START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
News & Politics

Rant

Strip Clubs Banned in Iceland

Posted 26 months ago|22 comments|848 views
Iceland is Really Cold
VIDEOS
Written by
markbyrn
 Moderator
In what proves that ideology is more like a circular band than a straight line of distant extremes, the country of Iceland has banned stripped clubs under the banner of far left feminist ideology.

According to the UK Guardian (the English clarion of left wing pâté), the ban is attributed to Iceland's lesbian prime minister, and for imposing this act of female liberation, the Guardian has joyfully described this small bankrupt island nation as the most female-friendly country on the planet.

So while perhaps loathing each other, religious right fundamentalists and left wing feminists are actually two putrid peas in the same connected pod as they desire to use government as a blunt force instrument to dictate sexual behavior between adults.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHIpSFR4N...
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: Why stop the comparison at sexual behavior? Why not include anyone who wants to use government to enforce any kind of behavioral demands? People who want to make anything they consider as "hate speech" a crime. People who want to force you to wear a seat belt in the privacy of your own vehicle. People who want to regulate what you can put into your own body, and through which orifice. People who want to control how you pay for own medical care.

But back to the point. In Iceland, a majority of the strippers are immigrants that are being trafficked from Eastern Europe and Asia to work as strippers and prostitutes.

Slavery.
26 months ago: * Hate speech

I agree with you completely on this one with the caveat that inciting violence or intimidating people doesn't fall under a valid use of free speech, since those amount to efforts to abrogate the rights of others.

Even then, I'm inclined to err on the side of free speech unless the hate speech involves direct physical threats. Wikipedia has a pretty good writeup of the law as it stands in the United States, and the law basically agrees with me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech...

* Seatbelt laws

You have no expectation of privacy in a vehicle, because you're sharing the space that vehicle is in with other people. But that aside, seatbelt laws save tax dollars, because they reduce the number and severity of trips to the emergency room. Why should my tax dollars be wasted because someone wants to abuse the privilege of driving by doing so in a stupid manner?

* Regulated orifice insertions

Hmm. Not really sure how to tackle this one. I'll just assume you're talking about food? Not sure what regulations you're referring to, I'm afraid. I can eat whatever I want, whenever I want. There are regulations on food producers to ensure they're not, for instance, mixing pig feces into their sausages, but there are no regulations on how much of what cholesterol-and-sugar-filled junk I ingest.

Maybe you were talking about drugs? If so, then I wholeheartedly agree. The drug war is an insane -- and completely ineffective -- invasion into our privacy rights. The only caveat I can think of is that there should be regulations regarding drug use while operating heavy machinery, driving, or doing anything else that could endanger others.

I also agree with you if you were talking about... ummm... other things. In other orifices. Though I'm rather surprised you would put it that way.

* Medical care

No one's limiting how you pay for your own medical care. If you want private insurance, or you want to pay for medical services out of pocket, OK!
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: *Medical care

"No one's limiting how you pay for your own medical care. If you want private insurance, or you want to pay for medical services out of pocket, OK! "

But, if I want to pay for my own medical expenses, or insure myself in a way not approved by the government, I have to pay a penalty. The law reads that I am "required to become enrolled in a government approved health care plan."
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: If you want the government to shut down strip clubs, you can't complain with the government want to regulate your health care.

*TWEET* *TWEET*
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: I don't want the government to shut down strip clubs.
26 months ago: OOTB, I'm just not seeing where you're going with that. There are all kinds of limits on what can and can't get you a tax benefit, whether or not you're talking about health care. So you'll pay a little extra in taxes if you decide to buy a health care plan that doesn't meet Federal standards... So what?

Here's another example of taxes being levied differently depending on what you buy: Home heating. Right now there's a $1,500 tax credit available to homeowners who buy an energy efficient ductless heat pump. I will pay $1,500 less in taxes next April because I've decided to buy one for my home. If I'd decide to go with a heating system that isn't on the government-approved list, I'd pay a lot more money next year.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: The difference is, you will be taxed according to what you have chosen to buy. Those who pay the health insurance "penalty", not a tax, is because of what they have chosen NOT to buy.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: Kind of like Joey the Icepick coming around and saying, "Hey youse, you need to buy some protection, or else."
26 months ago: Don't you think equating different taxes for different insurance plans with a mafioso threatening to break your legs reaching just a teensy bit? In reality, "Joey the Icepick" is actually saying, "Hey youse, you need to buy some protection, or your taxes will be slightly higher next year to help cover emergency medical services for the uninsured, unless you get a hardship waiver, and if you want, I'll help you buy it."
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: No I don't think it's stretching things at all. The reality of the situation is, if you can not or will not by life insurance that the government approves, you will pay a penalty. Period. The tricky part is, if you qualify for a hardship waiver, you will probably also qualify for Medicaid, which leaves you with no penalty. The hard reality is: For young adults with no company insurance,who aren't on their parent's plan, who make over $40,000/year, there will be a minimum penalty of $695, or insurance premiums that are 20% higher than now, after adjusting for regular increases. Below 40,000, the tax credits vary according to income, and amount spent on insurance.

I notice that you also continue to qualify your statements with the modifier "next year". What about all the years after next year?
26 months ago: "No I don't think it's stretching things at all. The reality of the situation is, if you can not or will not by life insurance that the government approves, you will pay a penalty. Period."

Not true. If you cannot, you can get a hardship waiver or, as you say, apply for Medicaid or other assistance, because if you can't afford insurance and aren't getting it from your employer, you're probably poor.

"The tricky part is, if you qualify for a hardship waiver, you will probably also qualify for Medicaid, which leaves you with no penalty."

Yup.

"The hard reality is: For young adults with no company insurance,who aren't on their parent's plan, who make over $40,000/year, there will be a minimum penalty of $695, or insurance premiums that are 20% higher than now, after adjusting for regular increases."

Wait, wait... So you're worried about all the people who are:

* Young adults
* Aren't covered by their parents' insurance plans
* Make $40,000+ a year...
* ...at a job that comes with no benefits?

How many people do you think that is, OOTB?

And where are you getting that 20% figure, anyway?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: The $40,000 figure is just the starting line for the maximum penalty, which as you know, once a "tax", and we'll use that term loosely here, is in place, it can be raised easily. The $20,000 to $40,000 crowd will be penalized also, just to a lesser extent.

Wait, wait... So you're worried about all the people who are:

* Young adults
* Aren't covered by their parents' insurance plans
* Make $40,000+ a year...
* ...at a job that comes with no benefits?

How many people do you think that is, OOTB?

Thousands upon thousands. I personally know thousands of self employed people. or people who contract out their services. They pay their own taxes, all 25% of it and their own SS payments, another 15%. Now they will have to pay an additional 2.5 percent. This penalty, and the overall tone of the bill, is shifting more of the burden of health care to the middle class, plain and simple.

Most businesses are happy if they can operate at a 10% profit margin. Middle class households are operated the same. 25% of your profit margin is a sizable chunk.
26 months ago: Why should they care? They have government welfare, food stamps health care, federal GI welfare, medicade, medicare, SSI, restrictions on parking in handicapped zones while most handicap zones are used by people with a doctor on the payroll as they walk into the store, local restrictions on the aforementioned, state restrictions on the aforementioned, federal restrictions on the aforementioned. What happened to the liberal commune people? Was it not a commune with the people movement? Why are so many democrats such hypocrites?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: Check this Obama speech that mocks the hysterical hyperbole of the right:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa8GZoYB0...
26 months ago: Sigh... You're reaching these figures and conclusions by pretending the limits on insurance company behavior, the limits on insurance company profits, and the government assistance for poor and middle-income people (yes, including the self-employed) don't exist. All those people you worry about, OOTB? Those thousands? They'll be able to get assistance, they'll be able to get the hardship waiver.

And they'll be able to get cheaper insurance because as of 9/23/2010, insurance companies will be forced to spend 80-85% of the money they take in on health care, and refund the difference. They don't want to refund the difference, so it'll make more sense for them to lower premiums until they can meet that standard.

You're worried about thousands. I'm worried about the 32 million newly insured the law will generate, and how much of my tax money that will save, because they won't be getting all their care in the emergency room.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: "All those people you worry about, OOTB? Those thousands? They'll be able to get assistance, they'll be able to get the hardship waiver."

Show some black and white there, buddy-ro. Quote the limits in the bill for hardship waivers.

"And they'll be able to get cheaper insurance because as of 9/23/2010, insurance companies will be forced to spend 80-85% of the money they take in on health care"

Ok, so you're an insurance expert all of a sudden? Because every study and analysis done to date predicts anywhere from 15% to 30% increase in the 25 to 35 age bracket.

"I'm worried about the 32 million newly insured the law will generate"

I'm worried about the 22 million newly uninsured that the law will create.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: Yeah, I guess that's his job, to keep a divisive stance. But he seems to be advocating putting the cart before the horse, and saying, "let's just see if this plan will destroy our health care system first, and if it does, well, then we'll know!"
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: And driving it underground will only exasperate the plight of those get trafficked and infringes on the right of adults who voluntarily engage in the business for profit. People get trafficked into all kinds of enterprises such as the clothing industry (e.g. garment sweatshops) but we don't shut down the clothing industry - we simply try to root out the illegal activities that might infect it.

The issue of human trafficking is simply one excuse that they're using. The only reason is radical feminist ideology, and if you're a fundamentalist, it's conservative religious ideology. Two peas in the same connected pod.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: I would never presume to try to force morality, or immorality either for that matter, on any consenting adult. Rather than try to stop sex-slavery by shutting down one avenue, I would implement rescue measures, and stand by them, in which all sex trade workers would be required to go before a panel of experts in various social service fields, without their handler. There they could speak freely, without fear of reprisal, as to the conditions of their employment. The thorny issues would arise when one girl lies to protect the safety of another girl, or if a disgruntled stripper lies to get back at her boss.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
26 months ago: TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

The law does not prohibit specifically trafficking in persons, although a number of legal provisions may be used to prosecute such cases; trafficking was suspected in connection with the hundreds of foreign women who entered the country to work in striptease clubs. The main concern was that some of the women, especially those from Eastern and Central Europe, were being brought to Iceland under false pretenses and then coerced to work as striptease dancers or prostitutes. While most attention has been focused on Iceland as a possible destination point for trafficked women, there were some cases during the year that indicated that the country was also being used as a transit point for the movement of trafficked women between mainland Europe and North America. There were no reliable estimates on how many women this may involve.

In May, for the first time, formal charges of coercion were filed against a club. Four striptease dancers from Estonia told police that a club owner had pressured them into prostitution. Two Danish dancers lodged a similar complaint against the same employer. As of year's end, the cases remained under investigation, and no arrests had been made.

Parliament passed legislation in 2000 that closed a loophole that allowed striptease dancers to enter the country and perform without a work permit for up to 4 weeks under an exemption given for "artists." Any foreigner (except those from the European Economic Area) seeking to come to the country to work as a striptease dancer must first obtain a work permit, which is typically valid for 3 months. However, the Government has not yet put any numerical limits or other controls on the issuance of work permits for foreign striptease dancers. The clubs are allowed to bring in as many dancers as they want.

For the first several months that the new system was in place, the IFL vetted the work permit applications of foreign striptease dancers and ensured that their contracts afforded the minimal labor protections. However, the IFL announced in March that it would no longer take part in this process. Citing the suspicious circumstances under which these dancers come and work in Iceland, the IFL said it did not want to assist unwittingly in human trafficking. However, the Directorate of Labor decided that under the existing law, it had no choice but to continue issuing the work permits, even without the review of the IFL.

Human right monitors were critical of the fact that the striptease clubs continued to operate with few, if any, restrictions on their operations. There are no regulations, for example, mandating a minimal distance between dancers and patrons. A study on prostitution, commissioned by the Ministry of Justice and released in March, concluded that organized prostitution existed at some, if not all, of the striptease clubs. In the absence of national legislation, some municipalities have taken action on their own to prohibit the opening of striptease clubs within their jurisdictions. The City of Reykjavik was moving to restrict the location of new clubs to designated areas only. However, the changes were not expected to be retroactive and would not affect the existing clubs, most of which were located downtown

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinsl...
26 months ago: News flash...

Chippendales to move corporate offices off shore to Iceland. Yet another migration of jobs to third world countries. They are introducing a new fashion line of tool socks that will be introduced soon

With the recent news that Iceland has banned female strip clubs, Chippendales feels this is a chance of a lifetime to establish the first foothold in the new sex trade in Iceland. Fidel Castro commended Iceland and bought more shares of the growing Cuban bestiality stocks.

http://www.chippendales.com/

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave