11 ms·

The reasonable reason often cited is that it attracts drug tourists and prostitution tourists which all attract their own problems. They wanted to restrict acc

by 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.
    - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
      The French have been proud of having technical separate religion and state since 1905. But I question this - it was only 1993 when babies quit being required (by law) to be named after Catholic saints. Religion inserts its power in many ways.
      - Iv 9y ago
        Well, knowing first hand that some French-born nationals that were not names after saints I knew this was not true but you made me google it to see where this specific date comes from. So here is the whole thing. The law (from the early 19th century) said that names for newborns should either be chosen in the calendars (plural, no religion mentioned) or from known people in history. So from the beginning, Mohammed was an acceptable name for instance. A law from 1966 recognized that this was vague and not really applied, as usage varied (basically it was just used to deny too harmful names to kids) and decided to give a broader definition, allowing explicitly names from mythology, regional names, composed names, variation and abbreviated versions. In 1981 the sole interdiction was to choose a name that "would not be judged ridiculous". The 1993 version changes even that and says (more appropriately IMO) that the officer registering the names can delay the thing, if he judges that the choice of name is contrary to "the interest of the child". A judge then has to decide or deny. I remember a case involving a «Pikachu», a «Satan» and, I think, a «Jihad». Names like Anakin or Gandalf were likely acceptable even under the 1966 law.
rorykoehler 9y ago
No one should be forced to take any job they don't want. The premise that it's ok to force anyone to take any job or lose their unemployment benefit is incredibly damaging to society. The whole system is a shambles. I would consider myself quite left oriented and I feel Europe has it all wrong. We really love to take the nanny state route rather than empowering people through education, opportunity and self-actualisation. Unfortunately this point of view seems to fall completely outside of the Overton window at the moment.
- PrimalDual 9y ago
  I think the premise is that you are not entitled to unemployment benefits in the first place. The government provides some aid but you have to be trying to help yourself first. It sounds fair to me that if you are offered a job and you refuse then you have breached that contract. Beggars can't be choosers and all that.
  - rorykoehler 9y ago
    Having seen the real world consequence of this I disagree. I have some friends who were the typical starving artists. They had this ignominy of shitty job centre jobs forced upon them and suffered greatly. They opted to go the hard route and reject the job and lose their unemployment benefit. Now they have well enough paying careers in their area, are tax payers etc, as they dedicated their time to their craft rather than washing dishes or some such other pointless work. This brain dead approach of any job that pays is more valuable than one that doesn't sucks the life out of society and reduces innovation, artistic endeavour and creativity across the board. It's 2017, we have the world's library in our pockets, we can talk to friends on the other side of the globe instantaneously yet somehow we're stuck in the 1700's when it comes to jobs. We have so much over-productivity that we have to create fake jobs to keep people occupied [1] yet somehow we can't afford to allow poor people the option to follow the endeavour of their choice, invest in, and figure shit out for, themselves. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com.au/fake-jobs-at-fake-companies-in-europe-2015-5?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com.au/fake-jobs-at-fake-compani...
    - 9y ago
Chathamization 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. Is this how the system really works in France? If a programmer is unemployed and some manager at McDonald's offers them a job flipping burgers, they have to either take the McDonald's job or they lose their benefits? Do the unemployed really have to accept the first job offer anyone gives them, no matter what?
- rocqua 9y ago
  Extrapolating from the Netherlands, it isn't an 'accept the job or go to jail'. Instead its an 'accept the job or lose your "unemployment benefit". Here "unempolyment benefit" is a lacking translation. This is basically the last safety net. As there is a freeloader stigma for people receiving these benefits, these requirements are a condition for receiving the benefits.
  - Chathamization 9y ago
    Doesn't that encourage coercive behavior from employers? It seems like they could lowball an unemployed individual because they know they'll be strongly penalized for not accepting even a bad job offer. The earlier comment also makes it sound like even if you don't apply for a job, someone could offer you a bad one and you'd be forced to either accept it or lose your benefits (which sounds ripe for abuse).
    - bluGill 9y ago
      In the US there is a comparable work component. You are allowed to refuse any offer that isn't reasonable or comparable work. Sometimes you have to convince a judge, but there is an appeals process and so it isn't hard to argue that a bad job is beneath you. Note that the above is about accepting a job. At times you may be required to fill out so many job applications (per week) and you are not allowed to refuse any interview offered. The result is people do apply for bad jobs and get an offer in the interview they have no intention of accepting. Of course after a few months your benefits run out and then the low ball offer is more appealing as at least it gets you something. However even then a low ball offer isn't as common as you might think. Someone with no place to go will take it, but you cannot stop them from finding a new job next week. Offer someone too low and your risk they collect your money just long enough to become useful and then find a new job. You are paid for your first week of work even though you spend most of it learning and so you cost the company money in training, thus once a company hires you they need to keep you long enough for you to pay off that first week training time. Note that in the US each state does things differently. The above is a generalization based on what I've seen in different states. The details are different and change.
jxramos 9y ago
Good point, seems a pretty straightforward observation, that a shady business will attract shady people. And that shady people would already be in that business and roll over into any new legal allowances. I remember a friend in the San Francisco area telling me about these Asian communities somewhere in Daly City or maybe SF itself who clamored to prevent Marijuana shops opening up in their area because it would attract shady characters and what not. Seems be an interesting division in California regarding legalization, some cities (the nicer ones from what I can tell) ban the dispensaries while the poorer ones wind up setting up multiple shops.
gozur88 9y ago
From what I understand the real reason they're trying to get rid of the brothels is they bring in considerably less tax money than high-end retail. One of my big disappointments in visiting Europe the last time is how the major cities are all starting to look the same, with big shopping districts devoted to the same high end brands. It sounds like Amsterdam is heading in that direction as well.

by Iv 9y ago

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.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    The French have been proud of having technical separate religion and state since 1905. But I question this - it was only 1993 when babies quit being required (by law) to be named after Catholic saints. Religion inserts its power in many ways.
    - Iv 9y ago
      Well, knowing first hand that some French-born nationals that were not names after saints I knew this was not true but you made me google it to see where this specific date comes from. So here is the whole thing. The law (from the early 19th century) said that names for newborns should either be chosen in the calendars (plural, no religion mentioned) or from known people in history. So from the beginning, Mohammed was an acceptable name for instance. A law from 1966 recognized that this was vague and not really applied, as usage varied (basically it was just used to deny too harmful names to kids) and decided to give a broader definition, allowing explicitly names from mythology, regional names, composed names, variation and abbreviated versions. In 1981 the sole interdiction was to choose a name that "would not be judged ridiculous". The 1993 version changes even that and says (more appropriately IMO) that the officer registering the names can delay the thing, if he judges that the choice of name is contrary to "the interest of the child". A judge then has to decide or deny. I remember a case involving a «Pikachu», a «Satan» and, I think, a «Jihad». Names like Anakin or Gandalf were likely acceptable even under the 1966 law.

rorykoehler 9y ago

No one should be forced to take any job they don't want. The premise that it's ok to force anyone to take any job or lose their unemployment benefit is incredibly damaging to society. The whole system is a shambles. I would consider myself quite left oriented and I feel Europe has it all wrong. We really love to take the nanny state route rather than empowering people through education, opportunity and self-actualisation. Unfortunately this point of view seems to fall completely outside of the Overton window at the moment.

PrimalDual 9y ago
I think the premise is that you are not entitled to unemployment benefits in the first place. The government provides some aid but you have to be trying to help yourself first. It sounds fair to me that if you are offered a job and you refuse then you have breached that contract. Beggars can't be choosers and all that.
- rorykoehler 9y ago
  Having seen the real world consequence of this I disagree. I have some friends who were the typical starving artists. They had this ignominy of shitty job centre jobs forced upon them and suffered greatly. They opted to go the hard route and reject the job and lose their unemployment benefit. Now they have well enough paying careers in their area, are tax payers etc, as they dedicated their time to their craft rather than washing dishes or some such other pointless work. This brain dead approach of any job that pays is more valuable than one that doesn't sucks the life out of society and reduces innovation, artistic endeavour and creativity across the board. It's 2017, we have the world's library in our pockets, we can talk to friends on the other side of the globe instantaneously yet somehow we're stuck in the 1700's when it comes to jobs. We have so much over-productivity that we have to create fake jobs to keep people occupied [1] yet somehow we can't afford to allow poor people the option to follow the endeavour of their choice, invest in, and figure shit out for, themselves. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com.au/fake-jobs-at-fake-companies-in-europe-2015-5?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com.au/fake-jobs-at-fake-compani...
  - 9y ago

Chathamization 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. Is this how the system really works in France? If a programmer is unemployed and some manager at McDonald's offers them a job flipping burgers, they have to either take the McDonald's job or they lose their benefits? Do the unemployed really have to accept the first job offer anyone gives them, no matter what?

rocqua 9y ago
Extrapolating from the Netherlands, it isn't an 'accept the job or go to jail'. Instead its an 'accept the job or lose your "unemployment benefit". Here "unempolyment benefit" is a lacking translation. This is basically the last safety net. As there is a freeloader stigma for people receiving these benefits, these requirements are a condition for receiving the benefits.
- Chathamization 9y ago
  Doesn't that encourage coercive behavior from employers? It seems like they could lowball an unemployed individual because they know they'll be strongly penalized for not accepting even a bad job offer. The earlier comment also makes it sound like even if you don't apply for a job, someone could offer you a bad one and you'd be forced to either accept it or lose your benefits (which sounds ripe for abuse).
  - bluGill 9y ago
    In the US there is a comparable work component. You are allowed to refuse any offer that isn't reasonable or comparable work. Sometimes you have to convince a judge, but there is an appeals process and so it isn't hard to argue that a bad job is beneath you. Note that the above is about accepting a job. At times you may be required to fill out so many job applications (per week) and you are not allowed to refuse any interview offered. The result is people do apply for bad jobs and get an offer in the interview they have no intention of accepting. Of course after a few months your benefits run out and then the low ball offer is more appealing as at least it gets you something. However even then a low ball offer isn't as common as you might think. Someone with no place to go will take it, but you cannot stop them from finding a new job next week. Offer someone too low and your risk they collect your money just long enough to become useful and then find a new job. You are paid for your first week of work even though you spend most of it learning and so you cost the company money in training, thus once a company hires you they need to keep you long enough for you to pay off that first week training time. Note that in the US each state does things differently. The above is a generalization based on what I've seen in different states. The details are different and change.

jxramos 9y ago

Good point, seems a pretty straightforward observation, that a shady business will attract shady people. And that shady people would already be in that business and roll over into any new legal allowances. I remember a friend in the San Francisco area telling me about these Asian communities somewhere in Daly City or maybe SF itself who clamored to prevent Marijuana shops opening up in their area because it would attract shady characters and what not. Seems be an interesting division in California regarding legalization, some cities (the nicer ones from what I can tell) ban the dispensaries while the poorer ones wind up setting up multiple shops.

gozur88 9y ago

From what I understand the real reason they're trying to get rid of the brothels is they bring in considerably less tax money than high-end retail. One of my big disappointments in visiting Europe the last time is how the major cities are all starting to look the same, with big shopping districts devoted to the same high end brands. It sounds like Amsterdam is heading in that direction as well.