6 ms·

Somehow The Netherlands, once a front-runner on legalisation of drugs and prostitution, seems to become more strict lately. For example the local government of

• Cthulhu_ 9y ago
  The problem with prostitution in NL is that it's not tightly regulated, it's still a bit of a private organization of sorts. There's problems with things like loverboys (pimps seducing / coercing young girls into prostitution) and human trafficking. Eastern-European women getting lured to NL with the promise of jobs and such. Regulation is failing, so it's being banned instead. Which will only push things further underground.
  • timwaagh 9y ago
    I hope they dont ban it. although i dont like the concept it needs somewhere to go. i dont think a ban is on the cards. utrecht is still building brand new brothels. unfortunately in my neighbourhood. would be better if they used areas outside of city limits for this though. you dont want kids growing up near brothels.
• Iv 9y ago
  The reasonable reason often cited is that it attracts drug tourists and prostitution tourists which all attract their own problems. They wanted to restrict access to coffeeshop (not sure about brothel) to only Netherlands citizens but this raises constitutional problems. They initially thought they would be at the forefront of a wave of legalization across Europe, but as it failed to materialize, their uniqueness brought their own issues. I do have hopes for France though. Macron has the same political sense as Hollande, who just made a show of gay marriage legalization to prevent talking about other issues. I think they are keeping weed legalization as the next smokescreen. On prostitution, the French liberals are a bit more divided. A lot of people actually associate human trafficking and prostitution and feel that criminalizing clients could be a way to make it go away. I tend to think that legalization would actually make the fight against sex-slavery much easier but I understand why people are more cautious about this issue. Also the far-left shared some fake stories (but not totally implausible scenario) under which legalization of prostitution could mean that unemployed women could be forced by unemployment office to accept prostitution jobs or lose their unemployment benefits. They used the outcry to justify that prostitution is not a job like every other one. It is a complicated issue, muddied by emotional bias and over-simplified solutions.
  • grondilu 9y ago
    > Also the far-left shared some fake stories (but not totally implausible scenario) under which legalization of prostitution could mean that unemployed women could be forced by unemployment office to accept prostitution jobs or lose their unemployment benefits. They used the outcry to justify that prostitution is not a job like every other one. It would be just as outrageous if an unemployed actress had to chose between shooting a pornographic movie or lose her unemployment benefits. I don't see anyone using that argument to outlaw pornography.
    • beagle3 9y ago
      I'm sure some anti-pornographers would actually use that if they heard if from you... But I totally agree that there is no need to go so far. I think it is generally accepted that not everyone is expected to accept every job: - A muslim or jew and a job handling non-halal/non-kosher meat - A "pro-lifer" in an abortion clinic - A teetotaler at a liquor store - An ideologue vegetarian or vegan handling meat, leather, etc. - Washing/preparing bodies in a funeral home / crematorium - A butchering job involving killing animals Lists as such are, in fact, implemented in every "you have to accept job offers" situation, usually officially and with a procedure you can apply for to add a new one to the list or at least get a special exemption. Almost always, "personal service" jobs are exempt. I'm sure no one would object if no job that required "no clothing", "skin on skin contact" or "insertion of anything into a body cavity" are exempt. I mean, one should never be forced to be a food taster either.
      • Iv 9y ago
        I am pretty sure that the French unemployment office is strictly forbidden to ask their religions to practitioners. And French law does not recognize any religion, so it would actually be a breach of our very strict secularity laws to give rights (to refuse a given job and keep benefits) to a believer of one religion compared to another. Actually this office is widely criticized to propose absurd job offers to candidates as they are pressured to remove candidates from benefits lists, either by finding them a job (rare) or by having them refuse two jobs in a row (more common). Their scenario was really not that implausible.
• jlg23 9y ago
  Friends involved in prostitutes' rights groups in NL told me that the attempt to close the window brothels is not only motivated by humanitarian reasons but also because it's prime property. The same thing happened in Antwerp (BE) about 15 years ago. EDIT: Not to take over the properties themselves, but to up-value the surrounding areas.
  • icebraining 9y ago
    Yet another case of Bootleggers and Baptists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists
  • thriftwy 9y ago
    Antwerp turned out the most pointless city in the Belgium so it's not like they're finding any use for that prime property by this example. You now have to go to the zoo in Antwerp because otherwise there's no longer anything to see. IMO, lines of shops selling brightly coloured and vastly overpriced pieces of cloth is even more miserable use for prime property than sex.
• JackFr 9y ago
  > My friends did this many times (none became a worse person for it, either). Hardly a neutral observer.