Last week, an appeals court in Sweden upheld a decision in favour of a tavern owner and security staff who had denied entry on three separate occasions to Asian-looking women. The tavern admitted judging these women by their appearance, but said they had barred them in order to prevent prostitution from taking place on their premises. Police had told the tavern owner that this was going on, and that Asian women were involved. These particular Asian women weren’t though, and they brought a discrimination claim.
The women lost in the lower court, and then lost again on appeal. According to my best Google Translate, the appellate court found that preventing prostitution is an “inherently legitimate reason” which justifies the means that was taken by the tavern, even though the effect was to bar women from their premises who had done nothing more than appear to be Asian. That’s not unlawful discrimination, according to the Swedish courts.
There are a couple things going on here. First, of course, there’s the blatantly racist nature of the policy, now formally endorsed and legitimated by a Swedish judiciary which sees nothing wrong with singling out women of colour for whore stigma. It’s not particularly surprising that racialised women would bear the brunt of a policy aimed at a migrant-dominated industry, but the court’s seal of approval institutionalises racism within Official Sweden’s zero tolerance approach. Of such a priority is the Swedish state’s war against sex work that all else can be thrown by the wayside, even principles ordinarily regarded as pretty fucking basic in a supposedly advanced democracy.
The second thing is that this decision exposes the lie that the Swedish law is not about targeting sex workers. Of course it is. They may not be targeted for prosecution, but the Swedish authorities are more than happy to go after them with any other means at their disposal. They go after them with immigration laws, with the power to refuse them custody of their children; they stake out their homes. They have already involved non-state actors in their war, as when they train hotel staff to monitor the habits of female guests; now, it seems, other branches of the service sector are also being drafted into the Prohibitionist Army. Whose policy seems to be one of “shoot first, ask questions later”.
I don’t think there’s much risk of a similar court judgment in Ireland, even should the Swedish model be adopted here. Our Equal Status Act does allow for denial of services where it is believed that serving the person would give rise to a substantial risk of criminal activity, but “discriminatory grounds” are specifically excluded as a valid basis for that belief. The reason for that exclusion is so that pubs and shops and hotels cannot cite criminality by some Irish Travellers as a reason to deny entry to all of them, so it’s rather unlikely that the courts would allow use of a similar justification to bar all women from ethnic backgrounds popularly associated with prostitution.
But what the Equal Status Act says and what actually happens in pubs and shops and hotels are two different things. And just as Travellers are, in fact, routinely denied entry on discriminatory grounds in spite of the law, women who are seen as being “high risk” for prostitution because of their racial appearance could well find themselves being subjected to a de facto discrimination door policy. This is particularly likely to happen if the law creates “an offence of recklessly permitting a premises to be used for the purposes of prostitution”, as recommended by the Oireachtas Justice Committee and supported by the Turn Off the Red Light campaign and its member organisations, several of which operate in the migrant advocacy sector. If this law is passed and migrant women become collateral damage in the Irish war against sex work, as they have in the Swedish and Norwegian wars, will these groups also shrug it off as an “inherently legitimate reason”?
Fairly legitimate to refuse someone if you think there are a prostitute, even somewhere it is legal. It would be the same as refusing people with football uniforms on.
Why are those legitimate? Sure, restricting clothing if you have a dress code. But otherwise? Are potential prostitutes a threat to other customers, or to staff? What harm are they going to do?
I won’t deem it at all a threat to customers, but I don’t run a bar or go in bars. I personally see no reason to let these people in but if others have different judgement that’s their business.
You have a general right to refuse service, but (in Ireland anyway) that right is qualified by the equality laws. Where the refusal amounts to direct or indirect discrimination against people based on their membership of any of the nine protected categories, that is unlawful. A policy of barring Travellers from pubs because you hold stereotypes about Travellers is unlawful. A policy of barring Asian women from pubs because you hold stereotypes about Asian women is likewise unlawful. It doesn’t matter whether that stereotype is one that would legitimately allow you to bar the person if proven true in their individual case.
I don’t know about that. If people are free to do what they want to create their image, so must bars and organizations. For the same reason high end shops may only want to employ a certain personality of person.
“Personalities” are not covered under the anti-discrimination laws. Race and gender are. That’s the difference.
If they barred all women who wear the uniform, the clubs would be empty.
Funny how after throwing off the yoke of the English, who banned public amusements and dancing and so created Irish dance (hands below the waist, no smiling), the Irish are so keen to impose horrible anti-fun laws on themselves. A law against “recklessly” allowing prostitution to happen on your premises (ie: this means the act of agreeing to exchange money for sex, not necessarily the sex itself) means that clubs, bars, any public business of any sort at all must be shut down. When the hookers move to coffee shops (if her ipod is red, she’s on the game), those will have to go, too. Then probably the public libraries.
Eventually, hookers will have to resort to plying their trade in the lobby of the magistrate’s courts. Let’s see how serious they are about eliminating the dreadful scourge of prostitution (women are *forced* into it, you know) then.
Pingback: Sex workers are still targeted under the racist...
Pingback: Prostitution und Menschenhandel (1): Die Wahrheit über das “Nordische” und “Schwedische” Modell | menschenhandel heute
Pingback: Sex workers’ safety should matter to all of us | A Thousand Flowers
Pingback: The Swedish Model - From Cupid's journals
Pingback: Abortion and Sex Work: It's the Same Fight - From Cupid's journals
Pingback: The Swedish Model: Oppression, Scandinavian style | Jillian Hollander's Blog
Pingback: Sex work and Abortion: It’s the same fight | Jillian Hollander's Blog