> Why?
The rest of the sentence, which you conveniently left out when quoting, is one why.
The rest of the sentence, which you conveniently left out when quoting, is one why.
Obviously providing a single example where it went wrong does not amount to showing a universal criterion, which is what your wording suggested.
> Qatar football stadium
The issue with documented human rights abuses in the construction industry in Qatar is a problem with Qatar, and not with the construction industry. I don't think I have to explain why.
No, he did not say that; he said “Even porn companies that feature of-age performers are highly exploitative and uncomfortably close to human trafficking”.
> The issue with documented human rights abuses in the construction industry in Qatar is a problem with Qatar, and not with the construction industry. I don't think I have to explain why.
And why do you believe that the specific instance referenced is a problem “with the pornography industry”, rather than one with that specific company?
Now do you have any numbers to justify that it's, for example, more common than in construction work?