I have had to clarify this a couple of times now in this thread but what I wrote is not my personal stance. It is what the stated intention is. That doesn’t make it right or effective.

As per my other reply, that was understood.

I do personally believe that, assuming the stated intention is true, the law hasn’t done what was meant to be achieved perfectly and that it should be discussed whether there is something that can be done to better the situation.

Again, as per other (long) reply, the big problem is the “intention” you are portraying is not actually consistent with both the speeches made when the original laws were passed and any reasonable reading of the law.

The intention is to abolish sex work because in the minds of the framers it is not possible for an adult to consent to it.

I’m not upset with you for trying to improve understanding. I’d however implore you to consider how taking agency away from people, telling them they are not capable of making a decision about themselves and their body is morally and ethically flawed.

The justification about it stopping trafficking has not held up to analysis, criminals continue to do crime. It’s guys like the one in the article and other men & women who pay the price for someone to have a righteous middle class glow.

Strong social welfare systems (like Sweden has) help prevent people doing it from desperation - so buttress those if there’s a shortcoming. Strong regulation of migration prevents trafficking before we even get to regulating the industry. Those are things that peer reviewed papers have shown to work.