Ill Considered Policies in Action

[Roland]

That's like justifying armed robbery by saying "I just put the gun to his head, I didn't make him give me the money." In both cases threats are being made to harm someone if they do not perform a desired task by the person or institution doing the threatening.

First of all, not at all. The comparison is flawed on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

If the individual is legitimately looking for a job and just isn't having any luck, how can you honestly legitimize forcing them to work in a brothel?

Because they've had a year to find a job. That's how. Even in the U.S., being on unemployment for more than 6 months is a rare case, and only then because you ARE looking for a job.

I'm not saying it's moral or immoral; that is not the place of the law (generally speaking). The law stipulates that any woman over the age of 55 (already we're cutting out a huge portion of the population) that as been unemployed for over a year (and thus further reducing the count) must take up a legal, offered job or risk losing her unemployment benefits. Quite frankly, from a stance of practically I see nothing wrong with it. No one is forcing her to take a job she doesn't want to - she's had AMPLE time to find a job suitable to her moral standards; if you can't find a job after a year, either you need to move to a new area, or you're not doing enough to find one. I cannot possibly believe that there are NO jobs at all whatsoever aside from brothels. Besides, how many people are going to want senior citizens working in brothels? The law, as stated in the article, ONLY applies to women over 55 who have been riding unemployment for over a year. That's a pretty damn slim margin, I'd be willing to wager, even with a high rate of unemployment.

And, you know, there's always McDonalds. :P