In this case I do not think it is a Lib/Con thing. That is why it passed unanimously. Both ends of the spectrum feel comfortable attacking anything to do with sex, but with different window dressing.
The Libs argue it is degrading women and cannot accept that for some women it could ever be voluntary. Even if a woman says it is, and no coercion/force can be found, it must still be the evil man's fault for waving money in front of her. (But if he didn't pay, they her, somehow that would be good for her.)
The Cons argue it is immoral and point to the 10 Commandments and their favorite Thumping book.
Both sides scream "TRAFFICKING!!!" whether they have evidence or not, and who can vote to protect trafficking?
|
YES
