(cont.) Response to interpellation 2022/23:36 on prostitution as grounds for deportation from Sweden
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned whether prostitution should be able to constitute grounds for deportation from Sweden. M argued that the investigation should examine whether persons living in conflict with democratic principles can be deported 1 2 3. M emphasized that deportation should not occur solely because someone is vulnerable, but that men who exploit women should be considered 1 2. M pointed out that prostitution could previously lead to deportation as it was not considered an honest means of livelihood 2. S questioned why it is specifically prostitutes and not sex buyers who are mentioned in the government agreement 4. S argued that the government misses the goal of protecting prostitutes if they are not seen as crime victims 5. S questioned whether the sale of sex is undemocratic and whether all prostitutes are vulnerable 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! It may not be a miracle of agility in the debate when one is forced to take a two-hour break in the middle, but we shall see what we can achieve.
When I have, among other things in Sveriges Radio, answered questions about prostitution as one of the grounds for deportation, I have been very clear. It concerns examples from previous legislation, and it concerns whether an investigator may look at whether this, as well as certain other circumstances, should be able to serve as a basis for deportation in the future. It does not aim to deport people solely because they are vulnerable.
When one mentions prostitution, one must also not forget that there is also the aspect of men exploiting women.
Ola Möller, in his opening remarks, took up a statement by my colleague the Minister for Equality and asked whether I, like her, meant that prostitutes were not victims. I think it is incredibly important that we can have this debate. I am glad that we live in a country where one can debate freely. I can also understand that there are objections to the Tidö Agreement. Naturally, that is what one should have as the opposition. But I still believe it is important that we relate to what has been said in a factual manner.
I note that this was what the Minister for Equality said: "According to our definition of sex buying, those from whom one buys sex, namely, are not crime victims. They do not have crime victim status according to the legislation we have today. If, on the other hand, one is subjected to human trafficking or severe pimping, one has crime victim status according to the definitions we have in Swedish legislation today. Otherwise, one has the status of a witness."
That was what she said, and I have no other definition of this. However, it is clear that we are to fight against the men who in various ways exploit women in an improper manner. I want to be very clear about that.
Claims such as those coming from Ola Möller regarding what I and others have said and have not said actually only take focus away from what is important here, which is that after many years of Social Democratic rule, we have had a societal development that gives reason to investigate whether there should be more grounds for deportation than those that today's legislation allows. We mean that the societal development gives reason for it, and this is therefore not foreign to Swedish law but something we have had even previously.
I believe that most are in agreement that we have failed with integration for many years. If one has many people who find themselves in Sweden without wanting to integrate and become part of society and instead actually act contrary to the basic principles that apply to the Swedish democratic society, it is a major problem. If integration is to work, people who live here actually also need to want to become part of Swedish society and strive to the utmost to do so as quickly as possible. If, on the other hand, one does not have such a will and finds oneself in environments linked to, for example, criminal gangs, clans, or extremist groups and has no intention of changing this, we must ask ourselves whether one really should stay in Sweden. Does Ola Möller actually think that it is problematic?
Exactly how this is to proceed, again, this investigation will of course look closer at, as well as how it works in other countries. I do not want and do not intend to anticipate such an investigation.
Ola Möller (S)
Madam Speaker! It is always interesting when one does not want to answer questions, which the Minister now shows a reluctance to do, and instead talks about everything else. My question was about whether the Minister can give some good examples, or bad ones, of when prostitution can be grounds for deportation. That is what the entire interpellation was about, not all the other things. I also think there can be reasons to deport persons on grounds concerning violent extremism and so on, but that is not what this debate is about.
When it comes to the issue of crime victims, it is not entirely crystal clear where the line is drawn. The Minister said that I had asked if she thought the prostitutes were victims. No, it is about whether she thinks they are crime victims.
Lawyer Karin Gyllenring says in Expressen on October 16: "In this context, I would rather see it as that the one who sells sex is a crime victim who is subjected to serious criminal activity - large networks that span across all of Europe or different parts of the world." The view of prostitutes as crime victims is obviously not crystal clear in the legal world.
The Minister's colleague, the Minister for Equality, had a long tirade about the crime victims and everything the government intends to do to strengthen them. That is good in itself. But if those who are prostituted are not to be considered crime victims because they sell, the government misses the entire goal of protecting that group.
The same applies to the measures that the Minister for Equality highlighted regarding men's violence against women. They miss the entire group of male prostitutes that exists.
Somewhere here I want to return to the core issue. Let us focus on prostitution. Give an example, Minister, of when prostitution alone can be grounds for deportation! Also explain why old legislation that no longer applies, which is outdated and which we have abolished, should be something to dig into! With that argumentation, we could also discuss whether homosexuality should still be regarded as a disease, as it has been in old legislation, or whether child abuse is a good way to raise children. It is simply not relevant!
That is why I wonder if anyone, when the Palace Agreement was being written, sat and reflected on what the old preparatory works said, or if the people who raised prostitution thought: No, that sinful lifestyle has no place in Sweden.
Instead of talking about everything else, we are therefore focusing now on prostitution, even though I would also like to consider the issue of substance abuse. Should one deport gambling addicts solely because they have a gambling addiction, which WHO classifies as a disease? But I will let the minister off the hook this time. Give an example of when a prostitute should be deported! Can the minister not do it, not give a single thought about when it is appropriate to deport someone just because of prostitution; must the minister provide a better argument for why it is included in the Palace Agreement than that it stood in an old preparatory document.
The purpose is to deport prostitutes, otherwise it wouldn't have been stated there. The will is there, otherwise it wouldn't have been mentioned.
Anders Ygeman (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister wondered if there would be a lively debate after the break. We have had a two-hour break. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising that the Minister, during these two hours, has not managed to come up with any answer to the simple question of why the Palace Agreement singles out prostitutes. Why does one want to make it possible to deport prostitutes but not sex buyers? That is the entire basic question. Why should it be possible to deport prostitutes, whom you yourselves have chosen to take up as an example, but not sex buyers, whom you have not chosen to take up? What is the background to that?
It cannot be that there are [no] preparatory works, as the Minister expressed. There are masses of preparatory works on sex purchases and sex buyers. There would have been much to dig into. The question is why, during that evening at the palace, after some cognac, it was concluded that regarding prostitutes we can investigate if they should be deported - sex buyers, no.
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! What we say in the Tidö Agreement is that we shall appoint an inquiry to investigate in which cases it may become relevant to deport persons who have a lifestyle that stands in conflict with the basic democratic principles in Sweden and if there is an action that can constitute grounds for deportation even if it in itself is not a crime that reaches the level that it would usually lead to deportation.
Since it is the case that this is not finished legislative text, even though Ola Möller seems to want to interpret it that way. I am very glad that it is not he who will be interpreting this agreement going forward. We say that we shall appoint an inquiry. I have great respect for the work that the inquiry will do and do not want to anticipate it.
The reason why prostitution is mentioned – and I thought I was very clear about that in the answer, but I can repeat it – is that it was included in the legislation that previously applied in Sweden. We listed some circumstances that previously led to deportation. That does not mean that it should lead to deportation going forward. That is for the investigation to look into. I have been very clear in my answer when I have said that people should not be deported solely because they are vulnerable.
However, Ola Möller, I have mentioned that one should consider men who exploit prostitutes. Could there be reason to look at whether this can in some way constitute grounds for deportation? I think this investigation should look into that.
I would like to ask a question to Anders Ygeman. It was not long ago that Anders Ygeman was Minister for Migration and so to speak maintained a legislation that still applies today and which means that one can deport prostitutes because they are judged not to be supporting themselves in an honest way. This has also occurred under Social Democratic watch in Sweden. If one now thinks that it is so unreasonable, one might ask why nothing was done about that legislation, which in practice then meant that women who engaged in prostitution were forced to leave the country because they could not support themselves in an honest way.
Ola Möller (S)
Madam Speaker! This is interesting, because now the Minister says it is about the democratic foundation - that is what is at issue. If one conducts an activity that is not democratic, one should be able to be deported. That is why it is stated in the Palace Agreement.
The immediate follow-up question is whether it is undemocratic to sell sex. The Minister said it is about whether one respects Swedish democracy. Selling sex is legal in Sweden, so I can say that it is a leading question whether it is undemocratic to do so. It should not be, but the Minister may, of course, have a different opinion.
It is also about what the minister said regarding that no one who is vulnerable should be deported. Then the question arises whether the minister means that there are prostitutes who are not vulnerable. If the answer is yes, the minister deviates quite sharply from, for example, the introduction here before the break, which was about that all women and men driven into prostitution are obviously vulnerable.
If it is instead the case that everyone is vulnerable - then they should not be deported, according to the Minister. And then the follow-up question is why prostitution should be included. Should tax money be used to investigate something that the Minister already knows will not come to pass? They are a waste of tax money, if nothing else, and cause a lot of anxiety among people who will feel stigmatized and singled out. Am I allowed to stay in the country, I who am poor and vulnerable?
I have, therefore, two questions: Is it democratic or undemocratic to sell sex when the democratic criterion is apparently the basis for this paragraph in the Palace Agreement? And are all prostitutes vulnerable?
Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)
Madam Speaker! I intend to repeat what I said earlier: If many people are in Sweden without wanting to integrate and become part of society and instead act contrary to the fundamental principles that apply to Swedish democratic society, it is a major problem. Therefore, we want to investigate the possibility of deporting people who live in conflict with them. An important part of our fundamental democratic values is, for example, that all people regardless of gender are equally worthy.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.