Wow! About the worst thing I have ever read!

[argent_paladin]

This is literally one of the worst things I have ever read. Europe is fast approaching moral annihilation. Germany legalized prostitution two years ago, in an effort to reduce disease and organized crime. Therefore, prostitution is a legitimate business. Unemployed workers can be punished if they refuse employment at legitimate businesses...[url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml"] :shame: you can see where this is going...[/url]

[b]'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'[/b]
By Clare Chapman
(Filed: 30/01/2005)

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.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.

She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.

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. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.

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.

When the waitress looked into suing the job centre, she found out that it had not broken the law. Job centres that refuse to penalise people who turn down a job by cutting their benefits face legal action from the potential employer.

"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the sex industry," said Merchthild Garweg, a lawyer from Hamburg who specialises in such cases. "The new regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits."

Miss Garweg said that women who had worked in call centres had been offered jobs on telephone sex lines. At one job centre in the city of Gotha, a 23-year-old woman was told that she had to attend an interview as a "nude model", and should report back on the meeting. Employers in the sex industry can also advertise in job centres, a move that came into force this month. A job centre that refuses to accept the advertisement can be sued.

Tatiana Ulyanova, who owns a brothel in central Berlin, has been searching the online database of her local job centre for recruits.

"Why shouldn't I look for employees through the job centre when I pay my taxes just like anybody else?" said Miss Ulyanova.

Ulrich Kueperkoch wanted to open a brothel in Goerlitz, in former East Germany, but his local job centre withdrew his advertisement for 12 prostitutes, saying it would be impossible to find them.

Mr Kueperkoch said that he was confident of demand for a brothel in the area and planned to take a claim for compensation to the highest court. Prostitution was legalised in Germany in 2002 because the government believed that this would help to combat trafficking in women and cut links to organised crime.

Miss Garweg believes that pressure on job centres to meet employment targets will soon result in them using their powers to cut the benefits of women who refuse jobs providing sexual services.

"They are already prepared to push women into jobs related to sexual services, but which don't count as prostitution,'' she said.

"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."

[Rich*]

[Brother Adam]

yeah, that is pretty depressing. The expression "hell in a hand basket comes to mind". But little surprises me these days.

[rachael]

sick.

[spathariossa]

Unlike Brother Adam I was surprised. Yeah. Surprised.

[Brother Adam]

When you hear of people ripping open a womans stomach to steal a baby and leaving the mother for dead, little comes as a shock.

Lord have mercy.

[Norseman82]

Maybe now people will realize the wisdom of the Pope's push for the inclusion of God in the European constitution.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Germany's social structure is crumbling.

[Iacobus]

argent_paladin, I think that the whole legelized pros. is a ruse there. The real reason she has to "take" that job is the welfare laws. If you are going to attack one, attack both. But moreover, don't be misleading.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Feb 1 2005, 05:16 PM'] argent_paladin, I think that the whole legelized pros. is a ruse there. The real reason she has to "take" that job is the welfare laws. If you are going to attack one, attack both. But moreover, don't be misleading. [/quote]
Both stink to high heaven!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

That's just plain sick.

[argent_paladin]

I disagree. There is nothing inherently wrong with having requirements for benefits, one of them being not turning down job offers. We have similar laws in America. If you are on welfare, you have to show that you are looking for work. The laws have been in the books for decades. The real recent change is the legalization and legitimization of prostitution.
I am not being misleading. Most wouldn't have a problem with requiring that woman to accept a job as a waitress or lose benefits. The problem is prostitution.
You are creating a false dichotomy, Iacobus. You don't have to be against welfare to be against prostitution and to assert that is patently absurd.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 1 2005, 06:09 PM'] Both stink to high heaven! [/quote]
We agree on that.

At least that they both stink in some way.

[Socrates]

Ignore my last post (too late to edit it). I wasn't reading carefully when I posted that. Sorry-my bad. I have no problem with people not receiving welfare if offered jobs. I have a problem with the whole welfare system in general. I think too many are allowed to be on welfare, not too few. Again, sorry for my careless posting.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Feb 1 2005, 08:13 PM'] I disagree. There is nothing inherently wrong with having requirements for benefits, one of them being not turning down job offers. We have similar laws in America. If you are on welfare, you have to show that you are looking for work. The laws have been in the books for decades. The real recent change is the legalization and legitimization of prostitution.
I am not being misleading. Most wouldn't have a problem with requiring that woman to accept a job as a waitress or lose benefits. The problem is prostitution.
You are creating a false dichotomy, Iacobus. You don't have to be against welfare to be against prostitution and to assert that is patently absurd. [/quote]
There is something inherently wrong with not having a difference in your "must" work laws between something as immoral as a brothel and something like a café. If you are going to force people to take jobs to get off welfare (I would prefer that they have to prove they are activily looking without force) than show the difference.

The problem is in both, the prostituion and the law that doesn't show any difference.