Turn Out the Red Light?

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Fenian420 @ 02/09/2008 12:19:11 AM

    Wow. What a idoit mayor.. Destroying a more than 600 year old citys reputation.. I hope this guy gets executed.

  • Posted By: bob j @ 02/08/2008 11:50:04 PM

    howsa man supose ta getta piece of tail now ifs he comes to holland? ifs they do away with the ho's aint no fun no mo,,,

  • Posted By: siegfried89 @ 02/08/2008 11:10:52 PM

    Sounds like the Bush Administration is alive and well in Amsterdam. In America it's not the girls who take off their clothes but the corporations who steal your shirt and your land.

  • Posted By: siegfried89 @ 02/08/2008 11:08:25 PM

    Sounds like the Bush Administration is alive and well in Amsterdamn. In America it's not the girls who take their clothes off it's the corporations who steal your shirt and your land. I am going there in July, hope they haven't closed the cannabis bars

  • Posted By: CalifGal @ 02/08/2008 8:33:52 PM

    Great move especially if they continue to clean up everything throughout the whole city. I would then look forward to returning to Amsterdam for another visit. Now Eastern Europe needs to follow suit as well!

  • Posted By: peggypwr1 @ 02/08/2008 8:23:26 PM

    Thank the Gods I went to Amstersdam in May of 2007!

  • Posted By: lrussell2 @ 02/08/2008 7:54:38 PM

    Keep in mind tort laws that you speak of apply in the United States and not in other countries. Most European countries are based on Civil Laws derived in large part from the Romans and then Bonaparte. Knowing the Dutch they will figure out a way to relocate the RLD district to the outskirts of town and improve the tourist area and keep the money coming in on the RLD. Something like the Reeperbahn in Hamburg where there is security provided due to the fact access is limited to two entrances/exits. There is a RLD in almost every town of any size in Holland, so it is not just Amsterdam.

  • Posted By: jlynch617 @ 02/08/2008 6:13:15 PM

    How interesting it is when people say we shouldn't legislate marality when we do it all the time. We decry our involvment in the middle east as being none of our business while we lament the way the culture treats women. Society evolves as do the rules of society, but it is a slow process. If the people of the Neatherlands decide that their society does not want the RLD, than that is their business, not Dave in NM nor Jimmy's. If we don't have some moral guide posts, we have nothing.

    • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 02/08/2008 6:56:38 PM

      How interesting it is when people who want to legislate the morality of others say the alternative is to have no "moral guideposts." Lamenting something like the treatment of women in the Middle East doesn't justify our trying to change it. And I don't think anyone here suggested it wasn't the business of those in the Netherlands to legislate as they see fit. All I said was that it was a bad idea, and would lead to harm. You don't seem to have a beef with that argument.

      I have a "moral guidepost" that serves me well in most situations: Don't hurt people. Abolishing the RLD would violate that principle.

      • Posted By: jlynch617 @ 02/08/2008 7:16:50 PM

        I understand where you are coming from and accept your point of view. The conversation really is about defining what would "hurt" someone. I would hope that we could agree that to physicaly hurt someone would not be acceptable, but the word hurt can have a much broader meaning. I believe that this is where our society comes into play by defining "hurt" in a way that reflects the majority of the people. A hundred years ago there was virtualy no Tort law, now we see people suing for some of the most bizzar things. All in the name of being put whole because someone "hurt" them.

        I think this is how we do and always will legislate morality. I certanly did not want to suggest that you were not a moral person, if you took my comment that way, I do appoligize.

        • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 02/08/2008 7:48:22 PM

          First, thank you for clarifying your position. I didn't know that you were suggesting I had no morals, but I didn't know you weren't. Your point regarding tort law is a valid one, but there needs to be a big distinction between tort and criminal liability. Tort cases are decided one-by-one, based on general principles such as breach of duty. Criminal law, on the other hand, aims to proscribe behaviors across-the-board, with criminal penalties, and therefore needs to be as narrowly drawn as possible. The definition of harm, therefore, is necessarily broader in civil law than in criminal, so the two don't compare directly in a context such as this.

          Incidentally, it's nice to disagree with someone who's actually articulate and civil for a change!

  • Posted By: carolmarie @ 02/08/2008 5:47:41 PM

    For those who say you shouldn't legislate morality, that's called anarchy. Is it immoral to murder? I, for one, am extremely glad that we all can't run around killing each other on an angry whim. Prostitution is just as murderous in many ways: diseases, breaking up homes, ruining self respect. For the RLD to be shut down will say to people that it's not right and will limit that temptation for many people.

    • Posted By: Dave in NM @ 02/08/2008 6:04:00 PM

      That's an utterly artificial argument. The harm caused by murder is objective and absolute. There IS no "harm" caused by sex, in and of itself. The harms that can be caused by sex done wrong can be prevented individually - to say that prostitution is "just as murderous" as MURDER is just ludicrous. Shutting down the RLD will say to people what they choose to take from it. It will not limit the temptation for sex (try legislating THAT) - it will just give them fewer options, none of them as safe (and certainly FAR less safe for the prostitutes).

  • Posted By: Natiwhat @ 02/08/2008 6:03:53 PM

    Interesting tactic, that of comparing sexual proclivities to murder. Puritanical much? Your argument seems factually incorrect on a few levels. First of all, criminalizing prostitution or making it more difficult to obtain will not necessarily decrease the demand, or the supply - simply the way in which it's achieved. The current system of prostitution in the Netherlands is about as well set up to avoid disease as is possible. I would argue that your proposal would increase the opportunity for disease by putting it out on the street. Self respect is something that should be applied to, well, one's self. Does your self respect hinge on your sex life? If so - egad. I'm also not sold on the idea that it breaks up homes. At least, not any more than an overbearing religious zealot might.

    Anybody feel like going back to the Middle Ages? Hip hip hooray!

    Ah yes, the amoral majority strikes again, and glad to do so.

  • Posted By: Jimmys Crackhorn @ 02/08/2008 5:20:48 PM

    Sexual Fascism.

    Must agree with Dave in that, legislating morality is nothing short of insane.

  • Posted By: FrankyD @ 02/08/2008 5:00:02 PM

    But they can't, I ain't been there yet!!!!!

  • Posted By: KennyF @ 02/08/2008 4:46:37 PM

    I agree that you cna make more money upgrading your image and catering to yuppies, but wonder if this isn't a public relations move more than a pulic safety move. For instance, what happens to all those sex workers who have limited social options. Is the city commiting resources to re-training or welfare or housing. I think it will be look at us we cleaned up and I don't know where the protitutes went but don't worry, it's not like they are real people.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse