Theorising sexual harassment and criminalisation in a Swedish context

Abstract

This article offers a theoretical approach to criminalisation in relation to sexual harassment, using Sweden as example. The topic is spurred by two separate but interrelated phenomena. The first is the #metoo movement, which raised not only awareness of the widespread problem of sexual harassment, but also questions as to whether criminal law can provide a proper response. The second is a growing concern, both in international research and among Swedish activists, that the feminist struggle against sexual violence is turning towards punitive measures. Taking the standpoint that feminist research and activism should engage in a critical conversation with criminal law and crime policy, this article employs Kelly’s concept of the continuum of sexual violence to analyse the scope for criminal law interventions regarding men’s intimate intrusions against women. Swedish criminal regulation is used to highlight some of the challenges of designing a criminal provision that considers the individual effects as well as the cumulative and collective impacts of sexual harassment.

The Only Path to Justice: The Criminal Legal System and Defamation Judgments Related to #MeToo in Sweden

“…The analysis of defamation cases above shows that the reasons defendants gave for speaking out about sexual violence and identifying perpetrators broadly correspond to justice themes identified in previous research on how sexual violence victims understand justice. Thus, the court room is an arena for expressing justice interests that go beyond the binary criminal justice system outcomes of guilty/not guilty, retribution/no retribution (Wegerstad 2021). Our analysis of court judgments can be juxtaposed with the phenomenon of criminal justice logic creeping into other areas of the social world and increasingly becoming a part of everyday speech.…”

“…Others stress the importance of not taking an instrumental view of the influence of feminist movements on the penal system, that reforms take place within a context of multiple (opposing) interests, and that neither the law nor social justice movements operate in a vacuum (Gotell 2015;Terwiel 2020;Tapia Tapia 2022). It has also been argued that it might be possible to do two things at the same time: to seek to improve the penal system through examination and critique, and simultaneously adopt a generally critical stance toward the system itself, querying its ability to achieve justice (Wegerstad 2021;McGlynn 2022).…”

Challenging Anti-Carceral Feminism: Criminalisation, Justice and Continuum Thinking

“…Nonetheless, while specifics and the level of intensity of debate vary, there is a similar essence to feminist debate across common law, anglophone countries. While wider European debates also engage with key questions around criminalisation and the impact of #MeToo (Burghardt & Steinl, 2021;Wegerstad, 2021), the political context is considerably different, though sometimes showing worrying moves towards greater punitivism (Andersson & Wegerstad, 2022).…”

“…Drawing on Liz Kelly's (1988) concept of the 'continuum of sexual violence', which has enabled recognition of the pervasive and interconnected nature of women's experiences of sexual violence, Boyle refers to 'continuum thinking' as a 'means of making connections' (Boyle, 2019, 28) and challenging 'established binaries' and dichotomies (Boyle, 2019, 32). Applying this in the criminalisation context, Linnea Wegerstad identifies continuum thinking as offering an unsettling of the seemingly firmly established boundary of criminal and non-criminal (Wegerstad, 2021). It also offers an approach beyond a binary choice of criminalisation (bad) and noncriminalisation (good); or describing feminist work in the categories of either 'anti' or 'pro' criminalisation (Kim, 2018).…”