I would say that it's not a prohibitionist approach at all, and that we surely count on every political party around the table to get rid of what we want to get rid of.
Perhaps I can give you this image. For us, it's like we have the right map to go where we want to go. We know where we want to go. We have the right map. But we have a little rock in our shoe, and that little rock in the shoe is the criminalization of women, particularly in the streets. So we have to make sure that we keep on the track we're on but get rid of what is not working.
I think it is unfair to use the prohibitionist jargon when we talk about what we have in front of us. We can say that the prohibitionist approach has not been successful at all, and there's not only Russia that we can think about. There are many countries around the world who actually criminalize only women in prostitution, and not men. I don't know what you would call that, but for me this is like the sum of what patriarchy can do: criminalize women for being actually sexually exploited.
For me, we have to be careful about how we use words. The prohibitionist legal model, because that's mostly what we're talking about, would be a model that says in its objectives and in practice that all parties involved in prostitution should be criminalized, and this is not what this bill is saying.
So we just have to get rid of the rock that we have in our sock, in our shoe—but don't lose the map.