Women in Germany loose benefits if they wont work as prostitute!

[joshwa]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...30/wgerm30.xml

In Germany, running a brothel is legal, and people can advertise through job centres - if a woman refuses to work in the brothel then the job centre may cut her benefits!

How rediculous is this? There should be no way that women should be FORCED to apply for jobs like this!! It's outrageous!

Your thoughts?

[Stoo]

Would the woman be able to sue for rape?

[Allen]

Sorry, as crazy as it sounds, that's hilarious!!

But I understand where you're coming from, it's kinda sick.

[Rave]

"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."

Is there any real likelihood that this woman will lose her benefits though? The job centres must know that they'd almost certainly lose if someone took them to the European Court of Human Rights. I'm sure they'll take a commonsense approach. I agree that this is a loophole in the law that should have been closed though.

[joshwa]

it's crazy - they're treating women like dog poop - absolutlely shocking that it has come to this.

[Rave]

Well, can you back up that assertion? The fact that they could potentially treat women like dog poop does not mean that that's what's actually happening.

[TeePee]

Maybe it would change your view if I mention this isn't a sexist situation.

How would you like it if you could have your unemployment benefits cut if you refused to work as a rent-boy?

[daniel_owen_uk]

Anyone know any good looking unemployed german women? Claudia Schiffer got a job still?

Gotta agree with Rave on this one, its a legal loophole that should have been closed, but where does it stop, stripping is legal in this country would we revoke someones benefits in this country if they refused to go for a strippers job?

[Rave]

I don;t think there's any likelihood of it happening in this country. A couple of years ago Ann Summers took the DWP to court to try and force them to allow them to advertise their jobs in job centres; they claimed that not being allowed to was discriminating against them unfairly just because of the nature of their business. I'm not sure if they won, but I agreed with them that it was arbitrary.

I'll stress again that the current situation in Germany is clearly a loophole in the law, and not deliberate government policy. Very often two seperate laws when applied together reult in unforseen consequences. In this case, the combination of two (IMO perfectly reasonable) laws, one legalising prostitution, and one giving job centres the power to take away benefits from people who refuse to get a job, has given rise to a situation where brothel owners could technically sue the job centres if women refuse offers of work.

Now on the whole, Germans have a more relaxed attitude to sexuality than Britons, but I think it's still a safe bet that the vast majority of them do not think that's it's reasonable to expect woman to work in the sex trade or go hungry. In practice, I very much doubt that any brothel owner would sue in this situation because they know that as soon as they do, the loophole will be closed and there's a good chance they won't get to advertise in job centres any more. That's would be bad for them, and I'm inclined to argue that it would be bad in general, since I reckon that for any woman who has no objection to being a prostitute (and they clearly exist), working in a licenced brothel is likely to be a safe and very well paid job.

There are probably a few idiots and jobsworths working in German job centres who will try to cut someone's benefits for refusing an interview or a job. I anticipate that they'll get short shrift though.

Rich :¬)

[Byatt]

Women in Germany lose benefits if they wont work as prostitute!

fixed.

[Dakaras]

I don;t think there's any likelihood of it happening in this country. A couple of years ago Ann Summers took the DWP to court to try and force them to allow them to advertise their jobs in job centres; they claimed that not being allowed to was discriminating against them unfairly just because of the nature of their business. I'm not sure if they won, but I agreed with them that it was arbitrary.

Rich :¬)

iirc they did, im sure I head the result on radio 5

[DaBeeeenster]

I cant find any statement in the article saying she would be forced to work as a prostitute. They state that she could be asked to work in the "sex industry" but that doesnt necessarily mean working as a prostitute. It mentions she has experience working in a bar, so they may well have been asking her to work in a bar in a brothel.

I'm constantly amazed at the lengths the Telegraph will go to spin a non-story these days.

[Galant]

The moral issue doesn't just stop at actual prostitution, but holds for any position which supports the whole industry.

[ajbrun]

I cant find any statement in the article saying she would be forced to work as a prostitute. They state that she could be asked to work in the "sex industry" but that doesnt necessarily mean working as a prostitute. It mentions she has experience working in a bar, so they may well have been asking her to work in a bar in a brothel.

I'm constantly amazed at the lengths the Telegraph will go to spin a non-story these days.

I read this on my phone. It basically said that it would be prostitution.

It was from the BBC site, so the same article should be on the net too somewhere.

[Zathras]

It's interesting that some of the groups that are so quick to promote the absolute and unappealable loss of benefits for people they label dole-scroungers and spongers are so quick to cry out at the ramifications of this sort of rule. Galant mentions the moral issues not stopping at just prostitution itself, indeed it goes far deeper, and surrounds far more issues than just prostitution. There are countless jobs that people of a religous bent would find deeply offensive at doing, for example asking orthodox Jews to slice bacon. Where do we draw the line, as quite clearly from the reactions of people to this thread there is a line to be drawn. These things don't sit easily with people's black and white ideas of how the world should work, and hopefully go to highlight how complex an area making any sort of blanket or absolutist legislation can be.

[Galant]

Except comparing a Jewish religious regulation with something that is, and has been, considered by many to be immoral, that more often than not is tied up with drug use, and that most women would only choose as a 'last resort' when desperate. Prostitution is often a binding lifestyle leading to addictions, dependencies, leads to violence and abuse.

I think we can safely draw the line on issues that society and morality have considered to be destructive and immoral for generations and generations - for history. It's just plain common sense. Why people have to try to intellectualise things beyond the obvious is beyond me.