Talk:Compulsory sterilisation in Sweden

Results?

The page is missing any information on the results or outcome of the policy. I'd have thought that would be quite an important section. 86.171.170.228 (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Consent to compulsory sterilisation?

Why is there a reference to "age of consent limit" to "forced sterilization"? If it was forced there would be no issue of consent. Without the law being quoted, might I suggest that it was not forced at all?Royalcourtier (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Compulsory sterilisation in Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205055543/http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/28/64/212fc81a.pdf to http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/28/64/212fc81a.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205055543/http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/28/64/212fc81a.pdf to http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c4/28/64/212fc81a.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft article

@CFCF: I've been working on an article. It's in my sandbox. The general view has been that the legislation aimed at coercing individuals for eugenic reasons. That's not what the historical sources say. The purpose behinde the law was to prevent anti-contraceptive methods to spread. Since Sweden's Nationalencyklopedin now says that, I think this article should be changed accordingly. Edaen (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Edaen: Wikipedia relies on MULTIPLE SECONDARY sources and not on an editor's own interpretation of lawmakers' intentions. A "national encyclopaedia' is often not the most reliable source as regards recent state crimes, so it can't become the basis of this article in disregard of other sources. Your removal of sourced content, including especially victim statistics, indicates TENDENTIOUS editing. Please stop. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: As I wrote above, this is now supported by Nationalencyklopedin, which is the premier Swedish secondary source.

"Ett viktigt motiv för att inte släppa steriliseringen fri var att den då skulle kunna användas för privat barnbegränsning. (Nationalencyklopedin

Concerning victim statistics, Tydén in Från politik till praktik writes: "Frågan 'Hur många har tvångssteriliserats i Sverige?' kommer aldrig att slutgiltigt kunna besvaras. Det är till sist en tolknings- och definitinsfråga." (translation: "The question 'How many were forcibly sterilised in Sweden?' will never recieve an answer. In the end it is a question about interpretations and definitions."]) The absolute numbers given in the article are a tendentious interpretation of a government report. By the way, that source is also a lawmakers intentions of the same kind. Edaen (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Besides, Nationalencyklopedin is a private work albeit initiated with government support. It is considered the standard source for information. Edaen (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: I've added sourced victim statistics. The article can (and should) be expanded. Please come with suggestions rather than removing well sourced information. Edaen (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Could you please use this page. The article should of course be expanded, I gave some ideas in my sandbox. As you can see there, there certainly were advocates of compulsion. The original rationale was to reduce pressure on the institutions and to prevent children from being born to parents who would not be able to take care of them.

1922 motionerade han om utredning angående en steriliseringslag, där han vid sidan av sinnessjuka och fallandesjuka särskilt hade i åtanke personer med lättare sinnesslöhet, vilka inte nödvändigtvis behövde vistas på anstalt men som inte kunde förväntas vara kapabla att ta hand om egna barn. Hans motiv för sterilisering var således i första hand socialpedagogiskt, men han ville också i någon mån avlasta de överfulla anstalterna. Däremot ställde han sig mera tveksam till arvshygieniska indikationer, eftersom han menade att kunskapen om psykiska störningars ärftlighet var alltför bristfällig.SBL

That compulsion was used is not an issue, it was. Edaen (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The part you added about the Race-biological institute is not correct. See this:

The outcome of an official enquiry into the matter in Sweden (see Eugenics Review April 1924) was against any compulsory measure of Sterilization but in favour of permitting it in certain cases, subject to the consent of the person or his representatives and under certain conditions. Incidentally, in this report stress was laid on the view, already referred to in this paper, that at the present stage of science it is in many cases not possible to attain to any real certainty, but only to a more or less high degree of probality, when making a prognosis as to the hereditary conditions of the posterity.The Eugenics Review 1926

Edaen (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Edaen: The 1924 article you quoted precedes both laws and is irrelevant here. The 1936 publication quoted in the article cannot apply to the 1941 law, moreover its authors were closely affiliated with the Swedish instutitions that introduced the sterilisation policy. Claiming that restraint was "never legal" based on a 1941 publication cannot reasonably relate to the period until 1975. All in all, it all looks like selective citations which are a big no-no on Wikipedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The 1924 article is the view of the Race-biological insitute on the law to make. The 1936 publication is the base for the 1941 law. Physical restraint was never legal. I'll find that in Tydén for you. The coersion in question here was sterilisation as a condition for release from an institution or prison, as a condition for abortion or in some cases for welfare. Another kind of pressure was talk. Social workers were told to send in the application to the Royal Medical Board regardless of whether the "applicant" consented or not. Once there was a permission, the individual normally accepted for psycological reasons. Edaen (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

In 1936 a municipal board required police assistance to force someone to be sterilised after the girl's parents refused to accept the operation. In the end, the supreme administrative court turned down the request. This case became a precedent and physical coercion was not legal.[1] In the English summary (in the same book) Tydén writes:

The Swedish laws never allowed the use of physical force. Furthermore the great majority of sterilisations were made following a personal application. Nevertheless, many sterilisations took place in a context of compulsion or coercion, as it would be defined today.

Edaen (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote in the draft, Olof Kinberg was the most ardent advocate of forced sterilisations.

Professor Kinberg rejects the method of voluntary birth control as wholly ineffective for reducing defective strains. Sterilization, he says, is the only means by which this can be done. His ardent advocacy of sterilization is based on the following considerations:Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

I'm all in favour of mentioning him in the text as an proponent. Nils von Hofsten too expressed as his view that some categories should be sterilised, see draft. Edaen (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: A number of sterilisations were done prior to January 1935, the first in 1906. These were not state-sanctioned and the legality was questioned. Some layers believed that the doctors would have been found guilty of a crime if such a case had come before a court. Edaen (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

New discussion

@Kashmiri: Mattias Tydén's Från politik till praktik is the standard work on the Swedish sterilisation policy. The offending information is there too.[2] There is nothing wrong with the 1949 article. Edaen (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Again @Kashmiri:. The reason You mentioned was the source from 1949. Could You please explain in what way it differs from the work by Tydén? Edaen (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do you mean that the 2000 government report is unreliable, since you removed any mention of it?

The 1949 publication is fine as a source on how the phenomenon was perceived at the time. But it cannot replace modern analyses, as you want. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

So let's replace it with Tydén! Edaen (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The 2000 government report is ok, but it is already mentioned, the 1997 inquiry produced the 2000 report. Edaen (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The chart spike

The chart shows a tremendous spike after 1975. Unfortunately is not there any explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHasBecauseOfLocks (talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

There is an explanation. When permission was no longer needed the number grew. The general rule between 1941 and 1975 was that sterilisation was forbidden. Since 1/1 1976 permission is no longer needed. Edaen (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

No mention of compulsory sterilisation of Sámi people?

It seems like a pretty egregious thing to miss out, as it was a large-scale and shameful crime against humanity committed against Sámi people for eugenic purposes. I would put it in myself, but I don't know enough about the topic to be sure. Perhaps someone else does though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:BB0F:3C00:CD1:D11C:CDF9:9502 (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

From "Forum för levande historia" (about the Forum):

Man har diskuterat om vissa grupper sorterades fram av rent rasistiska skäl, som samer, romer eller ”resande”. Men forskningen tyder på att man försökte sterilisera bort ett socialt arv snarare än någon ”ras”. Av 30 000 som steriliserats mot sin vilja verkar t.ex. 400-500 personer ha sin bakgrund i ”resandegrupper” och motiveringarna i Socialstyrelsens arkiv nämner sällan någon ”rasbakgrund”.
[Google translate] It has been discussed whether certain groups were selected for purely racist reasons, such as Sami, Roma or "travelers". But research suggests that they tried to sterilize a social heritage rather than a "race". Of the 30,000 who have been sterilized against their will, e.g. 400-500 people have their background in "traveling groups" and the motivations in the National Board of Health and Welfare's archives rarely mention any "racial background".[3]

And from the 1997 government inquiry:

Etnicitet. Med ett undantag kan inga tydliga utslag vad gäller etniska minoriteter noteras. Undantaget utgörs av personer utpekade som tattare; denna kategorisering har i vissa fall använts som skäl för sterilisering. I utredningens kartläggning har påträffats 22 fall där sterilisering synes ha skett på grund av att den enskilde rubricerats som tattare. Om denna siffra är representativ skulle det innebära att mellan 600 och 700 personer kategoriserats i steriliseringsansökningarna som tattare, merparten före 1950-talets mitt. Med hänsyn till de låga absoluta talen är dessa siffror dock mycket osäkra. Sterilisering av personer angivna som samer och zigenare tycks däremot ha skett i mycket liten utsträckning; utredningsresultatet ger inte stöd för att steriliseringar var särskilt riktade mot dessa som grupper.
[Google translate] Etnicity. With one exception, no clear results regarding ethnic minorities can be noted. The exception consists of persons designated as tatters; this categorization has in some cases been used as a reason for sterilization. In the investigation's survey, 22 cases have been found where sterilization appears to have taken place due to the individual being classified as a tattar. If this figure is representative, it would mean that between 600 and 700 people were categorized in the sterilization applications as tatters, most before the mid-1950s. However, given the low absolute numbers, these figures are very uncertain. Sterilization of persons listed as Sami and gypsies, on the other hand, seems to have taken place to a very small extent; the results of the investigation do not support that sterilizations were specifically aimed at these as groups. SOU 2000:20 page 17

The Living History Forum should be updated on current research. The text from the Forum should be short enough to be a quotation under copyright law. The text from the Inquiry is free from copyright restrictions under Swedish law. Edaen (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)