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 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, together with my English translations:
Quote:
|
........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."
Quote:
......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.