X

Germany: Reformers Seek To Rein In Legalized Prostitution

BERLIN, Nov. 5 (UPI) — Reformers seeking to crack down on legalized prostitution in Germany say they are hopeful negotiations to form a new government will lead to changes. Leaders of the conservative Christian Democratic Union of Chancellor Angela Merkel and the left-leaning Social Democratic Party, seeking to form a “grand coalition” after September’s federal elections, said during the weekend they are discussing ways to tighten the country’s 11-year-old law legalizing prostitution.

Thousands of legalized brothels have been established, with an estimated 1 million men paying for sex every day, turning the country into what critics have called the prostitution capital of Europe.

Meant as a way to protect prostitutes from abusive pimps and provide them health guarantees and social benefits, the law has instead mainly benefited sex trade traffickers who lure vulnerable women to Germany, mainly from Eastern Europe, under false pretenses and force them to work in inhumane conditions, reformers say.

CDU and SPD negotiators say they plan a new initiative to fight human trafficking more effectively, with the aim to counteract the increasing exploitation of girls and women, Die Welt reported Sunday.

“Germany must be not be a shelter for exploitative pimps and traffickers,” Gerda Hasselfeldt, chairman of the conservative Bavarian Christian Social Union group in the Bundestag, told the newspaper. “Ways to better combat forced prostitution is therefore also the subject of the coalition negotiations.”

With the possible backing of the Social Democrats — who were instrumental in legalizing prostitution in 2002 — the conservatives say they can use the opportunity to form a new government as an avenue to change the law after a string of failed attempts in recent years.

A move to change the law under Germany’s former CDU-Free Democrat government — which would have allowed greater control of brothels — failed last year after it ran into opposition in the Bundesrat, the upper house of the German parliament, which was dominated by the SPD and the Green Party.

Under German law, pimps can only be punished if it is proven they are exploiting prostitutes, rather than merely promoting their business. Women’s rights advocates say ruthless traffickers are getting around the restrictions by recruiting women from such poverty stricken countries as Romania and Bulgaria, and coaching them to tell police they have come to Germany voluntarily as independent contractors.

The reformers say the political tide has turned.

“I am very confident that we can change the law on prostitution in negotiations with the SPD,” CSU politician Hans-Peter Uhl told Die Welt.

“The brutal exploitation of prostitutes which now takes place in Germany must be stopped,” Manuela Schwesig, the SPD minister for employment and social affairs for the German state government of Mecklenburg Vorpommern, told the Bild am Sonntag newspaper.

Others in the SPD and the Green Party aren’t onboard with the proposed changes.

Caren Marks of the SPD parliamentary group for women’s issues, said the legal rights of prostitutes who truly choose to work in the sex trade must be maintained so such women won’t be “pushed back into illegality” in a unrealistic bid to eliminate prostitution.

That, she said, would “only further increase the risk of exploitation and violence” for women.

Source

© 2013 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Any reproduction, republication, redistribution and/or modification of any UPI content is expressly prohibited without UPI’s prior written consent.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Spread the love
wit:

View Comments (3)

  • There is an ominous lesson here for those with the political savvy to get it. The SDP used to be the left-of-center part in most of Europe, roughly equivalent to the liberal wing of the Dems here. For many years, the SDP supported legalized prostitution, as the article notes, and generally leaned toward the protection of individual rights over attempts to regulate behavior between consenting adults.

    In recent years, the SDP has abandoned liberal notions of individual choice in favor of authoritarian schemes to "protect" various "marginalized classes" whether those classes wanted it or not. This has been largely a result of the emergence of neo-con feminism and other identity politics factions inside the party. These factions believe all sex workers are trafficked and that there is no such thing as sex-workers by choice. They're also militantly anti-porn.

    We can thank the influence of people like Gail Dines for the so-called Nordic Solution restricting sex workers in the name of helping them and which sex workers regard as a disaster everywhere it's been tried, beginning with Sweden (where it was first attempted, which may be why it's no longer referred to as the Swedish solution). UK citizens can thank the same enlightened "liberals" for the extreme porn law and the attempt to devise an opt-in system for sexually explicit material on the internet.

    Nowhere that these policies have been tried have they been effective in helping trafficked women, as police arrest records in Sweden will attest, but they have certainly put a damper on previously legal sex commerce in those countries.

    Now these same policies are getting a serious look in the U.S. A long and well-orchestrated campaign to shame liberal men into adopting these idiotic notions has been carried on in liberal media such as websites like CounterPunch and AlterNet by Dines and her pals for several years. The result has been a withering of support for freedom of expression where sex is concerned among free-speech liberals, the only political friends porn had. Fans are not going to come forward to demand access to what they want to see and groups like the ACLU that once defended their right to do so have walked their positions back. Now you'll find liberal lions like The NYT's Bob Herbert ranting about porn feeding the demand for trafficking, an absurdity that lies at the heart of anti-porn leftist rhetoric regarding sex work, AlterNet blogger Don Hazen calling for banning porn production as inherently exploitative and as for possible damage to people's First Amendment rights, well, Hazen says "That's a risk I'm willing to take." And then there's Chris Hedges who researched his anti-porn-liberal screed by talking to Shelley Lubben.

    I warned the folks at F.S.C. that our industry's failure to address the threat on its left flank since 2008 and been met with blank stares, but the passage of Measure B, which is nakedly an infringement on basic First Amendment rights hasn't inspired significant opposition from free speech liberals. In fact, the California ACLU has already said it doesn't consider mandatory condoms a free speech issue and hasn't been a party to any attempts at pushing back against it.

    The existence of Measure B is a fine example of how progressive ideals can be bent to repressive schemes and the industry has only itself to blame for ignoring the emergence of this dynamic and not fielding articulate opponents to resist it.

    L.A. is a liberal Democratic stronghold and the business-friendly libertarian campaign the F.S.C. ran against Measure B shows just how blind our political leadership is to the change in climate and we saw the results.

    Industry leaders need to worry a little less about The Family Research Counsel and a little more about Stop Porn Culture.

    That is, unless they want to see a whole lot more nonsense like Measure B enacted with the support of porn's former liberal allies.

    • The problem is, it's rather hard to battle ideology with facts. "Progressives" the world over have turned to security and protection over liberty. The adult business is not alone in failing to mount an effective counter-campaign against this dynamic.

      I remember you and Nina, years ago, hearing the sighs of relief within the adult business over democratic party victories locally and nationally, and predicting that our problems would only get worse. You two even named the vector by which the persecution of adult speech would be brought about: regulation. I think one problem was, everyone was so used to functioning under Cal/OSHA's lax enforcement that they underestimated the impact of regulatory schemes. Plus, they believed the the principles of the Freeman ruling, which prohibits end-runs against the production of adult content, could not be bent to the whim of grandstanders crying out "Public health!"

      HL Mencken long ago described 'public health' as "the corruption of medicine by morality." We're currently seeing a kind of lifestyle moralism. http://overlawyered.com/2013/10/epidemic-lifestyle-moralism/

  • Very well put. Can't go wrong with Mencken. Public health is inherently political because it creates a power nexus of politics and medicine in which medicine invariably ends up taking a back seat to political and economic interests, as Henrik Ibsen so eloquently described in An Enemy of the People. No one can be against public health, right? But how that term is defined depends very much on who you are, where you are and what's going on at the time.

    Public health had been used to criminalize all manner of controversial behaviors, and this country is particularly prone to that kind of approach. That's how Prohibition and its disastrous heir, the war on drugs, got by an electorate that should have known better. That's how prostitution became illegal in this country around the turn of the last century after being an accepted form of commerce since the founding of the republic.

    And that's how "reformers" intend to destroy porn in a way that mere moralistic scolds like James Dobson never could. It's all being done for our own good, you see, so even if it does no good and strips us of our basic rights, the motivation is difficult to challenge, as you say. It's very easy for demagogues from Anthony Comstock to Carrie Nation to Frederic Wertham to Harry Anslinger to Michael Winestein get over on a credulous society that genuinely believes them to be acting in the service of the public good. They rarely are. More commonly, they act to expand their own powers and make profits from selling cures for which no diseases exist.

    And what is the cost of our gullibility enlisted in the service of a good cause? Nothing much, except for our basic rights and freedoms as citizens of a democratic society. Surely that's a small price to pay for shutting down brothels and forcing porn performers to wear condoms, as these "social hygiene problems" are far more threatening to society than failing healthcare systems, failing educational systems, failing criminal justice systems and a decaying infrastructure.

    But as Mark Twain observed long ago, no politician ever lost a race by running against sin.

Related Post
Leave a Comment