The motivation in Denmark was some big cases where organized crime was only caught due to a huge hacking operation where the police was able to monitor communication on the apps commonly used by the criminals. That allowed them to take very dangerous people off the streets and now they want to do more of that, more easily. I think the discussion can never be in terms of absolutes. If your family was murdered by some criminal that was never caught earlier , but could have been if the police had access to their chats, would you still be against it? We need to remember that we’re making that decision for some future victim if we do agree that this will assist the police effectively. The other side says the police will undoubtedly abuse their powers. In which case how does the results compare?? If you think the answer is easy, one way or another, you are definitely wrong.
But the CSAM regulation under discussion doesn't do any of the things you're claiming. It mandates content scanning for CSAM and other related messages. It does not call for key escrow and decryption of messages involving organized crime. So it's not clear how you would do much against serious organized criminals with this law.
Nobody here argues against wiretaps after court rulings. The discussion here is about mandating sending a transcript of every communication you do to the state (unless you work for the specific parts of the state).