Tag Archives: european union

The Nordic Model Of Prostitution Law Reform Is A Myth A Post On “The Conversation” Argues

A very interesting article on The Conversation by May-Len Skilbrei, Associate Professor at University of Oslo and Charlotta Holmström, Assistant Professor at Malmö University, entitled “The Nordic Model of Prostitution Law Is A Myth”.

The “Nordic model” of prostitution is often heralded for being particularly progressive and woman-friendly, built on a feminist definition of prostitution
as a form of male violence against women.
France
has moved to adopt a Nordic-inspired approach; policy makers are
urging
the UK to do the same. But the idea of such a model is misleading, and in no way tells the whole truth about what is going on in the region where it supposedly
applies.

We recently gave a talk titled “The Nordic model of prostitution policy does not exist”. The aim was to provoke reflection and a discussion, but also to
tell the truth about prostitution policies in the Nordic countries.

We have researched Nordic prostitution policies since the mid-nineties, and in particular headed a large comparative
project
on Nordic prostitution policies and markets in 2007-2008. In our work, we examined how Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden approach prostitution
through criminal justice and welfare policies, and reviewed the evidence for how these policies impact Nordic prostitution markets and the people who work
in them.

We found that the differences not only between, but also within, the Nordic countries are too great for there to be anything like a shared “Nordic” model
– and that the case for their success is far more fraught than popular support would suggest.

Only Sweden, Norway and Iceland have acts unilaterally criminalising the purchase of sex. Finland has a partial ban; Denmark has opted for decriminalisation.
The “Nordic model”, then, is in fact confined to only three countries.

These countries’ laws prohibiting the purchase of sex are often
depicted
as ways to redistribute the guilt and shame of prostitution from the seller to the buyer of sex. However, this was by no means the only argument for their
introduction. Contrary to many common
feminist appraisals,
these laws do not in fact send a clear message as to what and who is the problem with prostitution; on the contrary, they are often implemented in ways
that produce negative outcomes for people in prostitution.

In truth, while these laws have attracted flattering attention
internationally,
the politics and practices associated with them are very complex. In particular, they are sometimes applied in conjunction with other laws, by-laws and
practices specifically aimed at pinning the blame for prostitution on people who sell sex, particularly if they are migrants. For these and other reasons,
the Nordic countries’ approaches must be judged with caution – and none more so than the most popular example, the case of Sweden.

Where Sweden leads

Sweden often attracts particular attention in discussions of how to deal with prostitution, not least since reports from the Swedish government conclude
that the law there has been a success.

It has often been
stated
that the number of women in visible prostitution in Sweden has decreased since the Sex Purchase Act (Sexköpslagen) was introduced in 1999; the Swedish
police
describe
the act as an efficient tool for keeping trafficking away from Sweden. The law has broad support among the general public in Sweden, and this has been

interpreted
as a result of the law having its intended normative effect on opinions of prostitution. But given the available evidence, none of these points is fully
convincing.

The claim that the number of people involved in prostitution has declined, for one, is largely based on the work of organisations that report on specific
groups they work with, not the state of prostitution more generally: social workers, for example, count and get an impression based on their contact with
women in street prostitution in the largest cities. There is no reason to believe that other forms of prostitution, hidden from view, are not still going
on.

The oft-cited 2010
Skarhed report
acknowledges this – but still concludes that the law is a success based on the number of women in contact with social workers and police. Men involved
in prostitution, women in indoor venues, and those selling sex outside the larger cities are therefore excluded from the scope of the report.

This excessive focus on street prostitution handicaps many
accounts
of the law’s implementation, which tend to simply repeat Swedish authorities’ claims that the Sex Purchase Act has influenced the size of the prostitution
markets. They ignore the fact that since 1999 or so, mobile phones and the internet have largely taken over the role face-to-face contact in street prostitution
used to have – meaning a decline in contacts with women selling sex in the traditional way on the streets of Sweden cannot tell the whole story about the
size and form of the country’s prostitution markets.

Meanwhile, the Swedish Sex Purchase Act is often
said
to be an effective tool against human trafficking. The evidence for this claim is weak; Swedish authorities have backed it up with
something said
in a call intercepted by the police. The official data that does exist is vague;
some authors
have also pointed out that the act may have raised prices for sex, making trafficking for sexual purposes potentially more lucrative than ever.

There is also scant evidence for the claim that the law has had its advertised effect on the perception of prostitution and people in prostitution. Even
though
surveys
among the general public indicate great support for the law, the same material also shows a rather strong support for a criminalisation of sex sellers.
This contradicts the idea that the law promotes an ideal of gender equality: instead, the criminalisation of sex buyers seems to influence people to consider
the possibility of criminalising sex sellers as well. This rather confounds the idea that the “Nordic model” successfully shifts the stigma of prostitution
from sex sellers to clients.

Values in practice

Ultimately, prostitution laws targeting buyers have complex effects on people far beyond those they are meant to target. In addition to this complicating
factor, the Nordic countries also police prostitution using various other laws and by-laws. Some of these regulations do, in fact, assume that the women
who sell sex are to be punished and blamed for prostitution. This goes to show that one should be careful in concluding that Nordic prostitution policies
are guided by progressive feminist ideals, or that they necessarily seek to protect women involved in prostitution. The most telling example of this the
way the Nordic countries treat migrants who sell sex.

In Sweden this is embodied by the
Aliens Act,
which forbids foreign women from selling sex in Sweden and is used by the police to apprehend non-Swedish or migrant persons suspected of selling sex.
This reveals the limits of the rhetoric of female victimisation, with clients framed as perpetrators: if the seller is foreign, she is to blame, and can
be punished with deportation.

In Norway, we see similar gaps between stated ideology, written policies, and practice. Even though it is completely legal to sell sex, women involved in
prostitution are victims of increased police, neighbour and border controls which stigmatise them and make them more vulnerable. The increased control
the Norwegian police exert on prostitution markets so as to identify clients includes
document checks
on women involved in prostitution so as to find irregulars among them. Raids performed in the name of rescue often end with vulnerable women who lack residence
permits being deported from Norway.

Taken together, the Nordic countries’ ways of approaching prostitution have been presented nationally and understood internationally as expressions of a
shared understanding of prostitution as a gender equality problem, an example of how women’s rights can be enshrined in anti-prostitution law. But after
looking closely at how the laws have been proposed and implemented, we beg to differ.

For the original article please visit, http://theconversation.com/the-nordic-model-of-prostitution-law-is-a-myth-21351).

 

2050

It was a lovely sunny day. A gentle breeze russled the leaves of the trees in London’s Saint James Park. Ian Miller gazed out of the window of his office. He smiled at the sight of the little children with their black or mixed race nannies. The children played happily under the watchful gaze of the servants. “Gods in his heaven and alls right with the world” popped unbidden into Ian’s head. The United Kingdom in the year 2050 was a stable and prosperous country and Ian was proud that in some small way he was responsible for maintaining that peace and tranquillity.

Ian shuddered as he remembered the chaos which had engulfed the country in the 2030s and early 2040s. Following the UK’s decision to leave the European Union in 2015 the economy had nose dived. The EU had erected trade barriers putting UK PLC at a competitive disadvantage as the country’s manufacturers had to pay heavy tariffs in order to do business with the EU. The decision to exit the EU also meant that the free flow of labour and capital was stifled leading to economic stagnation and growing social unrest. Racial tensions had grown with large numbers of white Britons blaming black and other ethnic minorities for the countries difficulties. Black and Asian businesses had been attacked and to counter the onslaught gangs of black and Asian youths where formed to protect their communities.

Cometh the hour, cometh the man. In 2035 the British Patriot Party (BPP) was formed by a group of disaffected people on the far right of the Conservative Party. For a brief period the party was led by the charming but ineffective Lord Microft. The party’s programme emphasised a return to governance by the landed and business elites, the reintroduction of national service, harsher punishments for criminals including the death penalty for murder and a halt to all future immigration. In January 3036 Microft was replaced by John Marks a small businessman from Leeds. The party’s programme was extended to appeal to a broader cross section of disaffected white Britons. Demands for the reintroduction of the death penalty and national service where joined by a proposal to “encourage the voluntary repatriation of non whites with generous resettlement grants to their countries of origin”. The Programme went on “We recognise that not all black and other minorities will wish to leave the UK. Anyone wishing to stay is welcome to remain, however in return for the hospitality afforded to them by the United Kingdom they will be expected to serve the indigenous (white community). Non-whites who remain will be treated humanely, however they will not be permitted to own property (other than personal possessions, E.G. clothes), all rights to own property will be restricted to the indigenous (white) peoples of these islands”.

The party saw a steady growth in support among all sections of the white community. The working classes where attracted by the prospect of the removal of black and other ethnic minority competition to their labour while the middle class liked the party’s emphasis on social order. Unlike other parties of the far right Marks was careful to avoid any hint of association with Nazism. Any member who expressed public admiration for Nazi Germany was immediately expelled and the wearing of Nazi style uniforms resulted in a life long ban on party membership. This rejection of Nazi and Fascist ideas convinced people who would never have considered voting for an avowedly Nazi party to join or at least to cast their vote for the party at local and general elections.

The general election of May 2040 saw the election of a weak coalition of conservative and liberal parties. The inability of the coalition to govern lead to the calling of a fresh election in May 2041. While the BPP didn’t win a majority it held the balance of power and following the failure of negociations between the Conservative and several smaller parties on the forming of a coalition Marks was summoned to Buckingham Palace by the Queen and asked to form a government.

To be continued