Prostitution in Sweden
[7] In 18th-century Stockholm, there were concerns that coffee houses that were managed by women, financed by former rich lovers, were in fact masked brothels, as were often pubs and bars, where the waitresses were suspected to be prostitutes.
[8] These were often raided by the police, who occasionally forced the female staff to subject to physical examination to prevent the spread of sexual diseases, but this was done without the permission of any specific law.
[9] Between 1838 and 1841, an attempt was made by the local authorities in the capital of Stockholm to establish state control over prostitution, and thereby sexual diseases, through an experiment with private licensed brothels, London and Stadt Hamburg, but without success.
An abolitionist office, the Svenska Federationen, was established in Sweden in 1878, [13] and eventually protests, including women's movements in the 1880s, [14] and collaboration with the anti sex trafficking organization Vaksamhet, [15] led to the commissioning of an inquiry in 1903, reporting in 1910.
The 1939 prostitution commission proposed criminalising prostitution-related activities as part of the fight against such a social evil, including the actions of clients, although for law and order reasons rather than moral.
The 1960s brought the widespread questioning of sexual mores to Sweden, and, for the first time, the notion of prostitution as normative, together with proposals for re-establishing state brothels.
[9] The resulting government bill (5 February 1998) packaged both commission reports together as a Violence Against Women Act (Kvinnofrid),[37] including criminalisation of purchase in the prostitution provisions[38] and measures to combat sexual harassment in the workplace.
The Liberal People's Party argued that prostitution would be merely pushed underground, while the Christian Democrats wanted both the sale and purchase of sex criminalised.
Messing's agenda was expansive: "I believe that in 20 years, today's decision will be described as the big leap forward to fight violence against women and to reach Kvinnofrid.
[35] Today, the law is largely uncontroversial across the whole political spectrum, the view of prostitution as a legacy of a societal order that subordinates women to men being officially accepted.
Parliamentary activity continued, including the introduction of bills to criminalise the selling of sex, and to promote the Swedish approach and oppose liberalisation of laws on prostitution worldwide.
In April 2005, the law was amended as part of a reform of sexual crimes to add the clause "That which is stated in the first section also applies if the payment has been promised or made by someone else" to include procurement by a third party, which was acknowledged as a loophole.
The Government hosted conferences on trafficking, sexual violence, and prostitution as a comprehensive entity,[57] and issued Fact Sheets outlining official Swedish policy in a variety of languages.
Alliances were formed with prohibitionist anti-trafficking groups such as the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women,[59] and representations made at higher levels such as the European Union, Council of Europe and the United Nations.
In Skilbrei and Holmström's critical review of the data and reports that have been published, they note that knowledge concerning the size of the market before the ban was primarily based on whom the social workers came into contact with.
[81] Evaluation of the law creates considerable conceptual burdens, especially given the expansionist claims of the rationale and objectives, which include not only the eradication of prostitution, but also of violence against women, and a cultural shift in sexuality values.
The issue of unintended consequences was raised by critics of the proposed legislation in Sweden in 1996 three years before it took place,[90] namely that it would drive women in prostitution underground, increase the risk of violence, harm the most vulnerable, and be almost impossible to enforce, which some claim has happened.
One group of scholars, politicians, and NGOs made a submission to the Commission on 17 March 2008, arguing that the Government should provide a civil rights remedy to people in prostitution in order to support their exiting the trade.
"According to the National Criminal Police, it is clear that the ban on the purchase of sexual services acts as a barrier to human traffickers and procurers considering establishing themselves in Sweden."
[132] At the time of the release of the report, the Littoringate affair (see above) was occupying the media, leading people to question the law's purpose and underlying rationale when even government ministers were ignoring it.
[137] Some of the debate raised the broader question of state paternalism versus individual choice, and whether there should even be moral laws (Morallagar),[138][139] given the pending Swedish elections on 19 September 2010.
[149] This was then followed by a joint manifesto from parliamentary candidates of five political parties, including Helena von Schantz (Liberal) and Hanna Wagenius (Centre), attacking the evaluation process and report as "immoral".
[153] In the United Kingdom, one supporter of the Swedish approach, Julie Bindel, stated that she hoped that the evaluation would put an end to the claims that the sex-purchase law had been detrimental.
[154] A researcher who conducted fieldwork in Sweden over four years with sex workers, Dr Jay Levy, conversely notes the 'critical' evaluation was mandated not to actually criticise the law, and so was biased from the outset: "any possible evidence pointing to a failure of the 1999 legislation was deliberately sidelined in the report’s directive.
[155] In Queensland, Australia, the state government body responsible for regulating prostitution, the PLA, issued its own critique of the Skarhed Report, describing it as rhetoric that was not substantiated by evidence.
[160] Although the political scene had changed by 2005, the parties that had voted against the sex purchase law in 1998, and were now in power, no longer opposed it, and it became a non-partisan issue, although individual politicians still questioned the wisdom of the policy.
The Act (amended to be part of the Criminal Code, or Brottsbalk in 2005)[181] states: 6.11 Den som, i annat fall än som avses förut i detta kapitel, skaffar sig en tillfällig sexuell förbindelse mot ersättning, döms för köp av sexuell tjänst till böter eller fängelse i högst sex månader.
Vad som sägs i första stycket gäller även om ersättningen har utlovats eller getts av någon annan.
6.12 Den som främjar eller på ett otillbörligt sätt ekonomiskt utnyttjar att en person har tillfälliga sexuella förbindelser mot ersättning, döms för koppleri till fängelse i högst fyra år.
Om en person som med nyttjanderätt har upplåtit en lägenhet får veta att lägenheten helt eller till väsentlig del används för tillfälliga sexuella förbindelser mot ersättning och inte gör vad som skäligen kan begäras för att få upplåtelsen att upphöra, skall han eller hon, om verksamheten fortsätter eller återupptas i lägenheten, anses ha främjat verksamheten och dömas till ansvar enligt första stycket.
