pay taxes even though their work was marked in legal terms as immoral. It was just assumed how much they get for their job and then taxed.


In a free community everything that is not illegal by law is legal. No matter some people have different moral views on something. Prostitution is not prohibited in Germany.

[Pithlet]

180. I'm relieved.

My first reaction when I read the OP was "This can't possibly be true". I'm glad it's not. I will say that my outrage was also at some of the attitudes about women in this thread.