That prostitution has re-emerging onto the political agenda in Finland is hardly a surprise. Both policymakers and the public in general have much criticized the current ban for its inefficiency to prosecute human traffickers, panderers and customers of sexual services and its incapacity to protect victims. Law enforcement officials have claimed that they lack sufficient resources to deal with prostitution, a crime that a significant part of the population still does not consider a crime at all, but a private agreement between two consenting adults that the society has no right to intrude on. Still, differences in attitudes towards commercial sex exists also within the police, illustrated by that at least the police in Helsinki has recently stepped up their control on public prostitution that’s considered disturbing, criminalized in the Public Order Act from 2003. Others have proposed a wider criminalization of the customers of sexual services as a measure to lessen the demand for prostitution, and to make the line between criminal and non-criminal buying of sex clearer.

The suggestion to expand the criminalization of customers is fairly expected considering the context where the current, limited ban to purchase sexual services was negotiated in the spring 2006.  Facing the widespread opposition to the government bill that proposed a criminalization of sex customers in every situation, the majority of the MPs advocating the ban felt compelled to compromise to a limited criminalization of customers. This action was taken in order to guarantee that the government bill would not be entirely rejected, and, thus, sending a message that the purchase of sexual services is never exploitation and acceptable in every occasion[1]. The compromise ban was viewed as a first step in legislation, ensuring, if later deemed necessary, a gradual advancement to a potential “Swedish style” full-blown criminalization of the johns in every situation.[2]

In the face of it, the 2006 compromise ban appeared as just as good as the Swedish ban for some of its supporters. The main drafter of the compromise ban, Greens MP Tuija Brax who chaired the Legal Affairs Committee in 2006 was one of them.  By 2006, the Swedish ban had been enforced for close to seven years, and all the verdicts based on the ban had come from cases that would also be criminal accordingly to the Finnish, limited criminalization, that is, in cases of pandering and human trafficking.[3] Therefor, for the proponents of the compromise ban, the criticism towards the criminalization has rather been focused on the problems enforcing the ban and prosecuting customers, as the courts have interpreted the evidence criteria very strictly.[4]

Consequently, those interested in prostitution politics have for some time now waited patiently on a coming Supreme Court decision which is to decide if the evidence criteria as stated in the law is sufficient. Meanwhile, central political actors have this year taken stances within the debate on the legislations, implying a possible shift in prostitution policy. The new Ministry of Justice Anna-Maja Henriksson (Swedish People’s Party) has recently acknowledged that the current legislation on prostitution simply does not work. In an interview in the beginning of October, Henriksson suggests that her preferred revision would ban the purchase of sex entirely.[5] Not such a surprising opinion, given that Henriksson has a Party Congress decision from 2000 backing her opinion[6]. The parliamentary group of the Swedish People’s Party has also criticized the current compromise ban,[7] claiming that a general criminalization of the purchase of sexual services would have passed the vote in 2006.

Minister of the Interior Päivi Räsänen holding a poster with the words "Home, Religion and Fatherland - that's what it's all about"

Earlier this fall, Minister of the Interior Päivi Räsänen from Christian Democrats made a statement where she called for a general criminalization of the customers of sexual services.[8] Räsänen is the first Minister of the Interior supporting the criminalization of customers and is also in an important position to do so, given that she should be able to influence the law enforcement units. Prostitution has been a chosen topic for Räsänen for close to two decades already. In the 1990s, she made several initiatives to restrict and control commercial sex industry and protect minors[9], and, in 2000s, she proposed a general criminalization of those both selling and buying sexual services.[10]

Additionally, as a carryover from the previous parliament, the Legal Affairs Committee remains charged with evaluating the respective Finnish and Swedish legislation regarding the purchase of sexual services[11]. Thus, there are again several reasons to believe that prostitution policy will rise to the political agenda. Yet, one can ask whether there will be any new substance in the debate. Jaana Kauppinen, director of Pro-Tukipiste does not appear to think so. On a seminar in Nordic Network on Prostitution in September this year, she summarized that prostitution is raised to the public debate from time to time, but the arguments are the same.

The battle over criminalizing prostitution in 2006 has, somewhat misleadingly, been perceived as one between radical feminists on one side, and Finnish sex workers, their aid organizations and men defending the(ir?) right to purchase sexual services. Today, many of the feminists supporting the wider ban in 2006 are still in prominent places within Finnish politics, while several of those male MPs that were most vocal in opposing the ban have left the parliament. Also, Finnish Sex Workers’ Association Salli that was founded in 2002 to oppose the criminalization of sex customers and to bring forth the opinions of sex workers is now defunct. However, the rights of sex workers will not be left undefended as the former vice president of Salli, Left Alliance MP and prostitution researcher Anna Kontula holds a seat in the Finnish Parliament. Additionally,  one should not forget that the well-regarded civic organization Pro-Tukipiste that gave the most objective and convincing argument against a general criminalization in 2006 is still very active. Their arguments that a criminalization of the customers would only worsen the situation of those engaged in prostitution was difficult to trump.

On the other hand, a change in prostitution politics is not written in the government programme and it is unlikely that a majority of the MPs in the current Legal Affairs Committee favor a tightening of the sex purchase ban. Previous Minister of the Interior and National Coalition Party MP Anne Holmlund who chairs the current committee has a reputation of not placing the chase of customers of sexual services high on her list of priorities. The house of parliament is also filled with new MPs, whose opinion on the purchase of sex is unknown. Except for one new MP whose stance on commercial sex is well known. Left Alliance MP Anna Kontula, who wrote her PhD dissertation on commercial sex in Finland was already in 2006 a much referred to expert in the Finnish parliament on sex work in Finland.[12] As an MP she is currently in prominent place to affect the debate on prostitution policy, if she chooses to.

Apart from the wishes of a few political heavyweights, has anything changed in the Finnish political climate since 2006 that would suggest a possible change in prostitution politics? Yes and no. For one thing, the Swedish ban has been enacted long enough to provide information on whether the ban has resulted in its desired effects: a lessening of the demand for prostitution. Additionally, the ban is no longer a Swedish oddity, as both Norway and Iceland have adopted similar legislation, keeping in mind a possible turn in Danish prostitution policy after the recent parliamentary election. Yet, the criminalization of customers of sexual services is first and foremost a legislation based on values and attitudes, which appear to have become harsher in Finland in the last year. The economic crisis within the Euro area and a possible forthcoming recession is the main subject of debate in the Finnish parliament at the moment, which might also influence the prostitution policy. Commercial sex industry blossomed in the early 1990s harsh economical recession in Finland, apparently increasing both the customers and the sellers. Yet, what is most important, a shift in prostitution policy was not debated during the parliamentary elections this spring and the large political parties still do not have an official stance in the question, making it risky for any political actor to push forward a change in the current policy on the purchase of sexual services.

[2] Interview with Janina Andersson 16.6.2011, former MP of the Greens.

[3] Interview with Greens MP Tuija Brax 16.9.2011.

[4] Venla Roth, Defining Human Trafficking, Identifying its Victims (Turku 2010)

[5] MTV3 Uutiset 7.10.2011, ‘Oikeusministeri vauhdittaisi seksin oston kieltämistä’, http://www.mtv3.fi/uutiset/kotimaa.shtml/2011/10/1404616/oikeusministeri-vauhdittaisi-seksin-oston-kieltamista.

[6] Hufvudstadsbladet 13.6.2006, ‘Intervju: Sfp:s kvinnobas saknar radikalism i partiet “Man ska göra som det sägs för att få vara med“’.

[7] Swedish People’s Party MP and parliamentary group leader in 2006, Christina Gestrin on plenum 20.6.2006, PTK 75/2006 vp http://www.eduskunta.fi/faktatmp/utatmp/akxtmp/puh_75_2006_vp_2_22_22_p.shtml.

[8] Helsingin Sanomat 30.8.2011, ‘Ministeri Räsänen väläyttää seksinostokieltoa Ruotsin malliin’ http://www.hs.fi/politiikka/artikkeli/Ministeri+R%C3%A4s%C3%A4nen+v%C3%A4l%C3%A4ytt%C3%A4%C3%A4+seksinostokieltoa+Ruotsin+malliin/1135268943600.

[9] TA 26/1995 vp, KVN 45/1995 vp, SKT 127/1995 vp, LA 16/1996 vp, KK 616/1996 vp, KVN 50/1997, KVN 63/1997, TA 149/1997 vp, TA 201/1999 vp, KK 299/1999 vp,

[10] SKT 251/2000 vp, LA 46/2002 vp , LA 52/2004 vp, LaVM 10/2006 vp, KK 50/2007 vp

[11] Interview with Janina Andersson 16.6.2011, former MP of the Greens and chair of the Legal Affairs Committee 11.9.2009–19.4.2011.

[12] Anna Kontula, Punainen eksodus: Tutkimus seksityöstä Suomessa (Helsinki 2008)

Related posts:

1. The impact of Finnish parliamentary election results on prostitution policy
2. Swedish attitudes towards the purchase of sexual services
3. Evaluating the Swedish Ban on the Purchase of Sexual Services: The Anna Skarhed Report

Dr. Anna Kontula

Yet, behind these headlines, the 2011 Finnish parliamentary elections were also of great significance for those with an interest in prostitution policy.  Dr Anna Kontula, a well-known critic of the Swedish ban on the purchase of sexual services, and one of the key epistemic actors who lobbied against proposals that Finland should adopt a Swedish-style policy in 2006, has been elected to the parliament as an MP for the socialist Left Alliance, a party that has a track record of initiatives on behalf of criminalization.

Kontula was the only Left Alliance candidate elected from Pirkanmaa electoral district, preventing former Left Alliance MP Minna Sirnö from being re-elected to her third term in the parliament. A member of the Legal Affairs Committee in 2006, when the Swedish-style proposal was fiercely criticized and eventually altered to a compromise, Sirnö played a visible part defending the original version of the Finnish sex purchase ban. The Legal Affairs Committee had turned its back on the general criminalization of the purchase of sexual services, opting for a compromise limited to criminalizing the purchase of sexual services from victims of human trafficking or pandering. In the subsequent first hearing, Sirnö then proposed that the government’s original criminalization bill be adopted. Although the large majority of the Left Alliance supported Sirnö’s proposal, she lost the vote in the Parliament.

As far back as 2001, the Left Alliance had already adopted an official stance supporting the criminalization of the purchase of sexual services as one way to reduce international trafficking in women. Moreover, the re-elected chairman of the Left Alliance Parliamentary Group, Annika Lapintie, put forward an initiative in 2004 calling for a general criminalization of the purchase of sex. This initiative was co-signed by several MPs from the Left and the Greens of Finland, and was later addressed as part of the governmental bill resulting in the current sex purchase ban. Another Lapintie initiative urged the government to take actions in criminalizing the purchase of sexual services in 2002, and was cosigned by 99 female and male MPs across party lines. Thus, keeping in mind these actions taken by Left Alliance’s MPs, it will be interesting to see what impact Kontula’s election has for both prostitution policy preferences both within the Left Alliance and the Finnish Parliament.

The current sex purchase ban has been criticized for its inefficiency since 2006, and the increased media attention on prostitution in the last year resulted in Ministry of Justice Tuija Brax (The Greens of Finland), also chairperson of the Legal Affairs Committee in 2006, to suggest a possible revision of current legislation. After the Greens’ defeat in the elections in April, with party leader Anni Sinnemäki admitting the party would be in the opposition in the new parliament, it appeared that prostitution policy would no longer be Brax’s headache.

However, the political balance in Finland has shifted for the second time in a few weeks. Soini’s announcement in early May that the True Finns would enter into opposition in the new parliament, after rejecting an economic rescue package for Portugal supported by the National Coalition Party and the Social Democrats, one might say that the opposition is getting mighty crowded.  The Center Party and the Greens pronounced already on the election night that the great loss of seats in the parliament would drive them to opposition. Still, the National Coalition Party leader Jyrki Katainen spoke out on his wish to form a coalition government together with Social Democrats, Swedish People’s Party, The Christian Democrats and the Greens. Now, the Left Alliance has also joined the negotiations.

Further, if the Christian Democrats are to take a seat in the future government, the party leader Päivi Räsänen is likely to have an influence on how Finnish prostitution policy is to develop. Räsänen put several initiatives to curb the commercial sex industry in Finland in the 1990s and 2000s, and defended the criminalization of purchase of sexual services to the bitter end, together with Sirnö. However, Räsänen simultaneously proposed a criminalization of sale of sexual services as well as the purchase. One might also speculate whether the Social Democrats re-entrance to the government will lift prostitution policy once again to the political agenda, and what impact the Left Alliance will play in the government to be.

The elections also increased the number of MPs with backgrounds in police force in the new parliament. In preparing the current legislation on purchasing sexual services, expert opinions from law enforcement units were very critical towards such a ban, as were those MPs who had served in law enforcement. Of course, one cannot necessarily argue that policy stances can be inferred from one’s occupational background. Nonetheless, the increase in the number of police officers raises the prospect that this group of anti-criminalization MPs may be further strengthened.

All told, while Finnish politics may be living in interesting times in general, the composition of the players in the recently elected Finnish parliament suggests that the debate over regulating the commercial sex industry could take on equally interesting, and not easily predicted, dimensions.

Pia Levin & Gregg Bucken-Knapp

Related posts:

1. The Danish election: a new government – and towards a new prostitution regime?
2. Finnish legislation on the purchase of sexual services: potential revisions?
3. The Happy Whore and the Victim of Human Trafficking – Stereotypes Prevail in Finnish Debate on Sex Work

Depicting sex workers as victims of human trafficking, and thus implying that sex workers in Finland are mainly of a foreign nationality and involved in sex work unwillingly, is no new way to describe those offering sexual services for a fee. In the broad social debate going on in Finland in the late 19^th and early 20^th century, which raised prostitution and questions of chastity as topics, one can find several reports of young Swedish women, who were convinced to travel from Stockholm mainly to Helsinki and Turku, promised work in cafes or restaurants, and, yet, actually lured and trapped into prostitution.[1] Today , Sweden is known as the first country in the world to have passed a general criminalization of the purchase of sexual services, and as a country, which also tries to influence the policy of other countries towards a criminalization of the purchase of sexual services.

A short study in Finnish newspapers from the last two decades reveals that a major part of the Finnish debate on sex work still revolves around the concept of foreigners. A clear shift has of course happened: the sex workers are depicted entering Finnish borders from countries east and south rather than west.  The dissolution of the Soviet Union and an increased possibility for travel from the eastern European countries to Finland created possibilities for sex workers, especially from Russia and Estonia, to travel to Finland for shorter periods.

The change of origin country of sex workers is also connected to the ideas of what is thought to be the main reason for people to enter the sex work industry: poverty. With poverty seen as the background factor for “ending up” in sex work, people, generally women, originating from the poorest countries are the ones who are most visible in debates on sex work.[2] The focus on severe poverty and limited career-, and perhaps, life-choices has focused the prostitution debate on victims of international human trafficking. Sex workers who entered Finland with false perception of the type of work they were to perform in the country, possibly with limited foreign language skills and their freedom of movement restricted or finances controlled by the employer/trafficker constituted one of the most distinct pictures of a prostitute in Finland. Still, not all foreign women involved in sex work in Finland are considered to be victims or having entered the sex work business unwillingly.[3] Statements pointing out how Eastern European women with short stays in Finland can collect earnings equivalent to several months salary in their home country imply that short periods of sex work in Finland actually is a smart business move.

Debating sex work without stepping into a discourse on morals has been largely impossible . The acceptable types of sexuality and the correct or allowed ways to perform that sexuality are almost always included in debates on sex work. Outsiders have deemed promiscuity as being prevalent in descriptions of sex workers and their choices in entering the business, alongside with mental disorders, low self-esteem, a lazy wish for easy cash and a lack of alternative career choices. Whereas the victims of human trafficking can largely be perceived as forced into prostitution, the “happy whore” stands for her own decision for her involvement in sex work, both in good and bad. In societies with strict sexual morals the “happy whores” might face rather judgmental attitudes when being public with their field of profession. Suggestions to criminalize selling sexual services can also stem from ideas of sex work as a profession entered willingly, and wrongly, one might add.

Still, it is not only people condemning women involved in sex work who argue that it is the quest for pleasure that has driven some women into prostitution . Self-employed sex workers who claim to be happy in their self-chosen profession distance themselves from statements that the selling and purchasing of sexual services would be an act of violence against women or a question of gender inequality.[4] Even though many sex workers state the salary as the best part of their work, or admit that sex work never was the profession they aimed for, several sex workers stress that they greatly enjoy sex and the possibilities to explore their sexuality in their work. Still, the statement that the bargaining of sex would be a mutual contract between two equal adults has been criticized for making a very elitist perspective both on sex work and the negotiating possibilities of sex workers.

Thus, while almost apparent, it is clear that the contemporary debate about sex work in Finland is heavily permeated both by ideas about nationality and agency for women, as well as differing views on sexuality.

[2] Poverty has been connected to sex work in several newspaper articles, parliamentary debates on sex work as well as in the reports on human trafficking and prostitution written by the working group appointed by the Ministry of Justice.

[3] See for instance Lehti, Martti, ’Naiskauppa ja Suomi’, Haaste 2/2002.

[4] Amongst other, members of SALLI, the United Sex Professionals of Finland, have argued for the positive aspects of sex work.

Related posts:

1. Legitimate and illegitimate sex work – the role of identities in the Swedish pornography debate
2. The impact of Finnish parliamentary election results on prostitution policy
3. Pia Levin joins NPPR staff

In 2006, Finland's Riksdag rejected a bill proposing the criminalisation of sex purchases. Photo: Timo Kirkkala.

In 2006, Finland’s parliament rejected a governmental bill proposing a sex-purchase ban modeled on the 1999 Swedish law, which prohibits the purchase of sexual services. Thus, while buying sexual services remains legal in Finland, the country is sometimes included as an example of Nordic convergence in the field of prostitution regulation, with Sweden, Norway and Iceland — and eventually Denmark, perhaps — as the other pillars of this unanimous Nordic stance.

• A recent issue of Nikk Magasin seems to imply that Finland has joined forces with Sweden and Norway in criminalising the purchase of sexual services: “Finland has its own version of the sex-purchase law, which has been in force since 1 October 2006. It is only forbidden to buy sexual services from victims of human trafficking or procuring.” (43) According to the magazine, the 2006 law signifies increasing convergence among the Nordic countries, mainly due to “the increased trafficking in humans to the region during the last few years [which] has provided a new and shared point of reference.” (24f) This re-emerging consensus shapes a united front against other countries. In the words of editor Bosse Parbring: “the Nordic countries all want to limit prostitution, while several other European countries regard prostitution as a legitimate occupation.” (31)
• Former law professor Madeleine Leijonhufvud suggests that “Norway is about to follow the Swedish example, Finland has criminalised sex purchase in circumstances of human trafficking. [...] Will Denmark follow the example of the other Nordic countries, in order not to become a brothel of Norden?” (SvD 2008-06-11)

While correctly describing the Finnish law as criminalising only the purchase of sex from persons subject to trafficking or procuring, these sample quotes may also give the impression of an emerging Nordic front in prohibiting the purchase of sexual services.

Other commenters disagree. Instead, they claim that Finland has legalised prostitution, thus breaking off from an earlier Nordic consensus on prostitution policy:

• In a column in Aftonbladet (2006-07-17), Louise Eek argues that Finland’s Riksdag in 2006 “voted against the previously prevailing consensus between our neighbouring countries on the issue of prostitution” and, like Germany and the Netherlands, has legalised prostitution, in Eek’s opinion under a false distinction between voluntary and involuntary prostitution.
• Similarly, while calling the Finnish law a “sexköpslag” (Sex Purchase Act), MEP Maria Carlshamre comments in Expressen (2006-06-18) that the Finnish law, by distinguishing between forced and voluntary prostitution, “leads to the legalisation of all prostitution”.

Interestingly, this disagreement does not concern the normative issue of whether Finland ought to criminalise the purchase of sexual services, but how to accurately describe its existing prostitution laws.

So what does Finnish law say on prostitution?

• By 1999, the Foreigner Act (378/1991) had been changed so as to allow the deportation of foreigners who can be reasonably assumed to sell sexual services, with an exemption for citizens of European Union or Schengen member states.
• In 2003, the Riksdag adopted the Public Order Act (proposed in Bill RP 20/2002), which among other things prohibits the selling and buying of sexual services in public places (612/2003 §7) and replaces earlier local ordinances on public order. Prostitution is included under the rubric of “Other activities causing disturbance”, but while the other activities mentioned (urinating and defecating and arranging public performances) are prohibited only to the extent that they disturb public order or cause health risks, etc, prostitution as such is considered a disturbance of public order and thus generally prohibited in public places. Moreover, the Public Order Act defines public places rather widely, including restaurants and business premises.
• In 2004, prohibitions against procuring were reinforced, and trafficking in human beings introduced in the Criminal Code.
• In 2005, a government bill proposes the criminalisation of the purchase of sexual services (RP 221/2005). However, after heated debate, criminalisation was rejected. Instead, parliament adopted a modified bill, stating that a person who pays for sexual services from someone who is a victim of trafficking or procuring can be fined or sentenced to prison up to six months. The law became effective in October 2006; two years later, nobody had been convicted according to the new law.¹
• Buying or attempting to buy sexual services from a minor is a criminal offence (Criminal Code, 20 kap, §8).

So, what does this mean?

• Unlike Sweden and Norway, Finland has not criminalised sex purchases in general. Prostitution is not outlawed as such, neither the selling nor the buying of sexual services. The 2006 law only criminalises a special category of sex purchases: from minors or trafficking victims. But that does not amount to a full sex purchase law (if that were the case, Germany would also have a sex purchase law, as paying minors for sex is illegal there as well).
• The ban against prostitution in public places under the 2003 Public Order Act is also peculiar to Finland, compared to its Nordic neighbours.
• On the other hand, unlike Germany and the Netherlands, Finland has not legalised prostitution fully. Proponents and opponents agreed that rejecting the 2005 bill would imply tolerating prostitution as a legal activity, by and large (if not in public places). However, procuring remains illegal, which prohibits advertising sexual services, brothels and other organised forms of prostitution. Moreover, prostitution is not officially or legally recognised as a legitimate profession. To the contrary, in connection with the 2006 law, Riksdagen stated that it presupposes that “adequate support services will be arranged for prostitutes in order to give them better chances of leaving prostitution and entering work life.”

Thus, it is incorrect to claim that Finland has joined forces with Sweden (and later Norway) in criminalising sex purchases, but it is also wrong to suggest that Finland has legalised prostitution. There are considerable differences between Finland and, on the one hand, Sweden and Norway, and, on the other hand, Germany and the Netherlands. Finland regulates prostitution in a way similar to most West European countries, rather than to either of the outliers.

Now, why have Swedish proponents of criminalising sex purchases arrived at such contradictory understandings of the Finnish law?

For radical feminists, the outcome was obviously disappointing, as witnessed by Eek and Carlshamre. Thus, they chose to emphasise the differences between the Swedish stance and the Finnish law. In accordance with dominant discourse on prostitution in Sweden, prostitution as such is seen as an expression of violence against women and one cannot really separate forced prostitution or trafficking from voluntary forms of prostitution. Under those binary premises, rejecting the Swedish model implies being in favour of prostitution.

For moderates, on the other hand, understanding the Finnish law as a partial sex purchase ban opens up the possibility of re-crafting Nordic unity by keeping Finland as an ally in the campaign to spread the Swedish (and Norwegian) model internationally. Obviously, though, this is just as much a misrepresentation of the Finnish prostitution laws as is the radicals’ claim that Finland has sided with the Netherlands and Germany. Both accounts exclude the possibility that Finland has taken a different, intermediate position.

One might even dispute whether Sweden and Norway represent a (re-)emerging Nordic consensus on prostitution policy. Not only its extraterritorial dimension distinguishes the Norwegian ban from the Swedish ban a decade earlier; the ban was also adopted for quite different reasons. Whereas the Swedish law was largely framed in terms of gender equality, the Norwegian ban achieved legislative success only once it was grafted onto public discourses identifying prostitution with Nigerian women soliciting in the streets of Oslo. In that way, a similar ban became a solution to a problem quite different. (On the other hand, justifications of the Swedish law have mutated successfully over time.)

Ole Waever suggests that during the Cold War, Nordic identity was defined as being enlightened and morally superior to the rest of Europe. Photo: Olemiswebs.

Still, it’s interesting to see actors fall back on the notion of Nordic unity in seeking to mobilise support for their preferred policy stances.

Ole Waever has characterised the idea of Nordic identity as being different from the rest of Europe: Enlightened and morally superior. Whether in terms of its foreign policies or welfare state regimes, the Nordic countries, this narrative claimed, had found a viable solution to the conflict between capitalism and communism which divided the continent.² As the end of the Cold War dissolved the division of Europe, which Norden claimed to stand outside and above, Waever predicted that Nordic identity would disintegrate.

However, there is still some force in the norm of Nordic unity, as indicated by the struggle over defining the Finland’s prostitution laws. While different commenters disagree as to whether or not Finland is on the inside or the outside of Nordic unity, both sides share a deeper ideational framework in which Nordic unity is laden with normative salience.

Footnotes

1. Prostitution i Norden, p. 20, 140
2. Ole Waever: ”Nordic nostalgia: Northern Europe after the Cold War”, International Affairs 68:1, 1992

Related posts:

1. The impact of Finnish parliamentary election results on prostitution policy
2. The Happy Whore and the Victim of Human Trafficking – Stereotypes Prevail in Finnish Debate on Sex Work