Prostitution in Sweden
The laws on prostitution in Sweden make it illegal to buy sex, but not to sell the use of one's own body for such services. Procuring and operating a brothel remain illegal. The criminalisation of the purchase of sex, but not the selling of one's own body for sex, was unique when first enacted in Sweden in 1999. Since then, this "Nordic model" for sex trade legislation has been adopted in several other nations.
History of prostitution in Sweden[edit]
Prior to the 18th-century[edit]
Prostitution is not mentioned in any law texts in Sweden in the Middle Ages, and was thus not formally a crime. However, under the influence of the church, sexual acts outside of marriage were criminalised for both sexes regardless of circumstances, which also affected prostitutes. The normal punishment for extramarital sexual relations was fines or (if the accused was unable to pay them) pillorying, whipping, or other disciplinarian physical punishments within the Kyrkoplikt.[1] The ban on extramarital sex was the same in cases of actual prostitution: when the activity of the madam Sara Simonsdotter was exposed in the capital in 1618, she, her staff and clients were all sentenced to various punishments for fornication in accordance with the ban of extramarital sex.[2]
Eighteenth century[edit]
The earliest law to explicitly ban prostitution was in the Civil Code of 1734, where procuring and brothel-keeping were punished with whipping, imprisonment and forced labor, and prostitution at a brothel with forced labor.[3]
From 1724 onward, unmarried women in Stockholm with no certification asserting that they were supported by a legal profession, a personal fortune or by a sponsor guaranteeing their economic support, could be arrested for vagrancy and placed at the Långholmens spinnhus to prevent them from supporting themselves "indecently", which was frequently used against prostitutes.[4]
High-class courtesans, who met their clients at the theater or opera and received them in the client's home or their own, were protected from the police by a certificate of sponsorship by a client, or by having an official legal profession on paper, usually as an actress or singer.[5]
There were no brothels in a formal sense in Stockholm or Sweden prior to 1839. During the 18th-century, the brothels, such as the famous elite brothel Platskans jungfrubur, were in actuality simply a temporary locale, often the home of a procuror, where the procuror arranged a meeting between a potential client and a prostitute, rather than a house where a group of prostitutes lived together and received clients on a permanent basis.[6] There were also the famous horbal ("whore ball"), were procurers arranged a ball between several potential clients and prostitutes in a temporary local such as an inn: one such ball was arranged in a wing at the Stockholm Royal Palace in secrecy in the spring of 1768, when the royal court was absent, and caused a scandal when it was exposed.[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.[8]
Continuing political and public debate[edit]
After passage of purchase law (1998)[edit]
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.
On 3 May 2009, Hanna Wagenius[160] of the Centre Party Youth introduced a motion to repeal the sex purchase law, arguing that it did not help women involved in prostitution and that trafficking had actually increased since the law came into effect. The motion was passed 56: 39.[161][162]
In October 2009, Centre Party MP Fredrick Federley introduced a motion for repeal of the law.[163]
He also wrote a commentary in the 9 October Aftonbladet, explaining this - Avskaffa sexköpslagen! (Abolish the Sex Purchase Law!).[164]
In May 2010, the law was criticised by Swedish MP Camilla Lindberg (Dalarna, Liberal)[165] in an interview[166] with Dalarnas Tidningar, who favoured a regulated system.[167][168][169]
After publication of the evaluation (2010)[edit]
The law continues to remain controversial in Sweden, with regular debates in the media. On 30 January 2011, writing in Newsmill,[170] Helena von Schantz challenged the Liberal party leadership as to why it supported the lengthening of sentences for buying sex.[171]
These penalties came into force on 1 July 2011.[172]
In 2011, a research paper on the consequences of the Swedish legislation to sex workers concluded that the realisation of the desired outcomes of the legislation is hard to measure, whereas the law has stigmatised the already vulnerable sex workers.[173][174]
In April 2012 the Program on Human Trafficking and Forced Labor issued a report on the effects of the law, concluding that it had failed in its purpose.[175] In July 2012, a report by the UN-backed Global Commission on HIV and the Law recommended all countries to decriminalise "private and consensual adult sexual behaviours", including same-sex sexual acts and "voluntary sex work". It specifically pointed out that this also applies to the Swedish model, claiming it has actually resulted in consequences for the sex workers, even though reported as a success to the public.[176] Further criticism has come from the Network of Sex Work Projects.[177]
Criminalising the Purchase of Sex: Lessons from Sweden (Levy 2015)[edit]
An academic book by researcher Dr Jay Levy was published in 2015, and addresses the outcomes of the criminalisation of the purchase of sex in Sweden. The book is informed by fieldwork and interviews undertaken with sex workers in Sweden between 2008 and 2012, and also includes interviews with policy makers, politicians, police and social workers. Levy emphasises that the sex purchase law has resulted in numerous harms associated with sex work, and has not been demonstrated to decrease levels of sex work, as it sets out to. It concludes: "Harms associated with sex work have been shown to be increased through repression and criminalisation. This is the case internationally, and it is specifically true for Swedish abolitionism. Redefined social constructions and dominant discourse have sent signals to broader Swedish society, with the abolitionist feminist discourse that frames the sex purchase law coming to inform prejudice and stigma, feeding detrimentally into service and healthcare provision, police attitudes, as well as opposition to harm reduction. Furthermore, law and policy have resulted in sex work in Sweden becoming increasingly dangerous and difficult for some, notably the most vulnerable sex workers and those working on the street. To all of these escalated harms caused/exacerbated by Swedish legislation, policy, and discourse must be added the sexköpslagen’s failure to diminish levels of prostitution. In short, the law has failed to achieve its objective of demonstrably reducing levels of sex work and in addition there is evidence the law and its justificatory discourse have caused significant harm to sex workers; Swedish efforts to export the criminalisation of the purchase of sex are based on the unfounded assertion that it has been successful and has not been detrimental."[178]
Current legal status[edit]
Purchasing sex (Brottsbalk 6.11)[edit]
Sweden's Sex Purchase Act (Swedish: Sexköpslagen), enacted in 1999, makes it illegal to purchase "sexual services" (sexuell tjänst), but not to sell them. The rationale for criminalising the purchaser, but not the seller, was stated in the 1997 government proposition, namely that "...it is unreasonable to also criminalise the one who, at least in most cases, is the weaker party who is exploited by others who want to satisfy their own sexual desires".[179]
The Act (amended to be part of the Criminal Code, or Brottsbalk in 2005)[180] states: