Requirement for permit for public dance events at locations that are not public abolished
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M considers the abolition of the dance permit to be a long-awaited freedom reform that reduces bureaucracy and costs for entrepreneurs 1, as the requirement is outdated and based on archaic morality 1. V considers the law to be an unnecessary micro-management of people's lives and freedom 2 and that the permit is an unnecessary bureaucratic order 2. C considers it absurd to require a permit for spontaneous dance 3. MP considers that Sweden becomes freer and less micro-regulated through the reform 4. L considers that the law was outdated even when it was introduced 5, motions for approval of the proposal 5 and argues that dance finally becomes free 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Charlotte Nordström (M)
Mr. Speaker! Today is a day of joy. It is a step closer to more freedom and less bureaucracy. Now, the permit requirement shall be removed.
It is almost as if one would like to say: May I, Mr. Speaker? But one does not. One does not defy the law in the legislator's chamber. One must wait calmly until July 1st. But then, Mr. Speaker!
Think of how many crimes have been committed since 1956, when the law came into force. The dance situation means that a bar or restaurant owner must have a special permit for dancing. If spontaneous dancing occurs without a permit, it must be stopped immediately, otherwise the owner risks receiving both fines and having their serving permit revoked.
It is therefore illegal to take a few dance steps and keep the beat when it sparkles in the body to some nice tones in the background. That is how it is today, everything according to Chapter 2, Section 4 of the Public Order Act. Dancing at a restaurant or bar without a dance permit is therefore illegal today.
At the time of the provision's inception, there had been debates for many years about the increasing prevalence of dance events and about "immoral" music, alcohol consumption, and uncontrolled meetings between young men and women.
The Riksdag has on several occasions dealt with motions to abolish the permit. It is said that between 2007-2014, 24 motions were submitted to abolish the dan permit.
The requirement for a permit has, in other words, long been a subject of discussion. The requirement is bureaucratic, unnecessary and outdated, and it is based on archaic morality. It is also a costly and administratively burdensome burden, and regulatory simplifications for small business owners are important and necessary.
Mr. Speaker! The criticism that has been raised against the condition is reasonable and justified. The requirement for a dance permit is unjustified and disproportionate. We have no desire to forbid or restrict individuals' dancing - no, on the contrary.
Think that a single word in the Public Order Act Chapter 2, Section 4, the word "danstillställningar" (public gatherings), can mean so much. It is a single word that has caused trouble for so many years. And so slow it has been to get it removed, despite the somewhat unanimous politics of recent years.
As early as 2016, the Riksdag decided that the ban on [the word] should be abolished. Isn't that strange? One should probably consider not only obsolete old laws but also the enforcement processes. But now the word is to be removed.
Requirement for permit for public assembly at a location that is not public abolished
The motions submitted in the matter are satisfied by the bill, and for that very reason, it is requested in due order in our working procedures that these be rejected.
This is a freedom reform and a step in simplifying and streamlining in order to improve. It improves for an industry. But it is also a step in precisely streamlining the police's tasks.
It is outdated for the state to approve whether people are allowed to dance or not. It is high time that the permit requirement for dance events is removed.
This is a long-awaited freedom reform. By removing the requirement for a dance permit, bureaucracy and costs for entrepreneurs and others who organize dances are reduced.
Mr. Speaker and dear colleagues! Let this bill be guiding for more regulatory simplifications for individuals and companies and more freedom in Sweden.
Mr. Speaker! I strongly and gladly support the committee's proposal in the report and the government bill which means that the state of emergency is abolished.
Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)
Mr. Speaker! Finally, Mr. Speaker, we get a law that allows us to be permitted to dance and arrange a public dance event in a place other than a public place. It was truly about time. Vänsterpartiet belongs to those parties that have early motioned on this issue and pushed for the unreasonable dance ban to be removed.
Today, a permit is required to organize a public demonstration, regardless of where it is held and without regard to its nature or scope. It is an archaic, outdated, and unnecessarily bureaucratic order.
Dance is a fantastic art form and a way of expressing oneself, and furthermore, there are many who dance simply because it is fun and wonderful. Dance has, however, throughout the ages been surrounded by great moralism and was, for example, during the first part of the 1900s considered capable of corrupting the youth's morals and leading to violence, crime, and much other misery. It was also during this period that the requirement for a permit to arrange a public dance event was introduced into the public order act.
Despite the fact that the attitude towards dancing has completely changed and the vast majority today have a very positive view of dancing, this antiquated legislation remains even today. The dancing status means that a bar or restaurant owner, in addition to all other permits needed and criteria to be met, also needs a special permit for people to be allowed to dance in the premises in question. If guests at a bar lacking a dancing permit were to start dancing, the dancing must be interrupted immediately – otherwise, the owner risks being fined or having their serving permit revoked.
One can wonder what counts as dancing. Is it enough that I stand up and move a little carefully to the music?
Most regulations within the restaurant industry are important to ensure people's safety and health, but we do not consider the operating permit to be one of them.
In order for a pub to obtain a serving permit, an assessment is made. In connection with this, the fire authorities also carry out an inspection to ensure that the premises in question meet fire safety requirements. If the applicant has successfully obtained a serving permit, the procedure of also applying for a dance permit should be superfluous. Vänsterpartiet considers the dance permit to be an unnecessary micro-management of people's lives and freedom and, furthermore, unnecessarily bureaucratic. Additionally, dancing is arranged in many other places that are not bars or restaurants.
The state of danstillstånd has been debated for a long time in the Riksdag, and on two occasions, the announcements have been directed to the government, in 2016 and 2020. Now we have finally arrived. I am convinced that many across our elongated country welcome that we are now finally abolishing an outdated, archaic, unmodern, and unnecessarily bureaucratic legislation on danstillstånd. I am pleased that the committee stands united on this issue.
Jonny Cato (C)
Mr. Speaker! That it is required in Sweden today for guests at, for example, a restaurant, nightclub or bar to be allowed to dance is simply absurd. If someone stands up in a spontaneous dance without a permit, the business owner risks being hit with a fine or imprisonment of at most six months. It is actually completely crazy.
Mr. Speaker! It has happened to me, as a former competitive dancer in my teens, that spontaneity has struck, and I have danced in the most unusual places. The truth is that according to the law, I could take a basic step in rumba here and now. I could, if I wanted to, if I hear a good song on Spotify on my way home in the subway, dance where I stand or sit. I could dance in the grocery store, at Sergels torg, or at the pedestrian crossing. I can dance almost anywhere I want, but many would probably look at me and think it was a bit strange. Perhaps the only place where it is natural to dance publicly, at least for me, is at the nightclub, and it is precisely there that a permit is required for me to be able to do my moves.
Therefore, there is only one way to summarize this debate: finally! Finally, we are abolishing the state of emergency.
Sweden has many and large societal challenges. The abolition of the residence permit is obviously not the most important of the issues. But it is an incredibly important issue, which has become a clear example of Swedish bureaucracy when it is at its absolute worst.
All parties in the Riksdag have long been in agreement on abolishing the permit requirement, and yet it has not happened. For me, the abolition of the permit requirement is truly a freedom reform because it crushes the Swedish bureaucracy when it is at its worst. The permit requirement has been an unnecessary hurdle for entrepreneurs, an outdated law for controlling people in the smallest detail.
Many cities and municipalities in Sweden are completely dependent on a functioning pub and restaurant life. One such municipality is my beloved Helsingborg, where the center's development is completely dependent on a functioning pub and restaurant life. It is also about an industry that many times gives the country's youth an opportunity to get their first foot in the labor market.
Given the tough years that the pub and restaurant industry has had, we need to truly have discussions moving forward on how we can make it more attractive and easier to run a pub and restaurant. The abolition of the liquor license probably does not solve the industry's major challenges, but let it instead become the starting point for how nightlife in Sweden can become better, healthier, and above all, much more fun.
Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, too many politicians' attitude towards the pub and restaurant life, and not least the nightlife, is that it is something problematic and, in the name of honesty, many times a slightly dirty issue to touch upon and pursue. And it is only to be noted that there, just as in many other industries, there are deviations that are directly problematic and criminal. Let us go hard against the deviations, the unserious entrepreneurs, instead of against the industry as such.
I have personally, over the years, met an enormous number of skilled and serious pub owners who want nothing more than to give guests a fantastic taste experience or young people a safe, festive, and really fun Saturday night that they can talk to their friends about all week. Let us take this as the starting point for a serious discussion with Krogsverige moving forward regarding which further legislative changes are needed.
Mr. Speaker! I will agree with the Moderate member - one cannot be anything but very happy that it is no longer necessary for the publican to have a permit for their guests to be able to stand up with a beer in their hand and perform a spontaneous dance.
Sweden has many challenges, and it is tough times for many. Then we also need to become a slightly more fun country. This is hopefully a first step on the way. And who knows, soon perhaps one can even buy a bottle of wine or a couple of beers directly from the producer, where the drink is produced.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Finally! Many of us have motioned in the Riksdag on the issue of abolishing the requirement for permits for demonstrations, and many opinion leaders who have highlighted and driven the issue have reason to be happy today. Sweden becomes a little happier, a little freer, a little better and a little less detail-regulated - and that is not every day.
The objections to this have often been that it is not the most important issue or a prioritized issue. That is quite true. I have not heard anyone claim that it would be. It may not be on the top 100 list or even the top 1,000 list. But, Mr. Speaker, one must also be able to deal with things that do not belong to the very most necessary.
It is almost always easier to introduce rules that may not be the most necessary than to abolish them. In some moments and situations, for some people, starting to dance can be the most important thing right at that very moment.
I will not perform any victory dance of joy, at least not right now. But I do actually feel a joy. Even though my visits to pubs are not as frequent as I might wish, I look forward to being able to spontaneously dance badly at a pub in not too distant a future, sometime this summer perhaps. There is nothing in this committee report that requires it to be in time or rhythm.
Juno Blom (L)
Mr. Speaker! Eleven years ago, Mathias Sundin, my liberal representative from Östergötland, submitted a motion regarding the abolition of dance permits. The law on dance permits means that if the guests at a bar without a dance permit start dancing, the dancing must be stopped, otherwise the owner risks being fined and having their alcohol permit revoked.
In the motion, Sundin points out that between the 1920s and the 1940s, a debate took place in Sweden regarding the impact of dancing on people, the so-called "dance hall misery" (dansbaneeländet). Dancing was considered to corrupt the morals of young people and lead to violence and crime. It was then that the requirement for a permit to organize public dance events was introduced into the Public Order Act. It remains there even today, 67 years later.
Then, eleven years ago, Sundin was still hopeful, which he expressed in an interview with Sveriges Radio: "I believe the chance is better now than ever. It is very strange that a permit is required to dance. If some people start dancing spontaneously, it is an illegal act. We have a problem with too many rules and unnecessary bureaucracy in this country, says Mathias Sundin."
But it would turn out that it was not entirely simple to get a majority in the chamber on this decision. Sundin did not give up but continued his struggle in this chamber. In 2015, he chose to increase the stakes to get a majority to understand the futility of holding onto the requirement for a state of emergency.
Mr. Speaker! In this chamber, Sundin embodied in words and actions the absurdity of the legislation that we will today make a decision to remove. I remember how Sundin in a vivid way showed what the law considered to be prohibited dance and which movements to music the law could accept. To sway was okay, both sitting and standing, but to spin is a violation of the law.
I share Sundin's assessment that the law was outdated even when it was introduced in 1956 as an attempt to curb an immoral trade among girls and boys at the dance halls all over Sweden.
Inertia wins. In 2016, a decision was made in this chamber that the ban should be abolished. The previous government was given the task of implementing the decision.
Now, seven years later, it becomes a reality. One does not immediately blow away the pace of work when it comes to executing certain decisions.
But in January 2023, I could see on social media a follow-up on Sundin's interpretive dance steps when ministers Strömmer and Waltersson Grönvall took a turn to celebrate the decision that the legislation requiring dance permits is being abolished.
Mr. Speaker! On July 1, Sundin's appeal to stop pausing and start dancing finally becomes a reality. And the police no longer need to spend their precious time issuing dance permits to restaurants and nightclubs so that their guests are allowed to spin a full turn in time to the music or inspect that the guests are solely engaged in swaying when the music streams out into the premises.
Finally, the dance becomes free, Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of the committee's proposal.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.