3 ms·

> Also the far-left shared some fake stories (but not totally implausible scenario) under which legalization of prostitution could mean that unemployed women co

> 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.
      - hellbanner 9y ago
        For more on how legibility (through naming, street grids, single-crop farms etc) acts a prerequisite for manipulation, check out Seeing Like A State: How Certain Schemes To Improve The Human Condition Have Failed. https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-like-State-Certain-Condition/dp/0300078153/ https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-like-State-Certain-Condition/d...
        throwanem 9y ago
        An excellent recommendation which I unreservedly second.

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.
    - hellbanner 9y ago
      For more on how legibility (through naming, street grids, single-crop farms etc) acts a prerequisite for manipulation, check out Seeing Like A State: How Certain Schemes To Improve The Human Condition Have Failed. https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-like-State-Certain-Condition/dp/0300078153/ https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-like-State-Certain-Condition/d...
      - throwanem 9y ago
        An excellent recommendation which I unreservedly second.