But I did want to thank all the replies to my previous piece on ESP; I hope to reply to each missive soon. Those who shared similar experiences were brave. Those who counseled me on the vagaries of memory should know that I've read fairly extensively on that topic. I hope that I can trust my memory of the incident in question, but I'm as human as the next fellow.
At least we have one prophecy on the record ahead of time, eh wot?
On to today's topic: Prostitution.
Many of you already have heard of a noteworthy story published in the Telegraph. An unnamed unemployed woman in Germany -- where prostitution became legal two years ago -- was offered a job by a brothel. She turned the offer down. Since the law stipulates that anyone who has received unemployment benefits for over a year must take any job, her benefits were cut off.
This tale has aroused much anguished commentary, particularly from those who noted that homosexual brothels are also legal in Germany. When the German government sticks it to you, they mean business.
The trouble is: Although Snopes has yet to rule on the matter, the widely-reported yarn may well be a hoax. This German-language article contains information on the fairly recent legalization of prostitution in that country; according to the Babelfish translation, the piece includes this sentence:
Nevertheless no woman can be instructed to transact sexual services against her will after the prostitution law.(For once, the Babelfish version is easy to comprehend.)
Even so, both the right and the left have seized upon this tale as an excuse to commit sociology.
The goosesteppers over at the Free Republic are oddly conflicted. On one hand, they like the idea of using extreme measures to force people off the dole. On the other hand, some Freepers have screamed the usual nonsense about Christianity being "outlawed" in Germany and/or the EU.
(I presume the "church tax" is still paid by every German citizen, even by the atheists and brothel-owners. In civilized nations, religion is unpopular, but not outlawed. History teaches us that gods die when they are ignored, not when they are opposed.)
The Democratic Underground made references to gender discrimination. I think these comments were meant to be humorous or highly speculative, but the Freepers took them at face value.
The DU discussion is (of course) more reasonable, and more skeptical. Still, they too seem conflicted, though for different reasons.
Although I find the "brothel" tale unlikely, the fable does bring up an interesting question. Which jobs can a person on welfare turn down? Can a Jew or a Muslim be forced to work in a slaughterhouse that processes swine? Can a vegetarian be forced to work in a restaurant that serves meat?
Let's say that my initial instincts are wrong, and that the story reported in the Telegraph is true. Can a German woman who has worked as a sex worker previously (perhaps as a stripper) turn down an offer of employment from someone who wants her to do something she considers repugnant? What if the Incredible Hulk wanted to pay a woman $2000 dollars a month to function as his anal sex slave? Would the German government say "Well, liebchen, a job is a job..."?
(Hey, I'm just engaging in a little blue-sky conjecture here.)
Bottom line: Can anyone confirm the truth or falsehood of the forced-to-work-in-a-brothel story?
2 comments:
I don't recall where I read it, but the story apparently originated from a "hypothetical" given when discussing some law changes in Germany. In other words, it never happened.
Chapman's story is a hoax. Basically, it's a series of half-truths from one Taz article cobbled together with other half-truths from a much older Jungle-World article, resulting in quarter-truths on a good day. Unfortunately for Clare Chapman and the Daily Telegraph, January 30, 2005 was not a good day.
Links to both articles, and English translations, are here. Also note that Snopes has upgraded/downgraded the story from an overly cautious "undetermined" to an unqualified "false."
Post a Comment