There are three things that people think they know about the Swedish model.
- street prostitution has been reduced by half
- demand has reduced by about half
- the murder rate of prostitutes has decreased
All of these are wrong, or if it has happened it cannot be attributed to the 1999 law.
Street prostitution decreased to almost zero in 1999, then it gradually came back. In 2007 in Stockholm two thirds had returned. This is according to Prostitution in Sweden (National Board of Health and Welfare) page 33. In Scotland street prostitution decreased 'considerably' in the same period (Scottish Government, Exploring available knowledge and evidence on prostitution in Scotland via practitioner-based interviews 2017). Scottish police say that some of this may be because they became more difficult to count, a 'dispersal' resulting in 'lower visibility', or because they now sell sex indoors. The Swedish police stupidly don't accept this might be the case in their country. In Scotland they have seen similar reductions to Sweden but without criminalising men. Other countries have seen this too.
There were surveys in Sweden in 1996, 2008, 2011 and 2014. People were asked a number of questions. Have you bought sex in the previous 12 months? Have you ever bought sex? Have you ever sold sex? The first question is there to count active sex buyers: in 1996 1.3% of men answered yes, and in 2008 1.8% did. So there was an increase in men who buy sex. This in the incidence rate. There is also the prevalence rate, have you ever bought sex. This showed a decrease between 1996 and 2008 (13% to 8%), but then an increase between 2008 and 2011 (8% to more than 10%). Prevalence rates should never be used to try to track changes in behaviour. Women who have sold sex increased from 0.3% in 1996 to 1.1% in 2008. It's true that these figures went down later, but that can be attributed to the 2008 financial crisis, not the 1999 law.
The last prostitute to be murdered in Sweden was in the early 1980s. Since 1999 no prostitutes have been murdered. Changes in legislation don't seem to make much difference to murder rates anywhere in the world. It is not true that 127 prostitutes were murdered in the Netherlands after legalisation there.
So to say that prostitution and demand have decreased and that's why murders have decreased is totally wrong. Street prostitutes are estimated to be only 15% of prostitutes anyway, and to insist that they can't now be selling sex indoors or in less visible outdoor locations is wrong. People should use the incidence rate and not the prevalence rate. They show an increase after 1999 and then a reduction after the 2008 financial crisis.
I have dealt with the issue of incidence and prevalence rates in much more detail in my page end demand. I show what the true figures are and where they come from.
I used to think that in Sweden and other Nordic countries if two women chose to work together for safety then the worst that could happen to them is that their clients would be arrested on their doorstep. They would have to leave their place of safety and engage in more risky behaviour. You would think that considering that the Swedish system was supposed to be 'criminalising the buying but not the selling of sex'. Turns out I got that completely wrong: sex workers are punished severely in Sweden and Norway.
There are two things that can happen to them. First, they can both be prosecuted for running a brothel. They can both be treated as pimps. This might sound unlikely but this happens in Britain too. Secondly, the police can go to the landlord and say that the landlord is living off immoral earnings but that they will let him or her off if he or she evicts the sex workers.
Eviction happens to sex workers on their own too. At least in Britain prostitutes who work alone from flats are not breaking the law. So it seems that they are punished more harshly in Sweden and Norway than they are in Britain. In New Zealand up to four sex workers can work together without permission from the authorities.
Sex workers are harassed, deported and can have their children taken away from them. This is without women being able to defend themselves in a court of law. If the Swedish or Norwegian police found a particular woman troublesome I'm sure her name can go to the top of the list for eviction. A sex worker who has a blog exposing police harassment could be punished by eviction. I read the blogs of three sex workers, Maggie McNeill (US), Laura Lee (UK) and Felicia Anna (the Netherlands). If the Swedish/Nordic Model was adopted worldwide - as some people are campaigning for - they could be silenced. Also their blogs might be seen to be 'facilitating prostitution' as could mine.
It is said by some feminists that prostitution is violence against women. That has never made sense to me. It is persecution of prostitutes that is violence against women. This has been going on for centuries and continues in Sweden and Norway. If you really think that prostitutes are vulnerable, how can you think that making them homeless and stopping them working together for safety is a good thing? There is something dishonest about this attitude.
The new law criminalizing men was introduced in 1999. Surveys in 1996 and 2008 show that the number of men who paid for sex within the previous 12 months increased from 1.3% to 1.8%. There was another survey in 2014 that showed a decrease to 0.8%, but this was after the 2008 financial crisis when men had less money in their pockets.
I have quoted selectively from a comment made on a website by a Swedish sex worker called Pye.
"If we work from home our landlord can be charged with pimping if he doesn't evict us, needless to say landlords evict us at the mere suspicion."
"If we work together for safety we are charged with pimping each other. Anything that is seen as "facilitating prostitution" is by the definition of the law pimping, no financial gain or exploitation needs to be involved. So if I want a friend to drive me when I see a client in his home and want them to wait outside for my safety...pimping."
"And did I mention that there is no condom distribution in the the two biggest cities? Giving us condoms is "keeping us in the problem" and the national coordinator on trafficking and prostitution has stated that he thinks we can buy our own condoms if we make so much money."
I have copy-and-pasted the full comment below.
"Well I am a swedish sex worker and it is clear that the author has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. And I always find it kind of amusing when rightous people think they are so much more clever than UNDP, UNAIDS and WHO who are all for decriminlisation of sex work and against the Swedish Model (you doubt me, read the report of the Commission on HIV & the law). Back to Sweden...First of all, the Swedish Model does not decriminalise us. This law was put on top already existing abolitionist laws, not one law was repealed. If we work from home our landlord can be charged with pimping if he doesn't evict us, needless to say landlords evict us at the mere suspicion. If we work from an apartment we own we have forfeited the right to own iot if we sell sex in it. Hotelare taught by the police how to recognize us, if they dont kick us out...well pimping. In Norway sex workers are black listed from the major hotel chains and the police is encouraging neighbours to report suspected prostitution so they can get sex workers evicted. If we work together for safety we are charged with pimping each other. Anything that is seen as "facilitating prostitution" is by the definition of the law pimping, no financial gain or exploitation needs to be involved. So if I want a friend to drive me when I see a client in his home and want them to wait outside for my safety...pimping. Now why would I go to a clients home as that can be risky, well that and selling sex in the street are in fact the only two ways to work and ONLY be affected by the law criminalising the clients, so clearly our safety is not a major concern. And did I mention that there is no condom distribution in the the two biggest cities? Giving us condoms is "keeping us in the problem" and the national coordinator on trafficking and prostitution has stated that he thinks we can buy our own condoms if we make so much money. And supporters of the Swedish Model always go on about the fabulous support you get if you want to change job...well it's therapy and social wellfare which might work for some. However in the largest study done among indoor workers in Sweden only one out of 124 said they needed help and thought the state had resources to help them. Maybe not so strange when the very social workers that are supposed to "help" them talk with media and researches and says things about how useless it would be to give us rape alarms, we just go with clients and get raped anyway. Last time the state documented the "Prostitution Unit" in Stockholm (thats you fab exit program) was in 2011. During that year they had 42 clients.....But in Norway the biggest opposition to the law comes from the main service provider in Oslo, a part of the councils social wellfare system, as they actually understand that this law is not only refusing us rights, but in fact removes some rights. But I guess social workers that claim that violence is worse and there is increased police harassment are not to be trusted either, yes its there in the Norwegian evaluation. It also says that the amount of police reports of violence against sex workers is the same as before the law and later states that service providers says that sex workers now are less likely to report crime. That does not equal violence going down, rather indicates quite the opposite. But worst of all is that the stigma is way higher. It's actually the one thing everybody agrees on. Like a high police officer said "It's not supposed to be easy to sell sex". But hey, I'm just another foot soldier, why trust me. So directly from the Swedish state's own evaluation: “People who are currently being exploited in prostitution state that the criminalization has intensified the social stigma of selling sex,They describe having chosen to prostitute themselves and do not consider themselves to be unwilling victims of anything. Even if it is not forbidden to sell sex, they feel they are hunted by the police. They feel that they are being treated as incapacitated persons because their actions are tolerated but their wishes and choices are not respected.” Then, a few sentences later, it says: “For people who are still being exploited in prostitution, the above negative effects of the ban that they describe must be viewed as positive from the perspective that the purpose of the law is indeed to combat prostitution.”
It has been said that sex workers are safer in Sweden after the law was introduced than in the Netherlands. There are a number of points to be made about that.
- New Zealand is the best model for decriminalization not the Netherlands or Germany
- it looks as if the number of deaths of sex workers have been decreasing since decriminalization in the Netherlands
- the number of deaths of sex workers in Sweden is about the same before and after the introduction of the law
- there were no deaths of sex workers in Sweden in the 9 years up to the introduction
- there has been 1 death of a sex worker in Sweden since the introduction
- sex workers are more visible - often registered - in the Netherlands than in Sweden so no one really knows how many are killed in Sweden
- Swedish sex workers avoid the police
There weren't murders in Ipswich until a serial killer turned up. The vulnerability of sex workers means that more will be killed if and when there's a killing spree. Forcing them to work on their own and making them homeless makes them more vulnerable. People who oppose sensible changes in the law - the sort of changes that Amnesty International wish - will have to take responsibility when women are killed. It makes no difference if it's the Swedish model or the American model, they are essentially the same.
Amnesty found that sex workers in Norway were routinely evicted by the police. Guardian 03/08/15 Molly Smith
The Problem With the "Swedish Model" for Sex Work Laws also by Molly Smith
Fitzgerald’s ‘Swedish Model’ Bill omitted to decriminalise soliciting – the law that directly targets people who work on the street, the most clear and direct form of criminalisation that sex workers in Ireland are subject to. Then, in January 2016, Fitzgerald amended her Bill to increase the penalties for “loitering in a public place for the purpose of offering … services as a prostitute”, upping the previous maximum of four weeks jail time to a new maximum of six months, and doubling fines. also by Molly Smith
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 police notify owners of apartments / offices / hotels where prostitution is found that they will charged with pimping, if the tenancy is not terminated from The Oslo report on violence against sex workers examined on a feminist site Feminist Ire.
In Norway, women engaging in sex work are evicted from their homes and also deported, according to Amnesty. If the police find condoms, by searching someone who is carrying them, they consider them evidence of criminal activity. Sex workers remain “at high risk of violence and abuse” but rarely turn to the police. The New York Times magazine 25/05/16 Emily Bazelon
Impacts of the Swedish Criminalisation of the Purchase of Sex on Sex Workers under the Swedish model police have refused to prosecute rapes reported by sex workers
First arrest made under Northern Ireland's new offence of paying for sex Chief constable reveals man and three women have been arrested in brothel raid as sex worker steps up legal fight to overturn controversial law Guardian 05/11/15 Henry McDonald. One man and three women? If the new Northern Ireland law is like the Swedish law why were three women arrested? Aren't the sex workers supposed not to get arrested? Not only are the sex workers arrested, but it seems they are arrested more often than the men.
Swedish sex workers are tormented by the threat of eviction Pye Jakobsson, co-founder of the Rose Alliance, a Swedish sex workers’ organisation, says that of her group’s nine board members, three have been thrown out of their homes Guardian 08/08/14 Michelle Goldberg
"Contrary to assertions that “police definitely don’t interfere” with sex workers, police can use pimping laws to ‘interfere’ with sex workers directly. Where it is illegal to provide premises for prostitution, landlords are obliged to evict sex workers, or face prosecution themselves. Police have been known to inform landlords that their tenant(s) sell sex, thus forcing the eviction. Sex workers working together for safety, as well as anybody cohabiting with a sex worker, can also be targeted, prosecuted for pimping one another or sharing in the income of prostitution, respectively." from this site.
Jonas Trolle, Detective Superintendent of Stockholm's Police Surveillance Unit said this to the BBC.
"I think it should be difficult to be a prostitute even though it is not forbidden in Sweden. So even though we don't put them into jail, we say OK we will make it very very difficult for you to act as a prostitute in our society, even though we see her as a victim."
I see her as a victim too, but I see her as a victim of Witchfinder General Jonas Trolle and people who think like him. I don't believe him when he says 'we don't put them into jail'.
The Scottish Government did a report on the effectiveness of the 1999 Swedish law that criminalizes men who pay for sex. It is called Evidence assessment of the impacts of the criminalisation of the purchase of sex: a review. It was published in 2017.
There is a section in this report about the impact of the Swedish law on demand. I have copy-and-pasted this below, then there is my comment on this evidence.
Impacts on Demand
The overall picture appears to be one of continued, but decreased demand for prostitution in countries where the purchase of sex has been criminalised. The Swedish Institute (2010) indicates that men state they are less likely to purchase sex in Sweden as a result of the legislation although noting that the number of prosecutions under the legislation is largely dependent on the priorities set by the police and the resources they have available. In Finland, where the purchase of sexual services or offering sexual services against payment is prohibited in a public place and where a partial sex purchase ban was enacted in 2006 prohibiting the purchasing of sex from a victim of human trafficking or procuring (Niemi and Aaltonen, 2014), a survey conducted in 2007 found that purchasing of sex had slightly decreased among young men but had dropped by as much as half among middle-aged men since 1999 (2007 Finsex survey cited in Niemi and Aaltonen, 2014).
The deterrent effect of the law may be anticipated, but is difficult to evidence empirically.
Professionals working with clients in the Swedish context who participated in a study conducted by Levy (2015) who is critical of the legislation, reported that clients do not tend to cite the law as being the reason why they have attended services to access support and notes there is limited evidence as to how the Swedish Sex Purchase Act may have impacted on clients' attitudes towards purchasing sex. Based on their review of research and reports on the criminalisation of the purchase of sex, Dodillet and Östergren (2011) write that some clients were not particularly concerned about the prospect of detection.
Prior to the criminalisation of the purchase of sex in Northern Ireland ( NI), a multi-method study including an online survey and face to face interviews with sex workers and clients as well as phone interviews with nine representatives across NI councils, was conducted to explore the potential impacts of the criminalisation of the purchase of sex (Huschke et al., 2014). A key finding from the survey was that more than one third of Northern Ireland-based clients did not know what the legal context of prostitution was. From face-to-face interviews with clients (N = 10), none had established the legal status of prostitution before paying for sex.
Mujaj and Netscher (2015) compared population-based surveys to specifically explore the purchase of sexual services in Sweden (i.e. whether men had bought sex during the past 12 months, rather than whether sex had ever been purchased), in order to measure how many people were 'active' buyers. In 2014, approximately 0.8 percent of the men surveyed had bought sexual services during the past year (Mujaj and Netscher, 2015). This compared with 1.2 percent of the men surveyed in 2011; 1.8 percent in 2008; and, 1.3 percent in 1996 (Mansson, 1998; Kuosmanen, 2008; Priebe and Svedin, 2010 cited in Mujaj and Netscher, 2015).
Supporting the evidence of a reduction in the purchase of sex provided by Mujaj and Netscher (2015), the Nordic Gender Institute (2008) (cited in Claude, 2010: 15) also claim that the number of sex buyers in Sweden has declined since the introduction of the sex purchase law. A poll, taken to determine whether the law had influenced individual patterns of behaviour, compared results with those of a similar poll taken in 1996. The findings revealed that the number of male sex buyers in these studies had decreased from 13.6 percent to 7.9 percent, where each poll questioned 2,500 individuals between 18 and 74 years of age.
Wilcox et al. (2009) highlighted studies which showed that men are more likely to buy sex when they are abroad than at home. Similarly, Kuosmanen's (2010) survey research on public attitudes of men who said they had purchased sex (based on a small sub-sample of 41 men), noted that 71% reported that their most recent purchase of sex took place abroad. Studies in Finland, which has partially criminalised the purchase of sex, have similarly found that sex is primarily purchased abroad (Lammi-Taskula, 1999 and Marttila, 2008 cited in Kuosmanen, 2010). Kuosmanen (2010: 258) concludes that the context in which sex is purchased is "substantially dependent both on the domestic market and the extent to which it is regulated by legislation and other norms in the area".
Kulick (2003 cited in Levy, 2015) provides some evidence of sex workers using the legislation to blackmail or extort money from clients, who are unlikely to contact the police given that the purchase of sex is prohibited, however this appears to be an issue which happens in prostitution generally as clients may be broadly reluctant to contact the police and to disclose their purchase of sex (also noted by the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Police Affairs (2004)).
Ekberg (2004), the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Police Affairs (2004) and Waltman (2011a and b) note the considerable emphasis that is placed on reducing exploitation and addressing those who exploit and profit from the sale of sex as third parties. SOU (2010) claims that the law has limited the growth of the sex market and subsequently, the involvement of organised criminals in prostitution in Sweden.
Jakobsson and Kotsdam (2013) using data on 46 European countries from UNODC and the International Labour Organisation ( ILO), while noting the limitations of available data, draw a positive correlation between prostitution legislation and rates of trafficking, with restrictive legislation associated with lower rates of human trafficking. Although outwith the remit of this review and heavily caveated, other data appears to support this claim, for example Cho et al. (2013).
Below are my comments on all of the evidence given above.
The Swedish Institute 2010 research does not say that men are less likely to purchase sex, it says that they are less likely to purchase it in Sweden. They might be more likely to purchase it in Denmark or another country.
The Niemi and Aaltonen 2014 research in Finland found the number of middle-aged men who paid for sex decreased, but this was since 1999. So no Finnish law could have influenced this. There was a law in 2006 but was 'a partial sex purchase ban' similar to the one in Britain.
The Levy 2015, Dodillet and Östergren 2011, and the Huschke et al. 2014 studies come to no conclusions.
The Mujaj and Netscher 2015 study says there was an increase in active sex buyers from 1.3 percent in 1996 to 1.8 percent in 2008. It did drop later but how can that be attributed to the 1999 law? The number of male sex buyers did NOT decrease from 13.6 percent to 7.9 percent: this is not the figure for active sex buyers but men who have paid at some time in their lives which is different and problematic. This figure rose in 2011.
The Wilcox et al., Kuosmanen 2010, Lammi-Taskula 1999, and Marttila 2008 studies all seem to be saying that men are likely to buy sex when abroad. This is relevant to the first point.
The Kulick 2003 and the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Police Affairs 2004 studies are not commenting on evidence of success in restricting demand.
The Ekberg 2004, the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and Police Affairs 2004, and Waltman 2011 studies are not commenting on evidence of success in restricting demand.
The SOU 2010 study (by Chancellor of Justice Anna Skarhed) claims that the law has limited the growth of the sex market and subsequently, the involvement of organised criminals in prostitution in Sweden. There has been no reduction in the sex market and speculation about how it would have grown had the 1999 law not happened is just speculation based on exagerated estimates of the size of the Danish sex market.
The Jakobsson and Kotsdam 2013 and Cho et al. 2013 studies are just guessing. Nobody knows how much trafficking there is. Even if there was less trafficking there is no causative link between the law and amount of trafficking. This doesn't have any connection to the issue of demand.
So, looking at all the studies, there is no evidence that demand has decreased.
No comments:
Post a Comment