Germany's legal prostitution and benefits

[Beth]

In the Payable on Death forums, a thread (http://boards.atlanticrecords.com/artists/payableondeath/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=55010776&f=90610379&m=103102915&r=468101025#468101025) was posted on on Germany's forcing of women to take a job in prostitution under penalty of losing unemployment benifits (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml).

I think this is deplorable, but I can tell my dear friend Phil is going to start a moral issue about this and the porn industry. Why is it morally deplorable for Germany to allow for women to be coerced into a sex job but morally ok for the porn industry to be legal?

[Gurdur]

This sounds like a scare job by the Brit tabloid. I'm pretty damn sure they got a couple of things wrong in that news report, and that the case is not as they describe.
I'm going to look up the actual details and get back to you; but I can assure you, no-one is being coerced by the government here into sex industry jobs.

[HelenM]

This sounds like a scare job by the Brit tabloid. I'm pretty damn sure they got a couple of things wrong in that news report, and that the case is not as they describe.
I'm going to look up the actual details and get back to you; but I can assure you, no-one is being coerced by the government here into sex industry jobs.

Fwiw, the Telegraph is not considered a tabloid; it's one of the 'better' newspapers.

Please do report back after you've looked up the details. I would be interested to know whether the article is correct or not.

Helen

[Gurdur]

Fwiw, the Telegraph is not considered a tabloid; it's one of the 'better' newspapers.
Tabloid format, what, what ?
And I'm none too sure you're so right on that; I've seen the Telegraph referred to as a tabloid quite often all over the place.

[Petra]

It sounds like a scare job to me, too. I wonder if Britian is looking at law changes to make prostitution legal, and so some journo's are doing the scarey stories about it.

The same arguments were being used here when prostitution was made legal - young unemployed women would suddenly all be sent to work in brothels by their job centre/social security case managers. This is simply not so.

In fact, one of the unforeseen results of prostitution being made legal here in NZ was the decline of brothels. Many brothels simply went out of business as more women started to work from home. So perhaps this story is also generated by brothel owners who are losing women and clients to more home-based, single operator businesses and they want to scare the public into law changes making it illegal again, as they actually benefit from the illicitness of it all.

Of course if the story is true, then yes it's deplorable. But I don't think it's true.

[HelenM]

Fwiw, the Telegraph is not considered a tabloid; it's one of the 'better' newspapers.
Tabloid format, what, what ?
And I'm none too sure you're so right on that; I've seen the Telegraph referred to as a tabloid quite often all over the place.

Maybe someone from Britain can clarify whether it is. It wasn't when I lived there but I suppose it might have changed since then.

Helen

[HelenM]

Of course if the story is true, then yes it's deplorable. But I don't think it's true.

The article is emphasizing a legal possibility. It remains to be seen whether in practice job centres will refuse unemployment benefits to women who refuse to take a job that the job center knows is legal prostitution. In the example cited, it's not clear (imo) whether the job center knew the exact nature of the job.

Helen

[Gurdur]

Maybe someone from Britain can clarify whether it is. It wasn't when I lived there but I suppose it might have changed since then.
Helen, I live right next to the bloody place, I sometimes visit the bloody place and I often read The Telegraph myself (albeit only for its Gardening section).

Food for thought there.

[HelenM]

Maybe someone from Britain can clarify whether it is. It wasn't when I lived there but I suppose it might have changed since then.
Helen, I live right next to the bloody place, I sometimes visit the bloody place and I often read The Telegraph myself (albeit only for its Gardening section).

Food for thought there.

Some food for thought for you: The Telegraph is listed as a British broadsheet (http://www.totaltravel.co.uk/library/britain/uk-newspapers/broadsheets/), not a
British tabloid (http://www.totaltravel.co.uk/library/britain/uk-newspapers/Uk+Tabloids/) on totaltravel.co.uk.

Helen

[Gurdur]

I'll just have to take that hit.
A definite point there to Helen.
Nonetheless, I stand by my assertion that the Telegraph is tabloid in spirit.

[Zoot]

Would it be similarly deplorable if a vegetarian was denied unemployment benefits because she refused available jobs in the meat industry?

[Ronin]

Would it be similarly deplorable if a vegetarian was denied unemployment benefits because she refused available jobs in the meat industry?

It certainly would if she did not want to be the meat.

:eek:

[LadyShea]

Why is it morally deplorable for Germany to allow for women to be coerced into a sex job but morally ok for the porn industry to be legal?

Maybe you phrased it wrong, Beth did you mean the US porn industry? The key word here is coerced. Presumably, nobody is being forced by their government to be involved in porn movies.

[Gurdur]

It would certainly be very wrong for anyone to be coerced into working in the sex industry,

and a very good case can be made that it is ethically completely wrong to force an ethical vegetarian into working in the other meat industry too.

As for this case, I've already left messages around the place asking my German colleagues to check this, but so far they haven't heard anything, nor have I found any report about this anywhere in either German or British media excepting the original in the Telegraph.

I'll get back to you when I know more.

[JoeP]

Fwiw, the Telegraph is not considered a tabloid; it's one of the 'better' newspapers.
Tabloid format, what, what ?
And I'm none too sure you're so right on that; I've seen the Telegraph referred to as a tabloid quite often all over the place.
The Telegraph is not a tabloid. Your sources are misleading or plain wrong. "Tabloid" in British newspaper terminology excludes "quality" or "broadsheet" papers, such as The Telegraph, The Times, The Guardian and The Independent. That's how the term is used, in context.

otoh, all British newspapers - and quite a proportion of TV news as well - use "tabloid" techniques of sensationalism and muckracking extensively, and often to the detriment of any mission to inform. It's just that "quality" papers will dress their sensationalism up as "other papers are reporting that..."

[Gurdur]

Well now, I've been doing some research and gotten some results already.

Here are some facts:
The story appears to have originated actually in a Hamburg TAZ news report (filed on the 18. December, 2004), which was then repeated on the Wallstreet-Online.de website in a copied version (http://www.wallstreet-online.de/ws/community/board/thread.php?fid=&tid=943975&offset=&) on 15 January, 2005; and appears to have somehow mutated into the Telegraph's report allegedly from Berlin (filed on 30, January, 2005).
Here are some bits from the original Hamburg TAZ report (http://www.taz.de/pt/2004/12/18/a0077.nf/text), together with my English translations:
........Seit 2002 ist der Beruf der Prostituierten legalisiert. Die Tätigkeit der Sexarbeiterin ist damit ein Job wie jeder andere. Also bestünde für die Agentur für Arbeit kein Grund, nach der neuen Hartz IV-Gesetzgebung nicht in den Bereich "sexueller Dienstleistungen" zu vermitteln.
"Since 2002 prostitution has been legalised. A sex-industry job is then like any other job. Therefore employment agencies have no reason not to also handle job offers from the sex-industry in accordance with the new Hartz-IV rules."
......Das bestreitet Knut Börnsen, Sprecher der Hamburger Arbeitsagentur. "Es gibt ja noch Sitte und Anstand." Daher werde nicht in Bordelle vermittelt. "Derartige Betriebe wenden sich nicht an die Agentur", so Börnsen, "die haben andere Kanäle...........
Und wenn es sich offiziell nur um einen Tresenjob im Bordell handelt? "Wenn eine Frau da nicht arbeiten möchte, dann akzepieren wir das", sagt Börsen ......."
"Knut Boernsen, representing the Hamburg Employment Agency, argues against that. "There are customs and morals. Such branches do not come to us seeking workers, they have other canals". Therefore the agency does not accpet job offers from brothels."
......
And what if it was only a non-sex service job in a brothel ?
{ such as cloakroom, waitressing, cleaning }
"If a woman does not want to work in such an area, then we accept that." says Boersen.......´"
____________________________________

So: if you want my opinion, so far there does not seem to have been any actual case as alleged in the Telegraph; I very much susupect the Telegraph report used the TAZ report to build up a small report of its own.
Obviously the matter has been of some small controversy, given the possibilities, but from discussion it appears that such coercion would in fact be unconstitutional under German constitutional and basic rights law; the relevant sections apparently forbid forcing anyone to undertake actions contrary to normal (German) social ethics and customs.

I will keep you all posted if I hear anything more and definite about any of the allegations; but as said, I'm immensely sceptical of the Telegraph claims.

[Gurdur]

And one more note:
through a friend in the city council, I just now got an opinion direct from an official in the local official un-/employment office:
and that opinion is that no: no women would ever be coerced into working in the sex-industry.
There are enquires from the sex-industry looking for workers, and there are enquiries from women actually wanting jobs as prostitutes, but in both cases the office refuses to handle such requests and refuses to act as agent between parties in suchlike.
Moreover, apparently, legally, since the sex-industry, while legalised, is not officially recognised as a career (because it lacks qualifications, exams and the like), it would be legally impossible to coerce a person on unemployment benefits to take a sex-industry job.

[HelenM]

Thanks for the information, Gurdur. I agree that the Telegraph article is somewhat misleading. Even before you checked the facts (or lack thereof) behind it I could see that the title of the article was unnecessarily sensationalist, given the lack of actual evidence in the article itself that job centers have or will knowingly coerce women into the sex industry. I agree that such misleading sensationalism is more in the spirit of a tabloid than a newspaper respected for accurate reporting.

Ronin, based on what Gurdur wrote, presumably women are safe from being coerced to be the meat in the meat industry since it requires no qualifications and hence is not a career.

Helen

[Gurdur]

Which means one meat market is not officially recognised as a career, while the other meat market is.

Such indeed are the vaguries of life.

[Beth]

First off, Gurder, thank you very much. I am very relieved thhe report was more of a sensational nature than that of journalism. I found it very disheartening to think that Germany would force such a thing as it seemed a clear human rights violation. Thank you for taking the time and effort to set this disinformation straight. :)

[Gurdur]

Human rights are actually enshrined very strongly in the German constitution (the part is known as the Basic Rights).
However, you should keep in mind that EU law can under many circumstances trump German law -- but then the EU itself has a strong human rights law section.

No way could anyone trying to coerce women into sex jobs survive either EU or German human-rights constitutional legislation, let alone both; that's why I was so sceptical in the first place --- because it would have been legally impossible from two different sides, the EU and the German side.

[Gurdur]

...Ronin, based on what Gurdur wrote, presumably women are safe from being coerced to be the meat in the meat industry since it requires no qualifications and hence is not a career.
More than that:
it contravenes German social ethics ( it becomes Sittenwidrigkeit) and is therefore not legal to so coerce women, since Sittenwidrigkeiten are illegal.
It would also contravene the German Basic Rights --- constitutional protection of human rights (which is much stronger than USA law and constitution on human rights).
Plus it would be illegal under EU law too.

IOW, it would have all been illegal six ways from Sunday, upwards, downwards and sidewards.

[HelenM]

Which means one meat market is not officially recognised as a career, while the other meat market is.

Such indeed are the vaguries of life.

Indeed. :cointoss:

[justaman]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12111660-13762,00.html

This is where I first saw the story. Another degree of separation!

I'm interested, though, in your apparent opinion Beth that the porn industry should be illegal? Do you have any actual reason for this or do you just not like it?

[Zoot]

I'd like the porn industry to be fully federated, so that porn actors, writers and directors make porn films, and those people are the ones who receive any profits.

I suppose that's a story for another thread.

[Beth]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12111660-13762,00.html

This is where I first saw the story. Another degree of separation!

I'm interested, though, in your apparent opinion Beth that the porn industry should be illegal? Do you have any actual reason for this or do you just not like it?I don't think I gave that opinion.

[justaman]

I don't think I gave that opinion.
No you didn't, but you seemed to hint at it, which is why I sought clarification :yup:

[seebs]

Gurdur, your information is excellent, and I thank you for it. May I copy your post to a thread on this very topic on ChristianForums?

[Beth]

I don't think I gave that opinion.
No you didn't, but you seemed to hint at it, which is why I sought clarification :yup:I don't think I hinted at it, either. I did state most clearly that I thought government coersion of women into prostitution or sex related jobs is detestable.

What I did say is that Phil was gonna turn the argument into a morals one about the legalisation of the porn industry and that these women are coersed into the job because of need for money. He was trying to parallel the legal prostution in pornography with that of Germany and then question why it also is not immoral. Or I gathered this would be the case.

I am not a porn fan, but I do not think it should be illegal.

[justaman]

I am not a porn fan, but I do not think it should be illegal.
AH I gotcha, I read the last line in the OP as your question, not Phil's. Sorry man!

Good ol' Phil.

[Petra]

Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp) is working it.

[Gurdur]

Gurdur, your information is excellent, and I thank you for it. May I copy your post to a thread on this very topic on ChristianForums?
By all means. Be my guest.
Please stress that German constitutional law, German employee protection law (including sexual harrasment law) and EU human rights law all would completely stop any such alleged action.

I found it interesting; this is one of the very few times I've really dug around something in recent times, and I find it interesting how the second reporter must have decided to go one better that the first report, which was already misleading enough, leading to total fake hysteria.

[Dingfod]

Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp) is working it.And has now declared it to be false.

[Godless Dave]

I found it interesting; this is one of the very few times I've really dug around something in recent times, and I find it interesting how the second reporter must have decided to go one better that the first report, which was already misleading enough, leading to total fake hysteria.

The second reporter failed to do what you did: call around to people who would know the facts. This is endemic in journalism today: reporters using other reporters as their only sources.

[Gurdur]

The second reporter failed to do what you did: call around to people who would know the facts. This is endemic in journalism today: reporters using other reporters as their only sources.
You may well be right on that in this instance.
I kinda tend to think the reporter deliberately got it all wrong for the sake of sensationalism --- because if the story had been true, it would have been headlines stuff, and yet it was handled as a third-page report of no great importance despite the sensationalism --- but I could well be wrong and you be right on this one.

I do know you are very right in general on this issue. Leastaways, for much USA, UK and Australian media. Ugh.

[Petra]

...reporters using other reporters as their only sources.


Like Chinese Whispers.