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

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

www.telegr aph.co.uk

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.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is retarded on so many levels I don't even know where to start. First, the job centers should be ashamed of themselves for this mindset. Secondly, the brothel owners should be publicly flogged for forcing them into this situation.

I'm not rabidly against legal prostitution like some, because like Germany, I think it can help stop illegal trafficking, and help stop the money from the trade from pouring into the hands of organized crime. But what good is making it legal, when the only difference it makes is, the people forcing women into the sex trade changes from the organized crime syndicates to the government?

www.telegr aph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Wow that is very disturbing.

Trying to institutionalize women into prostitution through economic strong arming and utilizing a reward/punishment paradigm?

This is really really messed up.
And just another proof that the government doesn't solve problems it only transmutes old ones into newer bigger ones.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Personally, I think the problem here lies just as much with bureaucracy, as it does with the government. Bureaucracy causes people to blindly make black-and-white decisions without as much as looking up from their papers to look at each case with their own eyes. Then they make this kind of, "Tough but fair" bull# decisions.

This is the basic gist of the whole thing in layman's language.

You lose your job, and want the benefits package that you are entitled to through law.
A pimp comes and offers you a job 'servicing' a bunch of highly questionable / disgusting people, and if you refuse, your legally contractually earned benefits will be stripped from you.

So basically either strip for our 'clients', or we will strip you economically.
It's a system designed to rape your spirit no matter which option you take.

Time to tear down this wall.
Tear it down!

Yes prostitution should be legal. No it should not be mandatory.

This is the problem when good laws are made to be just ridiculous. Any job/career should really be a choice, but this one is definitely one that needs people to make a choice to enter. Or at least consider because they do not have better options.

Originally posted by David_Reale
Then they make this kind of, "Tough but fair" bull# decisions.

It's not fair at all though.

These women have two choices under a type of system like this:

Get down on your knees and 'service the clients',
or they will force you to your knees through poverty.

Either way you will be denigrated and used like an object.

None of this is fair at all.
It's actually quite evil and marvelously brilliant.

"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."

Police Service is also not immoral in the eyes of Government. Yet somehow, methinks you can't force everyone to be a cop should they go out of work.

Maybe someone should just acknowledge that not all jobs are alike?

already posted: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Agreed with all the above statements.

You know, not long ago here in Sweden, we acquired a professionally contracted military instead of a military consisting only of officers and people doing their military service (military training). That meant a #load of new jobs, and the Swedish military becoming one of the country's largest employers. The job centers faced the same thing as here; they now have the right to legally deny someone their benefits if they don't apply for a job in the military, which comes with the added bonus of a duty to serve abroad in peacekeeping operations. Now, I'm a former soldier myself, and don't mind us serving abroad, but it should be a decision made voluntarily. Fortunately, the Swedish job centers have no plans on forcing people to apply for jobs as soldiers, but the possibility is there. And that's not good.

I am not against it being legalized either, but there are some jobs out there that some people are morally opposed to doing. People shouldn't be forced to take a job they are in moral disagreement with or face losing benefits, no matter what the job is.
Yet it happens all the time. Should a vegan be forced to work at Mc Donald's or a slaughter house or lose their unemployment benefits? I don't think so. My example however is not even on the same scale as this, because this is about much more than a violation of someones beliefs it is a violation of someones body as well.
My point is people should be able to turn down a job in which they morally disapprove of with out fear of losing their unemployment benefits. Of course there needs to be reasonable clarification on what types of jobs could be found morally offensive to some and to whom. No one should be able to claim a morale objection just because they they don't like the job. There of course should be a good and understandable reason for it.

This totally reveals the mechanism of slavery that people are trapped in that we call "jobs".

Ok lets say that we make an exception for prostitution in this system as is, such as a "moral objector" clause. If you morally - ethically object to this particular job it will not be held against you and your contracted benefits won't be stripped.
Get it?

Now let's see how far I can apply this "moral objector" clause.

Military jobs - I morally object to killing or helping others kill.
McDonalds - I morally object to putting poison in people's bodies and calling it food.
Gas Station - I morally object to supporting the oil industry which leads to environmental degradation and wars/killing.
Video Rental Store - I morally object to supporting propaganda and brainwashing mechanisms.
Computer Repairman - I morally object to supporting an industry that creates tons of toxic pollution and enslaves people overseas, etc.
Telemarketing or Journalism - I morally object to lying and manipulating people for money.
Walmart - I morally object, etc etc.

So on and so on. I can invent a legitimate and logical moral objection to virtually every type of job you can conjure up, based on some reasoning or another.

So thus it is revealed that we are indeed enslaved by the very system we are forced to support.

Why are people forced into committing morally objectionable acts just to afford food, water, and shelter?
This is slavery obviously.

Originally posted by calstorm
I am not against it being legalized either, but there are some jobs out there that some people are morally opposed to doing. People shouldn't be forced to take a job they are in moral disagreement with or face losing benefits, no matter what the job is.
Yet it happens all the time. Should a vegan be forced to work at Mc Donald's or a slaughter house or lose their unemployment benefits? I don't think so. My example however is not even on the same scale as this, because this is about much more than a violation of someones beliefs it is a violation of someones body as well.
My point is people should be able to turn down a job in which they morally disapprove of with out fear of losing their unemployment benefits. Of course there needs to be reasonable clarification on what types of jobs could be found morally offensive to some and to whom. No one should be able to claim a morale objection just because they they don't like the job. There of course should be a good and understandable reason for it.

Who declares themselves the "Authority" on what is morally objectionable?
The Government? Isn't the government full of some of the most morally repugnant people on Earth?
The Corporations? Ditto.
The Religions? Ditto.

What happened to separation of religion and state?

This is actually awesome because it totally reveals a MAJOR CRACK in the wall.

Time to tear the wall down.

How about I personally decide what is morally acceptable for myself, without intrusion of any entity outside of myself as long as my decisions do not harm any other person's liberty?

reply to post by muzzleflash


You've got my sword!

In all seriousness, yeah, it's time things change. Because this is really ridiculous.

reply to post by David_Reale


Hmmm this is from 2005, how did two people randomly find it at the same time roughly? (The last day or so)?
And then both posted it as a thread?

Is the telegraph.co.uk linking people to this older article?
What's going on here?

And were there any resolutions to this or is it still hanging in the air?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by David_Reale

 

Hmmm this is from 2005, how did two people randomly find it at the same time roughly? (The last day or so)?
And then both posted it as a thread?

Is the telegraph.co.uk linking people to this older article?
What's going on here?

And were there any resolutions to this or is it still hanging in the air?

I imagine it was posted on a blog somewhere. Rehashed stuff pulls in a lot of hits. I wish I checked the date on the articles...

reply to post by David_Reale


I recall learning about a very similar case on/about 2002 while I was living in Heidelberg, Germany. As then I'm not certain what to think or feel about such news as it is a matter for Germans to decide.

It's an old Story,... since then things have changed for the better!
This happened back in 2005, they said if she wouldn't take the job her benefits
would be shortened by 30%.
This whole issue is belted with an, its called here "integration-agreement" between you and the unemployment
benefits service.
You have to sign this agreement. (they tell you what kind of work you must take at least,etc)
If you didn't sign it you'll be sanctioned by shortening your monthly benefits, that was the case in 2005.
On the 01.01.2009 a new law became effective, since then they cannot sanction you anymore if you don't sign that agreement-paper.

I second boncho's post about the date. My bad. I found it today on the frontpage of a Swedish newspaper, which is why I thought it was a recent event. My bad. Sorry, y'all. >_

reply to post by David_Reale


I dunno how I feel about this.
Does Germany have a form of a constitution or bill of rights?
I mean it is just work to some, and we all sell something of ourselves to the company, whether it be our soul, body, or health.
I wonder if this could be possible in the US say in Nevada where Hooking is legal?
Any legal experts on? JPZ??