Response to interpellation 2022/23:36 on prostitution as grounds for deportation from Sweden

Statsrådet Maria Malmer Stenergard (M)

Madam Speaker! Ola Möller has asked me whether I consider prostitution to be a ground for deportation from Sweden and how I intend to act based on my standpoint.

In accordance with the Tidö Agreement, the government intends to appoint an inquiry which shall, among other things, analyze the conditions for reintroducing the possibility of deporting foreigners due to lack of conduct. The inquiry is part of many measures in the government's initiative to achieve a responsible migration policy.

The investigation shall, among other things, analyze the legal possibilities of deporting foreigners due to lack of integrity from the perspective of both the Swedish Constitution and EU law, the European Convention, and other international law obligations. According to the Tidö Agreement, the investigation shall also produce legislative proposals to - to the extent it is possible - reintroduce a possibility to deport foreigners due to lack of integrity. This could, for example, involve association with a criminal, violent, or extremist organization or other environments that threaten fundamental Swedish values. Prostitution is also mentioned as an example, taken from previous preparatory works. It is, however, important to emphasize that the purpose of the proposal is not to deport people because they have been placed in a vulnerable position. What can serve as a basis for deportation due to lack of integrity shall be determined by the investigation.

I will act to ensure that our joint commitments in the Tidö Agreement are upheld.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ola Möller (S)

Madam Speaker! "I want you to understand that no one prostituted themselves because they wanted to. There is always an underlying reason. The happy whore does not exist." So says Louise Amcoff, whose book *Till männen som köpte min kropp* [To the men who bought my body] in a very clear but also very painful way has shed light on what it is about and what it is that drives a young girl into prostitution, into selling herself to men.

There is always an underlying cause, says Amcoff. Prostitution is not something a person – woman or man – chooses to enter into without some kind of negative drive: pure poverty as in the case of Syrian refugees, psychological and physical abuse as in the case of young people in Sweden, or a desperate need for money as in the case of addicts. They are victims of circumstances, many times completely without their own control – victims of structures that create glaring inequality where no other way out is seen than to seek out the destructive world that prostitution de facto is.

A Danish study has shown that when compensation is lowered for people who have been granted asylum, crime also increases within the group. It is also well known that prostitution is more common for the reason that one is poor when arriving in another country. It therefore increases when people become poorer.

The government seems to have understood that there are certain problems with the wording of the palace agreement. Therefore, we see in the minister's response – just as in the response to my colleague which will come in a later debate here today – that the wording regarding prostitution has disappeared, likewise the wording regarding substance abuse. Suddenly, that is not what the focus lies on. But pacta sunt servanda – agreements must be kept. Thus, the question arises regarding prostitution but also regarding substance abuse, which is actually a disease according to WHO – alcohol abuse and gambling addiction are diseases that must be investigated.

The argument is that this exists in previous preparatory works. But then one wonders whether, with these preparatory works, which are decades old, it has been taken into account that we have introduced a sex buying law and consent legislation, or that we have signed new conventions such as the Istanbul Convention, which deals with men's violence against women.

With this said, I can do nothing but wonder how prostitution ended up in the government agreement in the first place. Was it really so, there under the crystal chandeliers, that someone said that in the preparatory works for a number of decades ago, prostitution was mentioned? Or was it when the wine had flowed that someone said that those prostitutes are sinful, they do not belong here in our country, they contribute nothing – and therefore prostitution was included?

I understand that the Minister was not present when the Tidö Agreement was written, so I have respect if the Minister cannot answer how it was exactly there and then. But she must have had to argue for herself afterwards why prostitution is included. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister if she can give any single example of when a person who sells sex as their only act, for that is what prostitution is about, can be considered to need to be deported. Let me emphasize that it is the isolated incident of prostitution that we are talking about. If not, the Minister should be able to refer to what was stated in these preparatory works, which are decades old, which was the reason why prostitution should be a ground for deportation.

I also want to ask the minister if, like her colleague the Minister for Equality in the debate last week, she considers that those who prostitute themselves are not crime victims.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Ygeman (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer to Ola Möller's interpellation. But I am still a bit wondering, because in the Tidö Agreement, nothing is mentioned about those who facilitate or those who purchase sexual services.

The previous government tightened the possibility of deporting people who commit crimes, but here the government wants to do something else. They want to be able to deport people who have not committed crimes, due to a lifestyle that is perceived as negative. In that case, they choose to specifically point out the victims of sex trafficking and prostitution.

I simply wonder, Madam Speaker: What are the grounds for having chosen to single out prostitutes but not sex buyers or pimps?

Earlier in the debate, the revelations in Uppdrag granskning regarding congregations that participated in this horrific activity were mentioned. According to the government's logic, it is the people who have been subjected to this sex trafficking who are the most upsetting. They are to be deported, while those who have purchased sexual services or committed pimping could stay in Sweden.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, my rather simple question is once again: Why did the government choose to target the prostitutes instead of the sex buyers?

(cont.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)