U.S. warns Germany on World Cup sex workers

[jimmie]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States warned key ally Germany on Monday that it should do more to stop a tide of sex workers arriving for this month's soccer World Cup, and accused 12 nations of failing to do enough to stop the modern-day slave trade in prostitutes, child sex workers and forced laborers.

"The U.S. government opposes prostitution," which is legal in Germany, a State Department report on global human trafficking said. "These activities are inherently harmful and dehumanizing."

At a briefing, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denounced "the sordid trade in human beings" and said the fight against trafficking is "a great moral calling of our time."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/05/human.trafficking.ap/index.html"

Clearly, the U.S. believes and rightly so, that such actions are not right.

However, I believe that the U.S., being committed to only a particular part of the planet, and therefore only particular individuals and not all individuals, precluded the possibility of it having the moral authority with ALL individuals, including all of its own citizens.

Now, one could delve into the past of the U.S. and cite many moral inconsistencies with its administrations, but one could delve into any nation's past and do the same.

What's done was done.

The purpose of the current thread is to simply ask whether or not you believe that the U.S. has the moral authority, with either its own citizens only or with all citizens everywhere, to oppose activities anywhere that are inherently harmful and dehumanizing?

If you like, indicate whether or not you are a U.S. citizen.

I am a Canadian citizen only.

 

[Art]

If there were no prostitutes in the US and if prostitution wasn't legal in any part of the US then I could understand them commenting on Germany's attitude to sex workers but given that there are many prostitutes in the US and that in parts of Nevada prostitution is legal the quote which comes to mind is "Physician heal thyself"

By legalising prostitution Germany allows the sex industry to be regulated, and controlled thus helping to protect the prostitutes and their customers from violence and disease. The fact Germany has legalised prostitution should reduce the amount of human trafficking and exploitation rather than increase it as abuse is far more likely when the profession is driven underground..

 

[jimmie]

I have not ever been to Vegas, but it is legal there, correct?

A moral authority is always consistent.

 

[silkworm]

There are different things to consider.

Willing prostitute, No. It's up to the prostitute to sell itself, it's legal to sell yourself in Germany, the US has no right condemn it because prostitution is legal in Nevada.

But I don't think anyone would condone kidnapping and child molestation to protect the innocent. That isn't a moral issue, it's simply self defense. It's in everyone's interest to do so.

Prostitution and slavery are not the same thing.

Germany does not condone slavery, and prostitution is not slavery. Here it even says so in your article:

"However, the 2006 Trafficking in Persons Report gave Germany its highest overall rating for compliance with efforts to stop trafficking, and noted German efforts to combat exploitation during the World Cup."

I'm a US citizen and despise the Bush regime, its incompetence, and its exploitation of the religious.

These statements are uncalled for an idiotic. Germany does quite well taking care of itself, will do its best to protect the innocent.

ET is just upset because she can't give it away for free, even if she pays.

 

[Art]

I have not ever been to Vegas, but it is legal there, correct?

Strangely enough Las Vegas is not one of the places in Nevada where prostitution is legal. Each county decides whether to legalise it or not and Clark County (where Las Vegas is) decided not to.

A moral authority is always consistent.

Agreed, if it is to carry any weight.

 

[Pengwuino]

This is hilarious in its insanity. If we have prostitutes in our country, our government doesn't have the moral authority to comment on it? That's like saying no other country in the world has the moral authority to comment on our war with iraq if they have ever had a war in their history or commit any form of injustice towards their own citizens in any way shape or form. Why not question Canada when they comment on US health care when i have a Canadian friend who doesn't have comprehensive health insurance (or well she doesn't have any at all) over there.

By the way, prostitution is not legal in Las Vegas. It is only still legal in a couple of Nevada counties.

 

[Gokul43201]

This is hilarious in its insanity. If we have prostitutes in our country, our government doesn't have the moral authority to comment on it?

No, but if the government legitimizes it, they can't ask others to make it illegal, can they?

The only argument that I see which can remove the perceived double standard is that the Federal Government is a different entity than the governing authorities in the states than legalize prostitution. The Feds just have to say, "if we wanted it our way, there would be no legal prostitution in Nevada, but that's not ours to decide".

Late edit : I have no idea how centralized law-making is in Germany. Is legalization of prostitution a Federal policy. Are there states in Germany that can choose to criminalize it?

 

[Moonbear]

My take on it wasn't that they were really trying to tell Germany they need to make prostitution illegal, but more that they should do more to help stop what is essentially a slave trade of sex workers, which is quite different from someone deciding for themself to enter into prostitution.

 

[Gokul43201]

My take on it wasn't that they were really trying to tell Germany they need to make prostitution illegal, but more that they should do more to help stop what is essentially a slave trade of sex workers, which is quite different from someone deciding for themself to enter into prostitution.

But then, there's this specific statement from the article:

"The U.S. government opposes prostitution," which is legal in Germany, a State Department report on global human trafficking said. "These activities are inherently harmful and dehumanizing."

 

[Moonbear]

But then, there's this specific statement from the article:

Oops. I hadn't read the full article. I was just going by what I heard on the radio earlier today. I stand corrected.

The comment in the original quote I took as just the US position, not what they were telling Germany to do, but I see buried at the end of the original article, a statement urging Germany to recriminalize prostitution, which is very different than asking they step up efforts to prevent human trafficking during an event likely to make them a target for such activities.

 

[jimmie]

The only argument that I see which can remove the perceived double standard is that the Federal Government is a different entity than the governing authorities in the states than legalize prostitution. The Feds just have to say, "if we wanted it our way, there would be no legal prostitution in Nevada, but that's not ours to decide".

Good point.

So, does the federal U.S. have the power to make prostitution illegal everywhere in the U.S., regardless of the state's position?

Effectively outrank the particular state?

 

[silkworm]

Good point.

So, does the federal U.S. have the power to make prostitution illegal everywhere in the U.S., regardless of the state's position?

Effectively outrank the particular state?

It would have to be a constitutional ammendment.

 

[Pengwuino]

So, does the federal U.S. have the power to make prostitution illegal everywhere in the U.S., regardless of the state's position?

Effectively outrank the particular state?

Federal law would effectively supercede the state law if it isn't in their constitution... which unfortunately i think it is. So maybe indeed a constitutional amendment is in order.

 

[kyleb]

Yet another example of the self-proclaimed ""freest country in the world" calling out for less freedom elsewhere in the world. Why do we have such people running our government?

 

[jimmie]

So, can anyone explain how and where the U.S. is the moral authority on anything?

 

[Gokul43201]

So, can anyone explain how and where the U.S. is the moral authority on anything?

I'd say the US is a "moral authority" on the economic freedoms afforded to its citizens.

 

[jimmie]

I'd say the US is a "moral authority" on the economic freedoms afforded to its citizens.

I was not aware that the attainment of monetary value was equivalent to being moral.

If that were indeed the case, then prostituting for money would equal morality.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yet another example of the self-proclaimed ""freest country in the world" calling out for less freedom elsewhere in the world. Why do we have such people running our government?

This sounds like one of the very few issues where that argument makes absolutely no sense. We're talking about human trafficking... how is this calling for less freedom?

 

[Pengwuino]

These statements are uncalled for an idiotic. Germany does quite well taking care of itself, will do its best to protect the innocent.

Other nations do one hell of a job criticizing the United States on just about everything... so why not in return?

 

[Moonbear]

Yet another example of the self-proclaimed ""freest country in the world" calling out for less freedom elsewhere in the world. Why do we have such people running our government?

They can make it as a statement of this administration's policy, but that doesn't make it enforceable or anything. It's sort of like your neighbor coming over to you and telling you how they think you should raise your children. They can tell you their views in the hope of persuading you to share them, but more likely, you're just going to roll your eyes and keep doing what you think is best for your own children.

 

[Moonbear]

This sounds like one of the very few issues where that argument makes absolutely no sense. We're talking about human trafficking... how is this calling for less freedom?

That's what I thought at first, but read the original article all the way to the end. They were also making more general requests to re-criminalize prostitution, not just crack down on human trafficking.

 

[Gokul43201]

This sounds like one of the very few issues where that argument makes absolutely no sense. We're talking about human trafficking... how is this calling for less freedom?

No ,we're not. It was established pretty early on in the thread that this is not just about human trafficking. This is about the US state dept. objecting to Germany's legalization of prostitution, because prostitution is "inherently harmful and dehumanizing".

So, it does become a question of freedoms.

Edit : Was writing this before I saw MBs last post.

 

[Pengwuino]

Ok i read the end of that article.

retracted.

 

[Gokul43201]

I was not aware that the attainment of monetary value was equivalent to being moral.

Well, then no one can claim to hold a moral high ground on anything because there will always be someone else that disagrees with their morals (hence my use of quotation marks).

If you consider individual freedoms a good thing, I don't see how one can then decree that economic freedoms afforded to individuals become immoral. The US is the economic giant that it has become in large part to exactly these freedoms. And the people have reaped the benefits that come with this position.

If that were indeed the case, then prostituting for money would equal morality.

In my judgement, going by the above argument, yes it would.

 

[loseyourname]

Federal law would effectively supercede the state law if it isn't in their constitution... which unfortunately i think it is. So maybe indeed a constitutional amendment is in order.

Due to the commerce clause in the constitution, the feds only have the power to regulate interstate commerce. Even with criminal actions, I think the only thing the FBI polices is kidnapping, or crimes against the federal government (along with all crimes that cross state lines). They have no power to regulate or criminalize prostitution within a state. To be honest, I'm not even sure why they have jurisdiction over kidnapping. I suppose it's because it is not known whether or not the perp has crossed state lines and it requires a nationwide search, which only the FBI has the ability to carry out.

 

[loseyourname]

So, can anyone explain how and where the U.S. is the moral authority on anything?

This gets brought up a lot, but if something is right, it's right. The murderer who says one should not murder is morally correct in that statement.

 

[jimmie]

This gets brought up a lot, but if something is right, it's right.

I agree.

And on the other side of the coin, if something is not right, then it's not right.

The murderer who says one should not murder is morally correct in that statement.

Murderers can also be liars.

Just because the murderer makes a statement that is morally correct does not mean that the murderer has morals. It does mean that the murderer is aware of what is right, chose to not do right, and now simply expresses that which is accepted to be true and right.

Empty words. Tell them what they want to hear.

It's one thing for a murderer to make a single statement against murder, but for a murderer, that currently murders and intends to murder, to campaign against murder is not only hypocritical but also silly.

For the campaign to be successful it must be taken seriously, and for that to happen, the murderer must reform itself.

How does that saying go... get your own house in order before looking over your fence.

 

[kyleb]

They can make it as a statement of this administration's policy, but that doesn't make it enforceable or anything. It's sort of like your neighbor coming over to you and telling you how they think you should raise your children. They can tell you their views in the hope of persuading you to share them, but more likely, you're just going to roll your eyes and keep doing what you think is best for your own children.

Understood. However, I hope we all can agree that my neighbor should be ashamed of himself if he tells me to restrict my children in a way he doesn't even claim authority over his own, and I am ashamed of all of us for having a government which has done essentially the same thing here.

 

[Moonbear]

Understood. However, I hope we all can agree that my neighbor should be ashamed of himself if he tells me to restrict my children in a way he doesn't even claim authority over his own, and I am ashamed of all of us for having a government which has done essentially the same thing here.

You're ashamed of all of us? Hey! I had nothing to do with that statement; nobody checked with me before they made it. Okay, I'm being a bit silly with that, but because a few in our government are trying to persuade others of their personal view of morality, why should that cause us to be ashamed of all of us, including those who do not agree and are speaking up about that?

The administration has established their policy in the US too. Clearly, they recommend to the states and municipalities the moral views they think should be made into law. Some adopt it as their own, others reject it. That's how policy works. Policy isn't law, it's just a formal position statement which can be used to attempt to shape the decisions of lawmakers...successfully or unsuccessfully.

 

[kyleb]

Okay, I'm being a bit silly with that, but because a few in our government are trying to persuade others of their personal view of morality, why should that cause us to be ashamed of all of us, including those who do not agree and are speaking up about that?

Because, at least as long as we care to call ourselves a democracy, it is our responsibility to keep such people out of positions of power. I do respect you for speaking up though, just as I speak up out of respect for myself. However, by no means do I excuse myself for allowing this to happen in the first place; and as harsh as it may sound, I'm not about to give anyone else a pass on matters like this either. ;)

 

[J77]

I like the key ally thing

...and the US won't be in Germany long enough for it to matter, or perhaps this is what they mean - it'll give the team something to do for the rest of June

There isn't much Germany can do about this - the influx from Poland and beyond, of people ready to get some cash, will be massive - and this will include the sex workers.

For what it's worth, I don't like prostitution. I live in Amsterdam, so see it in the open all the time, and even though it's leagl over here, I can't help but thinking that a lot of the girls are still being exploited - and a lot of them look like they've been brough over from Eastern Europe.

I think the worst thing I've heard about the WC is the thing about if you're not white, you may not come out of certain areas of Germany alive - this to me is much more worrying, and a prolem in East European football in general, than the sex thing.

 

[Moonbear]

However, by no means do I excuse myself for allowing this to happen in the first place;

Unless you voted those particular people into office, or didn't show up to the polls to vote for the opponent, how did you allow it in the first place? A democracy means that sometimes you're in the minority and what you think is right doesn't happen. It also means that every so many years, depending on the office, you have a chance to change things. I'll still take that any day over someone appointing themself to office for life. Administrations come and go. I don't see any reason to be ashamed or to disparage the entire country and all its citizens and the entire system of government because of a few years when you don't agree with the administrative policies. If you feel ashamed of yourself for some reason, that's your perogative...maybe you feel you should have run for office or been more vocal and weren't, or whatever, but then instead of saying the whole country should be embarrassed, do something.

People have disliked presidents before...usually everyone who was in the minority when voting for them, or when they don't live up to their promises, or when things turn sour for the country and everyone blames the president (justly or unjustly so). That doesn't mean we should hang our heads in shame and give up on the entire country and the entire system of government. More often than not, it's worked. Instead, keep moving forward and fix what's broken.

 

[Anttech]

The purpose of the current thread is to simply ask whether or not you believe that the U.S. has the moral authority, with either its own citizens only or with all citizens everywhere, to oppose activities anywhere that are inherently harmful and dehumanizing?

Harmful and dehumanizing to whom? Prosition is legal in many European countries, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany to name a few.

 

[Cyrus]

It's Pengwuino, what do you expect from him

Take a deep breath, and then punch a hole or two in the wall (Hell, you can use pengwuino's face for all I care ).

 

[kyleb]

Moonbear, you are overlooking my point by farcically exaggerating my stance here:

That doesn't mean we should hang our heads in shame and give up on the entire country and the entire system of government.

I made no such suggestions. So at this point I'm compelled to ask; should I bother attempting to reiterate my position for you, or are you simply interested in attempting to discredit it?

 

[Moonbear]

I made no such suggestions. So at this point I'm compelled to ask; should I bother attempting to reiterate my position for you, or are you simply interested in attempting to discredit it?

It really isn't worth arguing over. You feel however you feel, and I feel how I feel, and it's totally aside from the topic at hand, so there's really no point continuing on this particular point, whether I've misunderstood you or not.

 

[kyleb]

I wasn't looking for an argument by any means. Rather, I was asking if that was what you were doing when you played melodramatic with my position, seeing as how if that was done simply in search of an argument there wouldn't rightly be any point in rephrasing myself. I find the topic of this thread fascinating, and I'm even more interested in lack of attention such subject matter gets. So while you may see not point in continuing here, I am quite interested in seeing any reasonable discussion on the matter that may come.

 

[jimmie]

Harmful and dehumanizing to whom?

The quote below was made by Rice, cited within the CNN article.

"Together we will stop at nothing to end the debasement of our fellow men," she said.

Apparently, she used the word "we" to represent the U.S., and the words "fellow men" to represent, well, all other human beings.

So, back to my original question and the intended topic of discussion; who believes that the U.S. has the moral authority to oppose activities anywhere that are inherently harmful and dehumanizing, to fellow human beings?

Please consider that my question is as broad as their statement, referring to not only prostitution but all "activities that are inherently harmful and dehumanizing".

 

[loseyourname]

Well, I don't think one needs moral authority to make moral suggestions, but I suppose I'm in the minority on that. Even a crazed lunatic like Bin Laden, who has no moral authority whatsoever on anything, made suggestions to the US that they would good to heed. So when the US does something like decry human rights abuses in other countries, even though there is no doubt that such abuses also occur at the hands of agents of the US government from time to time, they are still right to do so.

I don't really agree that prostitution has to be debasing and exploitative, but I don't doubt that much of it is, and I don't doubt that some of it will occur thanks to the presence of the world cup. Anyone that opposes such things has the right to speak out against it, including Condi.

 

[kyleb]

Eaxactly, of course we are in the right for speaking up against human trafficking. There is no justification needed there for any but those with the weakest grasps on morality, and no matter how much of a hypocrite one might argue we look like for speaking up. The problem is that we suggested that German Government take away freedoms from their people, and there is no excuse for doing that.

 

[jimmie]

Well, I don't think one needs moral authority to make moral suggestions,

Anyone can make a moral suggestion.

That has already been established.

Anyways, prostitution is only the little picture. As I said earlier, let's take a look at the whole picture of various activities anywhere that are inherently harmful and dehumanizing.

Why doesn't the U.S. make more moral suggestions on various other harmful and dehumanizing topics, as well as adhere to its all of its own suggestions, so as to truly be the moral authority it projects itself to be?

 

[Moonbear]

I wasn't looking for an argument by any means. Rather, I was asking if that was what you were doing when you played melodramatic with my position, seeing as how if that was done simply in search of an argument there wouldn't rightly be any point in rephrasing myself. I find the topic of this thread fascinating, and I'm even more interested in lack of attention such subject matter gets. So while you may see not point in continuing here, I am quite interested in seeing any reasonable discussion on the matter that may come.

I wasn't "playing melodramatic," that's how your position really sounded to me. If I've misunderstood you and you wish to continue on that particular point, rather than derail the thread with it, you can contact me by PM and we can continue that side discussion there.

 

[kyleb]

Anyone can make a moral suggestion.

That has already been established.

Anyways, prostitution is only the little picture. As I said earlier, let's take a look at the whole picture of various activities anywhere that are inherently harmful and dehumanizing.

Why doesn't the U.S. make more moral suggestions on various other harmful and dehumanizing topics, as well as adhere to its all of its own suggestions, so as to truly be the moral authority it projects itself to be?

I have to take issue with your line of question as it implies that prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanizing, and opinion that is far from commonly agreed upon. If you care to replace "prostitution" with "human trafficking" then I think you will find the answer to your question quite obvious. ;)

 

[jimmie]

I think you will find the answer to your question quite obvious.

Really? The question was: why doesn't the U.S. make more moral suggestions on various other harmful and dehumanizing topics, as well as adhere to its all of its own suggestions, so as to truly be the moral authority it projects itself to be?

If the answer is obvious, please share it with us.

 

[Moonbear]

Why doesn't the U.S. make more moral suggestions on various other harmful and dehumanizing topics, as well as adhere to its all of its own suggestions, so as to truly be the moral authority it projects itself to be?

Does one have to claim moral authority to make suggestions based on their own moral values? Nobody is intervening or twisting arms of German officials and forcing them to accept their views, just making a statement of opinion...granted, an official statement of opinion, but it's just an opinion nonetheless.

And, I agree with kyleb's point that you're assuming in your argument that prostitution is harmful and dehumanizing, which remains debateable.

 

[Danger]

i have a Canadian friend who doesn't have comprehensive health insurance (or well she doesn't have any at all) over there.

Where the hell did you get that? Everyone up here is covered, as long as they're in the system. Even I am, and I haven't filed a tax return since '79. Now that I can afford it, my premium is $39 per month; before that it was susbidized to match my income. Someone with no income is covered through Social Assistance, as long as he/she applies for it. I don't know what you mean by 'comprehensive', but anything that you need to continue living, and improve if possible, is provided. I expect propoganda from an 'America: Love It or Leave It" guy like you, but that's just total bull****.

 

[jimmie]

Does one have to claim moral authority to make suggestions based on their own moral values?

I have already addressed that point. Again, anyone can make a moral suggestion.

And, I agree with kyleb's point that you're assuming in your argument that prostitution is harmful and dehumanizing, which remains debateable.

With anything, it depends on what one believes, and that was the whole point of my original question.

Do you believe...? It's a yes or no question.

Will anyone address my original question?

The purpose of the current thread is to simply ask whether or not you believe that the U.S. has the moral authority, with either its own citizens only or with all citizens everywhere, to oppose activities anywhere that are inherently harmful and dehumanizing?

Will anyone address the second question?

2) Why doesn't the U.S. make more moral suggestions on various other harmful and dehumanizing topics, as well as adhere to its all of its own suggestions, so as to truly be the moral authority it projects itself to be?

 

[Moonbear]

The purpose of the current thread is to simply ask whether or not you believe that the U.S. has the moral authority, with either its own citizens only or with all citizens everywhere, to oppose activities anywhere that are inherently harmful and dehumanizing?

The problem is that you've set it up with a premise linked to prostitution, which is not inherently harmful and dehumanizing.

 

[jimmie]

The problem is that you've set it up with a premise linked to prostitution, which is not inherently harmful and dehumanizing.

Oh.

Thanks for your insight.

 

[loseyourname]

Jimmie, I moved your thread here to hopefully remove the politics from it so people can just address your ethical question.