Yes that's the original article and it's talking about a hypothetical scenario that might happen because of a new legislation and seems to have a strong agenda against it.
That seems to be the case, indeed. All the article is saying is: "there are now two laws on the books (unemployment and legalized prostitution) which, in this hypothetical scenario, would lead to an absurd result".
This is hardly surprising or odd. Laws are made by human beings; the lawbooks are not some logically consistent complete body covering all possible scenarios, but a collection of more or less ad hoc decisions. That there are two laws who are in conflict in some situations is almost guaranteed for any country whose laws are not completely elemenrtary.
Such contradictions are resolved in various ways, but it's obvious that however resolved in this case, it is inconcievable that women will be in fact forced to work as prostitutes. Most likely, the law will simply be amended to allow women to refuse working in brothels without any penalty.
By the way, such contradictions are at least as old as Plato: for instance, if it is good to help our friends and it is also good to keep our promises, what if our friend comes and demands the knife he loaned us when he is not in his right mind? Either way you'd have to break the (moral) law.
This is not the place for a deep discussion of that particular socratic dialogue (in the REPUBLIC), but we can all be glad a reporter wasn't around to record it, or no doubt we would be treated to a headline saying NEW GREEK MORALITY FORCES MEN NOT TO KEEP THEIR PROMISES, or NEW GREEK MORALITY FORCES MEN TO GIVE KNIVES TO INSANE PEOPLE, depending on which horn of the dilemma poor Cephalus, Socrates' antagonist in this case, had chosen.
That seems to be the case, indeed. All the article is saying is: "there are now two laws on the books (unemployment and legalized prostitution) which, in this hypothetical scenario, would lead to an absurd result".
This is hardly surprising or odd. Laws are made by human beings; the lawbooks are not some logically consistent complete body covering all possible scenarios, but a collection of more or less ad hoc decisions. That there are two laws who are in conflict in some situations is almost guaranteed for any country whose laws are not completely elemenrtary.
Such contradictions are resolved in various ways, but it's obvious that however resolved in this case, it is inconcievable that women will be in fact forced to work as prostitutes. Most likely, the law will simply be amended to allow women to refuse working in brothels without any penalty.
By the way, such contradictions are at least as old as Plato: for instance, if it is good to help our friends and it is also good to keep our promises, what if our friend comes and demands the knife he loaned us when he is not in his right mind? Either way you'd have to break the (moral) law.
This is not the place for a deep discussion of that particular socratic dialogue (in the REPUBLIC), but we can all be glad a reporter wasn't around to record it, or no doubt we would be treated to a headline saying NEW GREEK MORALITY FORCES MEN NOT TO KEEP THEIR PROMISES, or NEW GREEK MORALITY FORCES MEN TO GIVE KNIVES TO INSANE PEOPLE, depending on which horn of the dilemma poor Cephalus, Socrates' antagonist in this case, had chosen.
) could be referred to work as a prostitute.
