When some of us say - with confidence - that the time has come to abolish Chapter 490 of the Criminal Code, what raises me personally is not the abolition of the chapter in itself, but the method of demanding its change and its timing. (I am not going to talk about the chapter in this post.)
Donald Trump relied in his foreign policy orientations during his reign on the basis, "As long as you pay me and do not bother me, I will not interfere in your internal affairs, and when I want something from you I do it or you will be punished", and he did not resort to pressure or moving files on human rights or the issue of minorities or freedoms. Individualism, as the Democrats usually do. Incidentally, Republicans have a special approach regarding individual freedoms that stems from the conservative religious dimension that they represent on the American political scene. Republicans are more conservative than the Democrats on issues of family, abortion, suicide, and the like.
On the other hand, with the Democrats, the matter differs slightly, as the slogan of individual freedoms dominates their electoral program, and perhaps this is what explains the youth voting for them intensively (a given that needs research), and whoever listens to Joe Biden's speech in which he spoke about the United States returning to the exercise of its role in the world will understand how The Democrats are using this paper in their election program and foreign policy.
When we say foreign policy, we are not talking about variable constants. Rather, they are fixed constants that do not change with a change of administration (protecting Israel, military superiority, controlling the global economy ...), but we are talking about mechanisms for implementing these constants.
Those who are now calling for the abolition of the known chapter are sure that they direct their appeal to a specific party, and if they derive their strength from the power of their rhetoric as they claim, then let them go down to the fields and to the frank discussion based on the argument in exchange for the argument and let us see who will prevail, and it remains a healthy matter that keeps the scramble alive in society ... it is a requirement.
But if they derive their strength from bullying with an external agenda, then this will never be in favor of the strength of the inner home, because reading history and experiences taught us that the outside does not bring goodness from it and that it does not dare to enter unless this inside is fragile and weak. This type of power will make our future decisions and strategy as a state comprising decisions of others on which we mortgage our security, which will not happen without fortifying the internal home according to the fixed national constants.
The issue of morals and the family and preserving the cohesion of society is everyone’s responsibility, and it is not the responsibility of a particular trend or trend. Whoever wants to dismantle society and the values of society without having a real alternative community project on which the old model is built is like someone who has the components of demolition and construction, but without having a preconception of what can be made. Including. Maybe it came on the green and everyone in it.
Finally, perhaps the Tangier (North of Morocco) tragedy awakens in these the queen of understanding the priorities ... and grasping the real challenges and projects that deserve the effort, work and pleading in order to strengthen the internal home, and to see the state as a state and not as a night package in which everything is permissible and let them know that social welfare in the West was a result. For economic development and not vice versa.
Written by : Khalid EL OUATI