That's the law in Germany.

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

I don't know what to say.

From the standpoint of two years (prostitution was legalised in 2002), one can safely say that:

1. Women from Poland (among other countries, but I'm from Poland, so I should know) are still deceived, and then forced to work in brothels, and there is nothing to stop the owners of such estabilishments:
-- before Poland's accession to the EU, the women didn't exist in Germany, so there was no point looking for them;
-- after accession, the women are still not looked for because they were not hired in Germany.
Further research into the subject reveals that even if the women were found, since this job is legal, the only thing that could be done is sending them back to their country of origin because they do not have work permits. This, however, can be easily averted. Back in Poland (I will keep that example), the woman starts a one-person firm, and then subcontracts it to the brothel owner, unknowingly. After that, she is kidnapped to Germany, and forced to work there as a prostitute. Since she is doing that legally, and pays taxes, the hands of the police are tied. Since she signed a contract, she is legally bound to stay there. Since they have taken her passport, she cannot leave the country. The loop closes.
If anything, the law has made it easier to traffick women, since brothel owners are not doing anything illegal anymore.
Ergo? The country has a problem with an excessive number of murders? Legalise murder, the problem disappears.

2. Economy of Germany is staggering. Legalising and taxing brothels can be viewed only when keeping wary of the fact that they needed money more than anything else, and everything else is just an excuse. Illegally trafficking women? No longer illegal, see point one. Because of that, there is also some police force freed to do other things.

Jack, I doubt that it will be enforced as I do not think this was by a long shot the intention when the legalisation of prostitution was implemented. That said it shows yet another problem of legalised prostitution. Do anyone know how things work in Holland and Nevada and some of the other states where it is legal?

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Is that Hartz IV ? I think the whole welfare reform... missed.

i think prostitution should be legal, if you want to have sex for money, be my guest.

i wouldn't do it, and wouldn't pay for sex


EDIT: if you've read it, obvious (would - Wouldn't

2ndEdit: Edited the actual text

It is the Hartz IV reform, yes.
Among other changes it aims at 'encouraging' certain people to take up jobs rather than enjoying the benefits an unemployed German has a right to, even if the new job doesnt meet the standards of the previous one, or ones education and potential. Though there are limits of course.
And I bet this is beyond them.

I strongly doubt that when this gets known there will be any consequences for the waitress. Anything else would be an outrage. Not even in 'old Europe' :rolleyes: can someone be forced into prostitution. By legal means.

toughluck, you miss the point.

The point of legalising prostitution was actually a progressive one: Before legalisation prostitutes had to pay taxes, too - the prostitute had to go to a comittee where they 'estimated' how much she might make a day, and her taxes were set according to that estimate. A ridiculous procedure.

The accusation of having a double standard was well founded: Because the job was illegal the client actually had no legal obligation to actually pay - until a pissed off Berlin judge sentenced such a fraudulent client to pay anyway, very much to the surprise of that scumbag - and contra legem actually :lol: the sum was too low to justify revision :shake: (lesson: Never piss off the judge)

A highlight :shake: because, as the judge rightly asked: "Prostitution is a job too immoral to make it a legal obligation for the customers to pay - but not so immoral as to refuse taxing the income coming from it?!"

That silly situation eventually led to prostitution being legalised as a profession.

toughluck, you amuse me when you seriously put the immoral acts of prostitution and murder in the same category.

Murder is socially harmfull, prostitution isn't.

While one cannot legalise murder without admitting his clinical insanity, legalising prostitution is actually a pragmatic solution to an actual problem - much preferrable to stigmating prostitutes and leving them without legal protection to the mercy of their pimps.

And I agree with Dendri, the article is exaggerated. No one here in Europe can be forced into prostitution in order not to lose benefits from the government - that would in fact be a crime.

There won't be negative consequences for the waitress, that would be unconstitutional.

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. That's institutionalised rape taking administrative forms under the guise of the law, as some women are likely to cave in to the pressure of poverty, with social benefits being otherwise denied. If something like that can be called a law. It's so obviously inconsistent with natural law that I don't understand how anyone could possibly consider it binding. Yes, I know that there are people with such mindsets as to consider binding any law that has been passed in accordance with the proper procedure, but this sort of thing is so deeply against the base values of the European civilisation that it clearly resides on a ground that no positive legislation should enter. There's also practically 100% chance it's unconstitutional, no matter which European constitution we consider.

When the authorities act as pimps, they are no better than pimps are and pimps are not whom we want to govern us, are they? It's beyond me how any authority could possibly enact such a legal rule instead of blocking the execution and challenging it in the constitutional court or even the European Court of Justice, let alone the Tribunal in Strasbourg.

Doubtful as it may be, from the article it seems that the chief authorities are OK with that as they no longer consider prostitution immoral. This is one point. Another is that they gave up the idea of amending the law for the sake of sheer convenience because of the difficulties in distinguishing brothels from bars and nightclubs.

Big thumbs down and someone deserves a trial (it being totally unlikely to happen).

until a pissed off Berlin judge sentenced such a fraudulent client to pay anyway, very much to the surprise of that scumbag - and contra legem actually the sum was too low to justify revision (lesson: Never piss off the judge)Lol! I can imagine the whole crowds of jawdropped representatives of the omnifreakingscient doctrine. To enforce a natural obligation in a court! :shake: :lol:

Murder is socially harmfull, prostitution isn't.

While one cannot legalise murder without admitting his clinical insanity, legalising prostitution is actually a pragmatic solution to an actual problem - much preferrable to stigmating prostitutes and leving them without legal protection to the mercy of their pimps.I believe you're talking about the legalisation of prostitution in the first sentence, as well?

Anyway, while I respect the compassion which may lead some politicians to legalising prostitution in order to avoid at least some of the abuse associated with illegal prostitution, I still have the problem with the act. First, it's giving a yes to prostitution. In any legal system which includes good mores clauses, that would create a serious inconsistency. Plus, I don't believe in the expected beneficial effects actually coming real. Prostitution is so strongly inherently tied with illegal businesses and the crime world that the tie can never be fully broken. The abuse of prostitutes by pimps is also so deeply rooted that I can't imagine it being rooted out on a great scale.

On one hand, if someone wants to cheat on his spouse or trade sex for benefits, he will always find an opportunity. On the other hand, however, the very purpose of prostitution is providing such opportunities. That's why I believe prostitution should never be condoned. As for it being tolerated, one should consider the alternatives. St Augustine said something along the lines that it's better to have prostitutes than to risk uncorrupted women getting corrupted. It's better if a man goes to the brothel than if he seduces a virgin or a wife of another man, isn't it?

There won't be negative consequences for the waitress, that would be unconstitutional.Well, we know that there shouldn't be any. But what does the waitress know of her rights?

[ January 31, 2005, 21:06: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Newsflash! I just had to post that I and Ragusa disagree on something, namely whether prostitution is detrimental to society (socially harmful) or not. I believe it is highly socially harmful, not for any moral reasons but because it wrecks people, mentally and physically. The myth of the happy whore is just that, a myth.

One sign that the legistlation drags behind the reform. I really doubt anyone is so-so "common sense-challenged" as to really follow something as silly as that (...even though I know several people who are just crazy when it come to the law...)

Joacqin - well, you're right - in fact I wanted to make a counterpoint to toughluck and indeed - went too far.

I take it we can agree on: Prostitution is less socially harmfull than murder?

The problem is, I chose murder to be a radical example. How about larceny? Or blackmail? It was a crime, pass a legislation, no longer a crime, no more crime of that type in our country. In fact, legalise everything, and crime rate drops to 0%.

That legislation is deeply flawed, and it is absurd to see that prostitution is viewed upon as the same kind of work as medicinal profession or teaching, with the same moral standpoint. If they are unable to tell what is a bar and what is a brothel, let some legislators just walk into an estabilishment and say to the waitress:
-- "Ein Bier und sex bitte."
If she says: "Ein Bier ist moeglich, aber nicht sechs." or: "Ich bin keine Nutte! Aus!" it is a bar.
If she says: "Komm mit mir," it is a brothel.

Is it really THAT difficult???

Now that would be one interesting job.

Well prostitution is legal in New Zealand and as far as I know we haven't had any negative social effects because of it. Now we don't have pimps breaking peoples' thumbs if they don't pay the girls - we get the police to arrest them for breach of contract or theft. We don't have girls raped and taken advantage of because now they can provide a full statement to a judge or jury of "I was out looking for a customer. I asked the defendant if he wanted to have sex with me for money and that is when he forced me into his van and raped me."

It's always going to be there. Might as well tax them. Sorry if I missed the point.