- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
According to the debate, they had their reasons. But still – when one hundred and eighty six nations say one thing, and two say another, you have to wonder about the two.
According to the debate, they had their reasons. But still – when one hundred and eighty six nations say one thing, and two say another, you have to wonder about the two.
That is only “more reasonable” when you ignore the reality that “disliking some parts” of a resolution usually is followed by not voting, but they explicitly voted against thus made any argument why they did not vote ‘for’ that right a clearly undenieable lie.
maybe the world should follow their vote to the point, those countries voting against should be prevented from receiving food from other countries for free, especially fishing industry that rips off resources on the open seas or near other countries should be physically stopped with force if they come from or go to the countries that voted against a right for food for everyone. That would only be reasonable as they explicitly wanted such a right to not exist, thus it should be explicitly removed in practice from them too. The countries who voted for a right for food then just put a freely increaseable tax on every gram(!) of food exported to those countries that don’t want food to be a right for everyone. And then the against voters can have what their wish they explicitly voted for. i like that idea: those who don’t want food as a right, shouldn’t have that right then. period.
+1