David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

On his own bladder be it.

To challenge the question of the Swedish experience, I quote from a report of the Norwegian Ministry of Justice: "The Swedish street prostitutes experience a tougher time." That is the evidence. The Minister asked if there was evidence and said there was none. I have it with me. It is an official report from the Norwegian Ministry of Justice. It continues:

They are more frequently exposed to dangerous clients, while the serious clients are afraid of being arrested. Prohibition will never be able to stop the purchase and sale of sex. It could only make conditions worse for the prostitutes. They have less time to assess the client as the deal takes place very hurriedly due to fear on the part of the client. [The prostitutes] are exposed to violence and sexually transmitted diseases. If the client demands unprotected sex, many of the prostitutes cannot afford to say no. Harassment by the police has increased and the clients no longer provide tip-offs about pimps, for fear of being arrested themselves. The social workers working on the streets have problems reaching them. [The prostitutes] use pimps for protection.

In further support of this, I will quote from an interview in 2010 with a senior adviser regarding prostitution of the National Board of Health and Welfare of Sweden:

[You] put [them] in the same category, and you say that well, ultimately, it's all the same, it doesn't matter if you make €5,000 a month, you sell sex without intermediaries, independently ... you're in the same position as someone who is forced by third parties to, somebody who's underage and forced by third parties....

In other words, there is a complete blurring of the situation. I offer another quote from a social worker in Malmö's prostitution unit:

... [You are] not [included in the debate] unless you are a former sex [worker]. Or a former client [...]. If you ... give a picture [that's] painted in many colours, it's not okay. If you paint in black, it's okay. You can be listened to.

The senior adviser at the National Board of Health and Welfare for issues surrounding prostitution noted during an interview that a political consensus was formed by silencing discursive opposition, where Gunilla Ekberg and radical feminists working for the Social Democratic Women "really made an effort to control what people were saying, and then they, of course, did not invite those who were blacklisted, or on their shit list, they did not invite them to meetings, and of course you understood that your agency could not be considered for government grants ...". What is that if it is not bullying? Threatening to take away grants if one expresses a different opinion is a wonderful exercise in democracy. To quote an interview with a social worker in the Malmö prostitution unit in 2010:

...everyone must be on board. If you're not, if you say something bad about [the discourse], then you're against the whole law, you're against the whole thing. And then you're excluded...

I am quoting the National Board of Health and Welfare in Sweden. I am providing a series of quotes because I wish to be factual and clear. I wish to reply to what the Minister said about there being no qualifications in Sweden and about the results being clear, unambiguous and scientific. They are not.