Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I can't even parse what you said there.

Going back to your rape example, however, take two situations:

1) A man approaches me on the street and tells me to give him my wallet or he'll beat me senseless.
2) An auditor for Revenue Canada comes into my business and tells me that I owe some back taxes and I need to pay them or I'll be taken to court.

Your position is that both of these people have committed the same crime because they demanded money from me under the threat of violence. Am I accurately summarizing your position or have I misunderstood you?

Not at all.

The threat of violence I'm discussing is:

1. A business owner says "I won't do business with you due to some politically correct protected classification."
2. A customer in that group says "Judge, make him do business with me."
3. A judge says "do business with him or I hold you in contempt of court."
4. The business owner has two choices - do business with the politically protected classified customer or face the threat of violence.

Whether you agree or disagree with the customer or judge doing that, whether you thing that the law that the scenario describes is wonderful or awful, we should theoretically agree that at least that is what is going on. Good or bad, that is what happens.

It is unlike the mugger or the tax man. Those are not the same issue at all. This is "do business with that person or face the threat of violence."

So, suppose that steps 1 through 3 have been accomplished according to normal form. Everything in steps 1 through 3 is happening the exact same way it already happens. But when we come to step 4 the businessman does something different.

Instead of saying "I refuse to do business with you" and facing the threat of violence, and instead of saying "I do business with you because otherwise I face the threat of violence" and conducting the transaction as if it were a voluntary transaction...

Instead of that the business owner says "Take your goods and leave, don't bother to pay me, I'm not going to help you pretend this is a voluntary transaction."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You don't seem to understand how business works. This is their job. If they're self-employed, they are still considered to be a business.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/sm/menu-eng.html

They are engaging in business transactions to make a profit, not private transactions.

You don't seem to understand that not all 'businesses' are the same before the law. Incidentally, your link doesn't actually apply to prostitutes in Canada; since while it is legal to sell sexual services, prostitution in Canada is *unregulated*. As such, your argument doesn't apply. However, even in jurisdictions where prostitution IS regulated, your argument still doesn't follow. Different jurisdiction define 'business' in different ways (and even then apply different standards between different types of businesses).

In the Netherlands, prostitution is legal and regulated. A prostitute can either be employed in a wage-labour setting, in which case they must sign a contract (but even so they must still give consent, so they can not be made to have sex with potential clients they don't want to) and *do* become part of a business (again, the business *itself* may not discriminate, but since prostitutes must give consent they can not be denied the right to refuse sex on any grounds. Or, alternatively, they can be self-employed (NOT part of a business, and not themselves a business as such).

Dutch law EXPLICITLY criminalizes the act of forcing a prostitute to have sex. Forcing a prostitute to have sex is defined and understood to include ANY of the following criteria (this list is from a brochure on the subject put out by the dutch government to help identify forced prostitution):

• You have to do work that is different to what you were promised;
• You are aged under 18 and are working as a prostitute;
• You are being forced to work as a prostitute, for example by someone who has
arranged the work for you, or by a so-called lover boy;
• The person you are working for is threatening to report you because you are in the
Netherlands illegally;
• You do not have your own passport or travel documents in your possession;
• You have to hand over the money you earn (some or all of it) to someone else;
• You have to work even when you are ill;
• You have to pay off a large debt to the person you are working for;
• You have no say about where you work or live;
• You have to work in different places and often do not know where you are;
• You are not allowed to go back and forth by yourself between where you live and
where you work;
• You are not allowed to go shopping or buy new clothes by yourself;
• You or your family are being mistreated, blackmailed or threatened;
• You work in unpleasant or poor conditions;
• You are forced to have unsafe sex;
• You are forced to perform specific sexual acts;
• You are not free to refuse customers;
• You have to work long hours;
• You are only allowed to finish work when you have earned a certain amount of money,
or after you have had a minimum number of clients.

How is that different from any other business in the world? The Dutch have an anti-discrimination law:

http://www.errc.org/article/the-dutch-equal-treatment-act-in-theory-and-practice/1400

The ETA prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, sex, nationality, hetero- or homosexual preferences or civil status in the following areas:

•Employment and professions, (including) advertisement, selection procedure, commencement of an employment relationship, all terms and conditions of employment including salary, pensions, on the job training, promotion and dismissal (Section 5);
•Supply of goods and services and the conclusion of agreements in the course of conducting business or exercising a profession, by the public service and institutions working in housing, welfare, health care, culture and education (Section 7);
•Public supply of goods and services and the conclusion of agreements, referring only to the conduct of private persons and enterprises. State conduct falls within the scope of the ETA whenever it does not concern the execution of administrative powers (Section 7);
•School and career advice (Section 7).

Just like any other business can legally refuse customers for any number of reasons, refusing customers specifically because they have one of the traits is a violation of the Equal Treatment Act. I'm not sure how you feel that line in a brochure overrides the established law in your country.

It seems to me that if a prostitute put out an advertisement which specifically said "NO BLACK MEN", she would be in violation of the ETA. Can you quote me the relevant section of Dutch law which disputes this?

 

[dystopian]

How is that different from any other business in the world? The Dutch have an anti-discrimination law:

You don't seem to have read the bolded part. Prostitutes MUST legally be FREE to refuse customers. The anti-discrimination law does NOT override this fact, since prostitution is not considered equal before the law to other forms of employment. Different standards of law applies to different types of job. A doctor must, under the law, take extreme measures to ensure that he doesn't engage in criminally negligent behavior; a truck driver must not. Similarly, a prostitute must legally be allowed to refuse customers regardless of what the anti-discrimination law.

Your only problem is that you don't seem to recognize that prostitution as a profession can (and should) be held to different standards. You're ascribing to an overzealous form of equality that when put into legal practice causes more problems than it solves.

It seems to me that if a prostitute put out an advertisement which specifically said "NO BLACK MEN", she would be in violation of the ETA. Can you quote me the relevant section of Dutch law which disputes this?

I already did, didn't I? Prostitutes MUST have the freedom to refuse customers. It doesn't say 'they must have the freedom to refuse customers except when doing so discriminates people because hey screw that let that bitch get fucked by someone she doesn't want to."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You don't seem to have read the bolded part. Prostitutes MUST legally be FREE to refuse customers. The anti-discrimination law does NOT override this fact, since prostitution is not considered equal before the law to other forms of employment. Different standards of law applies to different types of job. A doctor must, under the law, take extreme measures to ensure that he doesn't engage in criminally negligent behavior; a truck driver must not. Similarly, a prostitute must legally be allowed to refuse customers regardless of what the anti-discrimination law.

Your only problem is that you don't seem to recognize that prostitution as a profession can (and should) be held to different standards. You're ascribing to an overzealous form of equality that when put into legal practice causes more problems than it solves.

It seems to me that if a prostitute put out an advertisement which specifically said "NO BLACK MEN", she would be in violation of the ETA. Can you quote me the relevant section of Dutch law which disputes this?

I already did, didn't I? Prostitutes MUST have the freedom to refuse customers. It doesn't say 'they must have the freedom to refuse customers except when doing so discriminates people because hey screw that let that bitch get fucked by someone she doesn't want to."

Ya, I read the bolded part. What I asked for was the relevant section of Dutch law which shows that the bolded part is legally considered an exemption from the terms of the ETA in your country. I provided a link to the text of the relevant law in your country that I'm discussing. You just provided a block of text without attribution and said that it was from some brochure.*

Any business is legally free to refuse customers. Where that doesn't apply is when they refuse business for the purpose of discrimination.

Can a Dutch brothel or indpendent escort put a sign on their door or in their advertisement saying "NO BLACK MEN"? Yes or no?

* And I'd need that from an actual law. I'm at work, so I can't be looking at the websites of escort companies or the like.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The general trend in the law, at least in the US, in the more intimate and/or private the enterprise, the more freedom to discriminate. I do not have to hire a white chauffeur for my private car but I am prohibited from denying employment to that same white driver for my limousine service, a public conveyance business operating across state lines.

You can operate private, restricted country clubs, just don't expect to be on the PGA tour.

 

[dystopian]

Ya, I read the bolded part. What I asked for was the relevant section of Dutch law which shows that the bolded part is legally considered an exemption from the terms of the ETA in your country. You just provided a block of text without attribution and said that it was from some brochure.

You can find the same kind of information on the following site: http://www.soaaids.nl/en/prostituti...d-employment/work-relations/the-owner-and-you (just an information site, nothing NSWF)

Any business is legally free to refuse customers. Where that doesn't apply is when they refuse business for the purpose of discrimination.

You keep referring to a business; employees are NOT a business, and are afforded considerably more rights and protections under Dutch law than is the case in most countries. Our laws surrounding prostitution are designed to *protect* prostitutes; as such you're going to have a hard time convincing me (or our police for that matter) that the anti-discrimination law supersedes the law meant to protect prostitutes. If a prostitute refuses to have sex with a person, they lose out on having sex and at most are 'discriminated' against. If on the other hand a prostitute is legally forced to have sex with someone because otherwise they'd be in violation of the anti-discrimination law, then at worst the law mandates their rape or at best seeks to punish (with loss of income or even judicial action) them for asserting their right to refuse sex with someone. It's obvious to anyone who understands the way law (and Dutch society) works that the prostitute laws are going to supersede the anti-discrimination laws in such a case.

Can a Dutch brothel or indpendent escort put a sign on their door or in their advertisement saying "NO BLACK MEN"? Yes or no?

A brothel can't; but like I already explained earlier, that doesn't matter since the individual prostitutes working for the brothel CAN at all times refuse service to someone.

 

[Keith&Co.]

and dealing with all the workplace laws that everyone else has to conform to.

Oh, my god. Prostitute professional development classes. There's a concept i'll never bleach out of my brain.

Seven Deadly Penises.
Documention of labor: Do women count as johns?
The Arkansas Kama Sutra: Missionary, missionary in a car and handjobs.
Truth in Advertising.
Temporary Tattoos: How to apply the tax stamp.
Environmental Health: Condoms are not optional.
I cut you bitch: worker hierarchies promote workplace safety

 

[Tom Sawyer]

and dealing with all the workplace laws that everyone else has to conform to.

Oh, my god. Prostitute professional development classes. There's a concept i'll never bleach out of my brain.

Seven Deadly Penises.
Documention of labor: Do women count as johns?
The Arkansas Kama Sutra: Missionary, missionary in a car and handjobs.
Truth in Advertising.
Temporary Tattoos: How to apply the tax stamp.
Environmental Health: Condoms are not optional.
I cut you bitch: worker hierarchies promote workplace safety

I would hope so. The end goal of legalization is to turn prostitution into as respectable a profession as any other. That means it needs to be treated as a profession like any other. Boring meetings on industry standards and requirements are a part of that.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Boring meetings on industry standards and requirements are a part of that.

But if sex becomes boring and drab... It'll just be Showgirls.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You can find the same kind of information on the following site: http://www.soaaids.nl/en/prostituti...d-employment/work-relations/the-owner-and-you (just an information site, nothing NSWF)

The only thing that has in relation to the question asked is a link to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment where it gives the anti-discrimination information:

http://www.government.nl/issues/discrimination/prohibition-of-discrimination

There's nothing that talks about exemptions to those rules for sex workers.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Boring meetings on industry standards and requirements are a part of that.

But if sex becomes boring and drab... It'll just be Showgirls.

It also brings up a related problem. If a bunch of prostitutes go out of town for a business meeting ... what do they do in their free time? Engage in wholesome family activities?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Boring meetings on industry standards and requirements are a part of that.

But if sex becomes boring and drab... It'll just be Showgirls.

It also brings up a related problem. If a bunch of prostitutes go out of town for a business meeting ... what do they do in their free time? Engage in wholesome family activities?

No, they screw guys in the motel bar, and they don't record their hours. Fight the system!

 

[dystopian]

You can find the same kind of information on the following site: http://www.soaaids.nl/en/prostituti...d-employment/work-relations/the-owner-and-you (just an information site, nothing NSWF)

The only thing that has in relation to the question asked is a link to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment where it gives the anti-discrimination information:

http://www.government.nl/issues/discrimination/prohibition-of-discrimination

There's nothing that talks about exemptions to those rules for sex workers.

You seriously expect me to dig through three hundred pages of law written in an arcane legal language only so I can link you to a piece of text you won't be able to understand, just to convince you of something that should be obvious to begin with (since your interpretation risks greater harm than mine, and the law is meant to minimize harm)?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You can find the same kind of information on the following site: http://www.soaaids.nl/en/prostituti...d-employment/work-relations/the-owner-and-you (just an information site, nothing NSWF)

The only thing that has in relation to the question asked is a link to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment where it gives the anti-discrimination information:

http://www.government.nl/issues/discrimination/prohibition-of-discrimination

There's nothing that talks about exemptions to those rules for sex workers.

You seriously expect me to dig through three hundred pages of law written in an arcane legal language only so I can link you to a piece of text you won't be able to understand, just to convince you of something that should be obvious to begin with (since your interpretation risks greater harm than mine, and the law is meant to minimize harm)?

I expect you to back up any claims that you make with facts as opposed to baseless assertions, the same as I expect from anyone else in any other argument.

Dutch Labour Law seems very specific and clear on this issue and you're claiming that it actually is something completely different than what the text of your country's laws says it is. You appear to be wrong about what the law in your country regarding this matter is. I am quite willing to change my opinion on that matter but you don't seem to understand how self-employment works in your country and you don't seem to understand what the labour laws are in your country, so there's no reason to assume that you are giving a correct account of how labour laws apply to self-employed individuals in your country.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Tom, top of page 11.

 

[dystopian]

Dutch Labour Law seems very specific and clear on this issue and you're claiming that it actually is something completely different than what the text of your country's laws says it is. You appear to be wrong about what the law in your country regarding this matter is. I am quite willing to change my opinion on that matter but you don't seem to understand how self-employment works in your country and you don't seem to understand what the labour laws are in your country, so there's no reason to assume that you are giving a correct account of how labour laws apply to self-employed individuals in your country.

Uhm, you're just doing a literal reading of a particular segment of the law which doesn't even address the exceptions one might find under other articles, and yet you think you have a comprehensive understanding of the law? You also seem to be accusing me of not understand how self-employment works in my country without having a basic understanding of it yourself. One needs to register with the Kamer van Koophandel before one can be considered a business. Merely being self-employed doesn't itself automatically qualify you; nor is it the case that every rechtspersoon (How a business might have rights and duties as if it were a person) must be registered as such; lots of different types of businesses and self-employed individuals are *exempt*; for instance, streetsellers. *All* types of self-employed freelancers were, until very recently (2008), exempt too. I can't immediately find whether self-employed prostitutes are still exempt, however since a change to the prostitution laws in 2009 was REJECTED by the senate on the grounds that it would include a registration duty for prostitutes, I'm gonna go with *yes*.

Seeing as how *I* know about these details, and you don't, don't you think it more likely that my understanding of the local law is going to be more accurate than yours?

 

[doubtingt]

You can find the same kind of information on the following site: http://www.soaaids.nl/en/prostituti...d-employment/work-relations/the-owner-and-you (just an information site, nothing NSWF)

The only thing that has in relation to the question asked is a link to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment where it gives the anti-discrimination information:

http://www.government.nl/issues/discrimination/prohibition-of-discrimination

There's nothing that talks about exemptions to those rules for sex workers.

You seriously expect me to dig through three hundred pages of law written in an arcane legal language only so I can link you to a piece of text you won't be able to understand, just to convince you of something that should be obvious to begin with (since your interpretation risks greater harm than mine, and the law is meant to minimize harm)?

I expect you to back up any claims that you make with facts as opposed to baseless assertions, the same as I expect from anyone else in any other argument.

Dutch Labour Law seems very specific and clear on this issue and you're claiming that it actually is something completely different than what the text of your country's laws says it is. You appear to be wrong about what the law in your country regarding this matter is. I am quite willing to change my opinion on that matter but you don't seem to understand how self-employment works in your country and you don't seem to understand what the labour laws are in your country, so there's no reason to assume that you are giving a correct account of how labour laws apply to self-employed individuals in your country.

I'd be surprised if the Dutch or any other legislature where prostitution is legal would have the guts to explicitly exempt sex workers from general discriminations laws, even if they believed that such exemptions should be allowed. OTOH, I'd bet many legislators, law enforcers, and even many discrimination advocates in these place actively avoid any effort to point out or prosecute such discrimination no matter how overt and provable.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Dutch Labour Law seems very specific and clear on this issue and you're claiming that it actually is something completely different than what the text of your country's laws says it is. You appear to be wrong about what the law in your country regarding this matter is. I am quite willing to change my opinion on that matter but you don't seem to understand how self-employment works in your country and you don't seem to understand what the labour laws are in your country, so there's no reason to assume that you are giving a correct account of how labour laws apply to self-employed individuals in your country.

Uhm, you're just doing a literal reading of a particular segment of the law which doesn't even address the exceptions one might find under other articles, and yet you think you have a comprehensive understanding of the law? You also seem to be accusing me of not understand how self-employment works in my country without having a basic understanding of it yourself. One needs to register with the Kamer van Koophandel before one can be considered a business. Merely being self-employed doesn't itself automatically qualify you; nor is it the case that every rechtspersoon (How a business might have rights and duties as if it were a person) must be registered as such; lots of different types of businesses and self-employed individuals are *exempt*; for instance, streetsellers. *All* types of self-employed freelancers were, until very recently (2008), exempt too. I can't immediately find whether self-employed prostitutes are still exempt, however since a change to the prostitution laws in 2009 was REJECTED by the senate on the grounds that it would include a registration duty for prostitutes, I'm gonna go with *yes*.

Seeing as how *I* know about these details, and you don't, don't you think it more likely that my understanding of the local law is going to be more accurate than yours?

Yes, I understand that. I am quite willing to accept the theoretical possibility that there are exemptions to the law which apply to the matter. However, if a law clearly and explicitly says one thing and no examples of exemptions to that law are given which apply to the matter under discussion, I am going to assume that they were never actually created and everybody needs to follow the law because they haven't been given an exemption from it. You can't just assert an exemption to a law based on a theoretical possibility of an exemption to it.

The Dutch anti-discrimination law is very specific and detailed on this matter. It's text even includes a number of cases where it wouldn't apply. This isn't one of those and you've provided no reason to assume that additional exemptions which would apply are real things.

The rational course of action in this case is to assume that the law says what the law says and not something completely different from what the law says because of some vague and generic "maybe" which you can't back up.

 

[dystopian]

I'd be surprised if the Dutch or any other legislature where prostitution is legal would have the guts to explicitly exempt sex workers from general discriminations laws, even if they believed that such exemptions should be allowed. OTOH, I'd bet many legislators, law enforcers, and even many discrimination advocates in these place actively avoid any effort to point out or prosecute such discrimination no matter how overt and provable.

Of course they're not going to explicitly say (or believe) that sex workers have the right to discriminate. They have no reason to do that. But yeah, they're not going to prosecute it either; since like I've been trying to explain to Tom, the law is such that they will always have the right to refuse someone service. Even if one could succesfully argue that the law distinguishes between a prostitute just saying "no" to all black people versus saying "No black people" up front (which I really don't think one can); no police officer or politician is going to go after such a prostitute because to do so would be, in the eyes of society, akin to saying that one can force prostitutes to have sex against their will.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'd be surprised if the Dutch or any other legislature where prostitution is legal would have the guts to explicitly exempt sex workers from general discriminations laws, even if they believed that such exemptions should be allowed. OTOH, I'd bet many legislators, law enforcers, and even many discrimination advocates in these place actively avoid any effort to point out or prosecute such discrimination no matter how overt and provable.

Of course they're not going to explicitly say (or believe) that sex workers have the right to discriminate. They have no reason to do that. But yeah, they're not going to prosecute it either; since like I've been trying to explain to Tom, the law is such that they will always have the right to refuse someone service. Even if one could succesfully argue that the law distinguishes between a prostitute just saying "no" to all black people versus saying "No black people" up front (which I really don't think one can); no police officer or politician is going to go after such a prostitute because to do so would be, in the eyes of society, akin to saying that one can force prostitutes to have sex against their will.

EVERYONE has the exact same right to refuse service. Any business can put up a sign that says "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" and they can enforce that for any reason except for reasons which have specifically been made illegal. A business with such a sign can't point to a customer coming in and say "Hey! No fags in here" because that's been explicitly listed as an illegal reason.

Prostitutes have the exact same right to refuse service to anyone with the exact same stipulations on that right. If a customer is refused service because of their race, the prostitute has run afoul of the anti-discrimination laws.