Legalizing forced prostitution - Germany leads
Frightening what bureaucracy can do in the name of standardization:
News link:
'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'
Edit:
Snopes response clarifying can versus will, indicating that the above article merely illuminates a loop hole in the laws which has never been acted on -- thanks to arewar for the link.
News link:
'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'
Edit:
Snopes response clarifying can versus will, indicating that the above article merely illuminates a loop hole in the laws which has never been acted on -- thanks to arewar for the link.
Comments 15
Reply
Consentuality anyone?
Reply
god.
Reply
> 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.
And that ain't the worst damning quotation in there either.
I wonder if the United States would consider that legitimate reason for political asylum? Forced prostitution turns the government into an abusive pimp.
Reply
probably not. While generaly I suspect forced prostitute would be good enough for asylum, I don't think this would count. Many nations have no unemployment benefits and that's not considered reason for asylum, so I doubt that removal of them would be enough.
Reply
Bottom line: An immigration judge in the United States would have the final say, we really can't determine this one ahead of time, but it would be an interesting case to watch.
Looking at it from the Canadian perspective:
Immigration Canada would try to determine if an asylum applicant is a Person in need of protection:
A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country of nationality or former habitual residence would subject them to the possibility of torture, risk to life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.Again, we can't tell in advance because it's subject ( ... )
Reply
You make a good point. If I was agruing against (to play devil's advocate), I'd stress that this is about unemployment benefits, not human rights. Considering these are a privelege, and not guarenteed even within the country in question, losing them doesn't qualify as persecution or torture. The government is not threaten a jail sentence - that I'm sure would qualify for asylum.
Bancruptcy, unemployment, etc are not considered persecution or torture. That she would be denied government employment services might count. If she could be placed on a 'black list' available to employers that would certainly count.
It would be a fancinating trial.
----------------------
I think the Canadian clause requires *both* cruel and unusual. Weird doesn't cut it. I agree this counts as unusual. I don't know if a Canadian judge would consider it cruel. Given the level of social support in Canadian, it seems like a good shot though.
------------------------
The whole ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Of course it appears to have backfired. Now the government is doing the forcing and thus the human trafficker!
Reply
Reply
Those sources are somewhat right-wing biased. It is possible, but it hasn't been done, and the woman in the situation isn't really in that type of situation.
Reply
The point is there is a big hole in the law which could, though probably won't, become an ethnics problem. The frightening part is that the job centers could (though probably won't) get in trouble for not reducing benefits. This is an situation where nothing bad happens if people look at the cases (ie, denied prostitution jobs), but if they look at just the numbers there is a major issue. Imagine this summary for the quarter: 500 jobs offered, 200 accepted, benefits continued for 250. That would look very bad if there is a (bad) statistical evaluation.
Thank you for the link, I'll add that to the original.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment