And the Elephant in the room is Moroccan Muslim criminals. The source of most of Amsterdams crimes and exploitation. Liberal, tolerant societies only work in monocultural societies with Western values.

"Sex-positive" is such a b.s. term. Funny how the only way to be "positive" about sex is to allow women to be used like objects. You can't like sex unless you're into women being used as breathing blow-up dolls. That's such a disgusting way to view sex. By the way, I like sex when it's between human beings, instead of one person viewed as an object and the other who gets off on treating women as interchangeable body parts. I'm also a former "sex worker", and the friend of many others who spent time in the life. The "work" is exploitative, dangerous, and soul-destroying. Those of us who did it were drug addicts, desperately poor and uneducated, or both. But that's what some creeps want for women. It's called misogyny. I hope you will consider circulating an apology for this out-of-touch, self-righteous comment.

I lived in the Dam for many years and count amongst my very close friends some very important people within the capital. Old money. The problems is not prostitution, the problems is immigration. Any crack down on drugs or prostitution is a crackdown not on the Ho’s but on the immigrants that today run the show. Prior to 1990 the red-light district was mainly Dutch run and owned. Then the Bosnians and Serbs started turning up, and with a blink of an eye the violence erupted. Any fewl know that outside of the tourist traps, there are dozens, hundreds of similar areas to the “tipplezones”. The problem is that thousands of immigrants arrived. They had come from an environment of slaughtering and raping lifelong friends and neighbours. Why would they change and adopt the Dutch culture. Do not blame the business. Blame the operators.

AC gallantly jumping in to defend the rights of men to use women like a toilet. It's also a crystallization of the left-globalist worldview and ought to be locked away in a time machine to be opened in a hundred years for the great granddaughters of forced prostitutes to understand the pains intelligent people went to in 2012 to defend evil.

I fail to understand "Out will go at least half of the window brothels, sex shops and cannabis cafés". What about the other half of this "failed experiment"? Why are they still there?

Here you go - one of the very many reports on the Netherlands since legalisation. www.wodc.nl/images/ob249a_fulltext_tcm44-83466.pdf

Wow, someone sure is angry that some people choose to treat women as humans!

This article is unfortunately rife with errors, strongly biased opinion, speculation and ungrounded assumptions which I highlight below: Firstly, it begins by stating that “politicians, police, citizens and even many of the prostitutes themselves are admitting that state-sanctioned prostitution is a failed social experiment”. The article though does not include any evidence on which this statement is based. It refers to statements from, one man, 5 prostitutes or former prostitutes – only one of whom comments on legalisation – and the mayor, who refers to the issue of a particular “tipplezone” and not the legalisation of prostitution. Comments on the legalisation of prostitution are given only by one policeman and the deputy mayor. It appears likely that the article is attempting to generalise the apparently anti-legalisation views of the deputy mayor into a widely held opinion that legalisation is a failed social experiement. Secondly, the article continues by referring to “almost ten years of evidence that criminal gangs control the red-light area of De Wallen” yet does not mention one such piece of evidence so that the reader can read it or evaluate it for themselves. The following sentence then includes a statement that half of the cannabis cafes will go “out” yet in no way explains why this is relevant to an article on the sex-industry. Thirdly, the article then describes the phenomenon of “loverboys” yet, again, there is no reference to any evidence on which this information is based. Has the author come across this information from indirect research, on-the-ground, empirical research, interviews with victims, NGOs, shelters etc. or simply from speculation? Fourthly, the article alleges that, of the “huge influx of desperate, vulnerable women coming to the EU from Eastern Europe, Africa and southeast Asia”, “most” will have been trafficked by criminal gangs or individual entrepreneurs. Again, however, this statement is unsupported by statistics or even estimates based on empirical research. Neither is the allegation that there has been a “sharp rise in heroin and crack cocaine abuse among prostitutes”. Over what period did this rise occur? If there has been such a rise in drug abuse, what evidence is offered that the rise is limited to the sex-work industry rather than more widespread? Fifthly, the article sardonically proclaims that “Since legalisation there are no ‘pimps’ in Amsterdam’s red-light area. Men who own the windows and brothels, and live off the earnings of prostitution, are now ‘managers’ or ‘facilitators’.” This statement, quite apart from the implicit and ungrounded judgment therein, obscures the reality that women too can and do own windows and brothels and act as managers in the sex-industry in Amsterdam. Sixthly, the quote from Lena from Estonia following the description of a customer coming out of a brothel zipping up his trousers seems to have no objective relevance to the success or failure of legalisation to address organised crime or to provide safety to sex workers. It is simply an inflammatory vulgarism in this context. The quote itself would be more relevant and better suited as well as less disrespectful to the interviewee if it were included in a piece on, for example, improving self-respect in prostitutes as a strategy for providing safe alternatives to the sex industry. Seventhly, the article alleges that “Legal prostitution, including sex shops and live sex peformances, attracts as many visitors to Amsterdam as its art galleries and canals.” Yet again no statistics or evidence are presented to ground this statement. Eighthly, the statement regarding the former deputy mayor Rob Oudkerk is rife with vagueries. It not only does not specify what “lost his position” means exactly (resigned? Was asked to resign? Failed to be re-elected? Was ousted?) but it is phrased in such a way that it is utterly unclear whether he “lost his position” because he frequented prostitutes, because the prostitutes he frequented included streetwalkers or because he (somehow) “would have known” that they were in the country illegally or that they were drug addicts. It does not make clear whether the situation arose because he availed of a legally provided service or because of issues surrounding the use of that service i.e. that the prostitute in question may have been an illegal migrant or under the influence of drugs. Ninthly, the article cites the refusal to renew the licences of 37 prostitution entrepreneurs, seeming to suggest that this is evidence that legalisation has not prevented organised crime. However, this lacks logic. If prostitution were illegal these 37 “prostitution entrepreneurs” could just as well still be operating underground without ever having come to the attention of the authorities. The fact that prostitution is legal and regulated inherently reduces the clientele (and prostitutes) available to illegal “entrepreneurs” which in turn reduces the likelihood that these particular 37 enterprises which have been denied licences can continue to function. Tenthly, the deputy mayor, Asscher, is quoted as saying that “the signs were not good. There is lots of crime in this part of the city.” Out of context this remark is almost devoid of meaning. It is utterly unclear what he feels is the basis for the existence of “lots of crime in this part of the city” – legalisation of prostitution as is implied or lack of effective regulation of a legal industry or other reason? Eleventh, the author claims that registration of prostitutes with the government is “an unlikely scenario for those in a stigmatised and clandestine sector”. This personal assumption lacks any supporting evidence or reasoning. It contradicts the earlier statement by Lena which implies that using sexual services is not considered “dirty”. Further, precisely because prostitution is legal in the country means that it is prima facie less clandestine than if it was illegal. Twelfth, the content of the Prostitution Framework Act is attacked as “a last-ditch attempt to address some of the worst consequences of legalisation” and alleged to be “almost certainly too little, too late for a city awash with under-age, trafficked and otherwise coerced prostitutes.” This is problematic from a number of points. It does not state what the consequences of legalisation are. It seems to imply they are organised crime, trafficking and drug abuse yet it offers no causal link at all. That these are issues which plague the sex-industry is undeniable but that they are a consequence of legalisation is not in any way clear in the article or indeed elsewhere. Other than the vague assertion that registration is an unlikely scenario, it offers no analysis of the provisions or why they are “too little”, “too late”, “a last-ditch attempt” or otherwise insufficient, inadequate or due to fail. It offers no statistics or empirical or other evidence to justify the sweeping statement that the city is “awash” with under-age, trafficked or otherwise coerced prostitutes.” Thirteenth, the article quotes a research study proclaiming that 19 out of 103 interviewed men who pay for sex had travelled to Amsterdam to visit the window brothels. There is no reference to what study this is, where it was carried out, by whom, when or using what parameters. Fourteenth, the article then contains a quote from “one of the men” which compares Amsterdam to going through a turnstile into a fairground ride and to finding this “a big turn-off”. While this may be a valid opinion to include in an article on the pro’s and con’s of availing of the services of prostitutes it in no way enlightens the reader on the pro’s or con’s of legalisation of prostitution and is therefore provocative and redundant. Fifteenth, and perhaps most grievous, the article displays a shocking disrespect for and silencing of its own interviewees when it patronisingly suggests that two prostitutes who, according to the article itself, have worked in the industry in the same area for 50 years have “a rose-tinted view”. It patronises, minimises and renders these women irrelevant in their own lives. Sixteenth, the article refers to the Mr. A. de Graaf Foundation asserting that it originally promoted the view of prostitution as harmful. It then states that it changed its focus during the government’s consideration of the new law and that it was a recipient of generous state subsidies during this period. Tying these two statements together in this manner contains a clear implication that the change in views of the organisation was bought by the “generous state subsidies”. This is a grave and potentially libellous implication which, yet again, is supported by exactly no evidence. Similarly, the article states that a representative of the Prostitution Information Centre has said that trafficking is rare in Amsterdam. This fact is closely followed by a statement that the Centre conducts excursions through the prostitution area. Again the implication seems to be that the Centre’s view is linked to its ability to earn income from the continued legality of the sex-industry. Such bald implications are completely unjustified in the text and totally unprofessional in the journalistic industry. Seventeenth, the article quotes one former escort who spent (only) one month in the window brothels of Amsterdam. She states that “No one would be there if there was any other choice.” This statement of opinion is included in the article without any reference to contradictory opinions or the entire body of sex-positive literature and sex-industry supportive literature which seeks to promote women’s right to choose to enter the sex-industry and asserts – on the basis of testimonies – that women do indeed choose to enter the industry. Finally, I hope you consider circulating an apology for this piece of unprofessional journalism.