First, and this is what the city (and presumably the voters, who said yes to this) is pushing: It is meant as a service to the prostitutes. They will be able to perform their work in a safe, controlled environment. It's easier to supervise and assist sex workers when they all work in a centralized location (condoms, psychological assistance, things like that. Also, the environment is more controlled on the John's side: Rapists and people who are out to hurt sex workers will simply not show up at such a place. Then there's also hygiene, and stuff like that.
Then again, the real reason for this is more straighforward: In Switzerland, we go by a "not visible, not troublesome philosophy". 20 years ago, this city had an open drug scene. Everyone was panicking. They clamped down on that and now the drug scene in Zurich is totally hidden, taking place in alleys ind dark corners that just don't seem to rile up the good people of Zurich anymore (except when it's your dark alley that theyre using to shoot up). Don't get me wrong here, there was much more to Zurich's drug policy than simply making the addicts invisible, but that was a big part of it too.
I really think that, aside from useful arguments about working safety for sex workers, this is a typically Swiss example of "we only care if we have to see it" or better yet "if we don't see it, we just don't have to deal with it"...
On the other hand, this solution, in practical terms, means better working conditions for alot of women that currently are exposed to very nasty working conditions.
So I'm not sure what to think of this. I voted yes though. But I can't lose the feeling that the majority of people that voted like me weren't really thinking about bettering the sex workers lives but rather had a "clean up the (inner) city" attittude.
= new reply since forum marked as read