What should happen to the reservations to Article 14?
In the case of the said reservations to Article 14(1) of the CRC, it is submitted first that the Committee on the Rights of the Child must make a clear and express decision on the compatibility of the said reservations. Based on the issues raised above, the decision should be that the said reservations are indeed not compatible with the object and purpose of the CRC.
Thereafter, that a much stricter stance should be taken when considering the reports of the said Muslim State. For Muslim States which entered reservations made specifically against Article 14, they should be confronted and challenged on the reasons why they have not withdrawn or modify such reservations.
As for the Muslim States which entered sweeping and general reservations against all the provisions of the CRC, they may have to be challenged to reconsider their commitment to the CRC. While it is understood that the high number of ratifications are important to the CRC, it has to be balanced with the integrity of the CRC. It would be pointless to have State members of the CRC who on the one hand commits itself to upholding the objects and purpose of the CRC but on the other hand places severe limitations to it. As Fottrell submitted, “this trend is evidence of a reprehensible duplicity on the part of these states”(107).
Further, it is submitted that the committee should familiarised itself with some basic understanding on the Shar’ia Law(108) and have discourses with the Muslim States regarding their reservations and fears. The challenge to them will be to reconsider their reservations in light of fresh new ways of looking at the Shar’ia law instead of “western standards”. As can be seen above, there are Muslim views on freedom of religion of the child which do not necessarily be at variance with Article 14. At the very least, the said Muslim States will be more willing to discuss the modification or even withdrawal of their reservations if the Committee approach them from this angle.
Mayer noted something interesting in the persecution of those of the Bahai faith in Iran not too long ago. The attacks on them were justified by official attempts to hide any religious motives. Instead, it had been alleged that those who were persecuted were guilty of inter alia crimes of spying, treason and drug trafficking. Mayer questions whether this is a “lack of confidence that criminalising religious belief can be justified in today’s world”.
If there is indeed a lack of confidence as suggested by Mayer, then it is submitted that there should be an even greater lack of confidence to criminalise religious belief of a Muslim child (who has attained adulthood in the eyes of Islam) who wants to converts out of Islam.
It is submitted that this may well force the Muslim states to rethink their stand on the matter and to look afresh again at the Shar’ia Law. After all, the fact that Muslim states like Pakistan and Egypt could withdraw their reservations means that it is possible for the other Muslim states to do the same.
___________________________
(107) See note 103 above
(108) It is noted that a few of the Committee members are from the said Muslim States – Qatar, Algeria and Bangladesh
Thereafter, that a much stricter stance should be taken when considering the reports of the said Muslim State. For Muslim States which entered reservations made specifically against Article 14, they should be confronted and challenged on the reasons why they have not withdrawn or modify such reservations.
As for the Muslim States which entered sweeping and general reservations against all the provisions of the CRC, they may have to be challenged to reconsider their commitment to the CRC. While it is understood that the high number of ratifications are important to the CRC, it has to be balanced with the integrity of the CRC. It would be pointless to have State members of the CRC who on the one hand commits itself to upholding the objects and purpose of the CRC but on the other hand places severe limitations to it. As Fottrell submitted, “this trend is evidence of a reprehensible duplicity on the part of these states”(107).
Further, it is submitted that the committee should familiarised itself with some basic understanding on the Shar’ia Law(108) and have discourses with the Muslim States regarding their reservations and fears. The challenge to them will be to reconsider their reservations in light of fresh new ways of looking at the Shar’ia law instead of “western standards”. As can be seen above, there are Muslim views on freedom of religion of the child which do not necessarily be at variance with Article 14. At the very least, the said Muslim States will be more willing to discuss the modification or even withdrawal of their reservations if the Committee approach them from this angle.
Mayer noted something interesting in the persecution of those of the Bahai faith in Iran not too long ago. The attacks on them were justified by official attempts to hide any religious motives. Instead, it had been alleged that those who were persecuted were guilty of inter alia crimes of spying, treason and drug trafficking. Mayer questions whether this is a “lack of confidence that criminalising religious belief can be justified in today’s world”.
If there is indeed a lack of confidence as suggested by Mayer, then it is submitted that there should be an even greater lack of confidence to criminalise religious belief of a Muslim child (who has attained adulthood in the eyes of Islam) who wants to converts out of Islam.
It is submitted that this may well force the Muslim states to rethink their stand on the matter and to look afresh again at the Shar’ia Law. After all, the fact that Muslim states like Pakistan and Egypt could withdraw their reservations means that it is possible for the other Muslim states to do the same.
___________________________
(107) See note 103 above
(108) It is noted that a few of the Committee members are from the said Muslim States – Qatar, Algeria and Bangladesh
posted by imissw at 6:30 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home