Evil lurks in some cultures, and is all too often, accepted as ‘just different’. I submit, … in this case, what lurks here, proposed to be a statute of international law, is barbaric.
What I’m attempting to expose here, is the culture of nations who live by Sharia law, a foundational belief, they’re trying to push on the entire world. Is this acceptable to you?
It seems fitting to include a quote by Golda here ….. Although she was speaking of a different nation, a different situation, … it applies here, ….. it applies even moreso.
Her quote, relevant to this situation, refers to a culture of hate, a culture that lives by Islam’s Sharia Law.
“We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children, more than they hate us.”
It seems asinine that one could find fault with protecting the world’s children from drugs — from narcotics and psychotropic substances, but that’s what I’m exposing.
I’m confident that Golda and all who love children, would agree with how wrong it is, to oppose protecting children.
However, when asked to confirm the agreement proposing to protect the children of the world, from narcotics and other dangerous drugs, the representatives of these 4 nations Afghanistan, Mauritania, Iran, and Saudi Arabia ‘expressed reservations’.
But their “reservation” seems to explain that they disagreed with the proposed law – ‘in case that protection, should come into conflict with Sharia law.
I ask: If Sharia law is moral, ….. (and all I’ve read indicates it’s not moral, rather it’s based on barbaric traditions which subjugate women and children) … But if Sharia is moral, … how could it conflict with this new proposed law? I contend that Sharia law is not moral!
Their issuing no further reason, or explanation of their reservation, is unacceptable!
I believe, it’s time for the spokespersons of these Islamic nations to make their case, and explain why and how they think that protecting children from narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances could ever be wrong ….. and how protecting children, could ever come into conflict with Sharia law!
Proposals like this, poised to become statutes of International law, usually move through the process so slowly, that nobody questions them. I do; you should as well.
Like it or not, these protections are a “human right,” or they should be! Isn’t protecting children a basic parental obligation?
Where these proposals deal with Human Rights, for Children, … that should be common sense – love of children is all-too-often, just taken for granted.
I suspect, it was expected that the proposal would slide on through, even with the reservations, and that the “reservations” would likely be buried in some minority report.
This time, …. they didn’t.
This proposed law, offers a perfect opportunity to expose the evil foundation of a cultural way of life that presents itself as an entire religion.
To see the text, follow the link below, leading to the document titled : “The Right of Children to be Protected from Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances”, written by Stephan Dahlgren and Roxana Stere.
I agree with the authors of this proposed law. Yet the “reservations” referred to, that these 4 nations wanted, … are an egregious offence to everyone, and the language of these nations, expressing “reservations” needs to be brought into the light of day, and challenged publicly.
Within this article, I’ve copied the text below, for you to read, (colored text); it’s there to facilitate your finding it easily – it’s on page 6 of 23, if you chose to look at the proposed law..
On Page 6:
This paper will in the following be discussing the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Article 33. It is now worth noting that no country has expressly made a reservation against Article 33 in CRC. Afghanistan, Mauretania, Saudi Arabia, and Iran have made a general reservation against all Articles if these should come into conflict with Sharia law.
The elaborate procedure for assuming legal responsibility in hard law contrasts sharply with soft law. In the latter case the “law” can be created through an in-promptu vote in the General Assembly, or at a Global Conference. States are in these votes often not represented by Head of State, but rather by its UN Ambassador or Head of Delegation etc. 5.
Footnote 5: In doctrine it has also been expressed that vague provisions in Treaties might be reduced to soft law, since they are not creating any clear obligations on the State Party.