Finn dAbuzz
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 11:32 am
old europe wrote:
Comparable trends in the US are irrelevant due to the very small % of Americans who are Muslims. There are comparable trends concerning "White" and "Latino" Americans, but the cultural factors involved are vastly different from those in play in Europe.

I think problems arise whenever you are trying (or not trying) to integrate a different ethnical group, be they Hispanic or Muslims.
Unless you are claiming that ALL Muslims are potential terrorists just because they are Muslims, I can't see the vast difference between the US and the EU.

The degree to which an ethnic group differs from the main population in which it resides (whether or not it is attempting to integrate) is directly proportional to the degree of likely difficulty for that group and/or the main population.

Culturally there are greater similarities between Mexican immigrants and Americans than there are between Muslim immigrants (who encompass several different cultures) and Europeans.

An increase in terrorist acts in Europe is only one possible difficulty, and is by no means the most likely.
0 Replies
Finn dAbuzz
Reply Wed 23 Feb, 2005 11:39 am
Francis wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

The relevant demographic trends are the declining birth rate among non-Muslim Europeans and the increasing birth rate for Muslim Europeans.

Could you, please, document this?

The net amount of Muslims in Europe is increasing but their birth rate tends to follow that of other Europeans.

No, I'm afraid I can not. I no longer have my copy of The Atlantic to consult. If you wish disregard this statement for lack of a cite, be my guest. The point, which you seem to acknowledge, that the net amount of Muslims is increasing is what is actually relevant. How that number increases (whether through birth rate or immigration) isn't all that important. Although one could argue that an increase in immigration carries a greater potential for cultural clashes between the two groups than an increase in Muslims born in Europe.
0 Replies
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 03:12 am
Re: The Good Life in Europe

'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'
By Clare Chapman

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners - who must pay tax and employee health insurance - were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.

She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.

Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job - including in the sex industry - or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.

The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars. As a result, job centres must treat employers looking for a prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse.

When the waitress looked into suing the job centre, she found out that it had not broken the law. Job centres that refuse to penalise people who turn down a job by cutting their benefits face legal action from the potential employer.

"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the sex industry," said Merchthild Garweg, a lawyer from Hamburg who specialises in such cases. "The new regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits."

Miss Garweg said that women who had worked in call centres had been offered jobs on telephone sex lines. At one job centre in the city of Gotha, a 23-year-old woman was told that she had to attend an interview as a "nude model", and should report back on the meeting. Employers in the sex industry can also advertise in job centres, a move that came into force this month. A job centre that refuses to accept the advertisement can be sued.

Tatiana Ulyanova, who owns a brothel in central Berlin, has been searching the online database of her local job centre for recruits.

"Why shouldn't I look for employees through the job centre when I pay my taxes just like anybody else?" said Miss Ulyanova.

Ulrich Kueperkoch wanted to open a brothel in Goerlitz, in former East Germany, but his local job centre withdrew his advertisement for 12 prostitutes, saying it would be impossible to find them.

Mr Kueperkoch said that he was confident of demand for a brothel in the area and planned to take a claim for compensation to the highest court. Prostitution was legalised in Germany in 2002 because the government believed that this would help to combat trafficking in women and cut links to organised crime.

Miss Garweg believes that pressure on job centres to meet employment targets will soon result in them using their powers to cut the benefits of women who refuse jobs providing sexual services.

"They are already prepared to push women into jobs related to sexual services, but which don't count as prostitution,'' she said.

"Now that prostitution is no longer considered by the law to be immoral, there is really nothing but the goodwill of the job centres to stop them from pushing women into jobs they don't want to do."

That's great. LOL Europe at its finest. Welfare for everyone, government regulation in every corner of a disfunctional economy. Unemployment rates that would give anuerysms to any American economist. I'm all for everyone working, but the loss of benefits due to lack of inclination towards prostitution takes the cake, probably the entire bakery. LOL
0 Replies
Walter Hinteler
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2005 06:20 am

Do you want to re-start the discussion from the beginning again or do you have better evidence/knowledge re the before given arguments and facts?
0 Replies

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/07/2023 at 02:05:31