Recent statements from legal experts suggest that proposed changes to Swedish rape law might be happening soon. The changes are likely to position the Swedish rape law more in line with the European Strasbourg convention - and for many Swedes the proposed changes seem long overdue.
As I wrote in my previous post, Sweden, in contrast to both the United Kingdom and the majority of European nations, defines the term 'rape' against a framework of violence. The use -or threat of- violence, is a prerequisite for any rape charge. Failing to take the concept of consent into account, it's becoming increasingly apparent that Swedish rape law is in need of some updating.
With many European countries, such as the UK, having ceased to state violence as a prerequisite for rape over 35 years ago now, bringing Swedish rape law in line with the Strasbourg convention - which explicitly states that violence is not necessary for a sexual offence to be classified as rape - is a crucial change.
On the proposed changes, MP Johan Linander, from Swedish opposition party Centerpartiet (The Centre Party) stated that the oppositional red-green alliance parties - the Social Democrats and the Greens - are working on a proposal this spring to be handed in for consideration on 20 March. The proposal, which will aim to better protect rape victims, is predicted to be adopted on 1 January 2013.
The proposed bill is still not the fully fledged 'consent' legislation MP Linander hoped for though - and there are many considerations to be taken into account before it goes through at all. "The question now is what judges, attorneys and legal experts think about it," commented Linander on the subject of the new bill. "They are the ones who work with the law every day and can deem if it will work practically."
Introducing a 'third degree' crime which it proposes to call 'sexual abuse', the bill would treat this new type of sex crime as milder than rape or sexual assault - and would state that it's applicable whenever there is a lack of consent. Under this law, acts such as 'kidnapping situations' would become illegal; and for the first time, the term 'consent' would, at least partly, be legally acknowledged as a factor related to sex crimes in Sweden.
Like many other Swedes, rape law campaigner Goran Rudling thinks that the introduction of the concept of 'consent' in the Swedish legal system would be a step in the right direction: "Today, women are seen as sexually available and have to prove that they didn't want to have sex, rather than unavailable until there is consent", he comments.
The proposed change has not been viewed positively by the whole legal community, however; mixed responses have been received from those Swedish legal professionals who question 'the burden of proof' - how the concept of 'consent' can fit in with the Swedish legal requirement for evidence during rape cases.
The European Court, which has overseen Swedish law since the country's adoption of the European Convention in 1995, states EU guidelines - which acknowledge the importance of consent in any rape case - in its "Elimination of Discrimination against Women" document. Adopted by Britain, Belgium and many other European countries, British Lord Justice Dunn justified the importance of the word 'consent' in a 2003 case, stating that "every consent involves a submission - but every submission is not consent".
More radical reform proposals, such as those which argue that the ultimate objective of rape reform should be to shift the 'burden of proof' from the defendant to the accused, still exist; and in time, may well be realised in some cultures. The initial changes in the Swedish legal system however, so as to move away from the 'violence' prerequisite and towards a focus on 'consent', are nowhere near as radical, and are now backed publicly by many Swedish professionals - such as Madeleine Leijonhufvud, professor emerita of criminal law at Stockholm University.
She's commented that "there are two reasons [to suggest a change in the law]; firstly, to follow the Strasbourg convention... [and] secondly, to make the law correspond to reality. Sometimes violence or threat is not necessary. Some victims realise the danger or the fact they have no choice and submit without resisting. Nevertheless," she states conclusively, "they are not consenting".