LifeSiteNews.com Life, Family and Culture News

Email: "International Criminal Court Approved"

Your Email:

Your Name:

Send To Email:

Subject:

Message:
BY LifeSiteNews.com LIFESITE REPORT ON THE APPROVAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT ROME, July 19 (LSN)  Although major victories were obtained by the pro-life/pro-family contingent there is still cause for grave concern over the July 18 approval of the International Criminal Court. The general concept of the court could potentially bring about a major advance in international justice and that is what the public is hearing about the ICC. Unfortunately, most of its instigators may have radical social change agendas as their first priority for the court. The development, implementation and control of the ICC seems to be in the hands of such people, as the history of the past few weeks strongly indicates. By the end of the conference, there had been so many objections to the ICC document that it could not possibly pass in time via the usual section by section voting procedure.  In order to salvage the ICC, Philippe Kirsch, the Canadian chairman of the committee of the whole, developed a last-minute compromise package of all the sections for the delegates to vote on. This would by-pass the usual consensus procedure. Kirsch lobbied extensively on Thursday and Friday to get the package accepted by most delegations. The July 18 Globe and Mail reported also that “Canadian foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy arrived at the 11th hour of negotiations, hoping to sway countries that hadn't already thrown their support behind the concept.” Delegates had only 8 hours on Friday to critically review and make a final decision on all the elements in the approximately 120 page document before the final vote at about 8 p.m. Rome time. This forced vote process resulted in the majority vote that approved the creation of the ICC, despite serious objections from major states and other delegations. During the conference, the Women's Caucus outnumbered the pro-life/family contingent and were well-prepared and effective in their lobbying of the normally pro-family African and South American delegates. A number of Women’s Caucus members were official national delegates, which also helped their cause. For example, a key member of the Women’s Caucus, Valerie Oosterweld, was an official Canadian delegate. The small band of pro-family lobbyists was still amazingly effective, but was prevented from achieving even more because of a crucial absence of any Spanish-speaking members and having only two French-speaking members. Big victories for pro-family forces were the definition of “gender” which had been left undefined at previous U.N. conferences and the replacement of “enforced pregnancy” with the narrowly defined term “forced pregnancy”. Another significant victory was the removal of gender requirements for selection of ICC prosecutors. A key U.S. pro-family lobbyist says that “all the bad stuff came from Canada”. “Canada was the worst - it was beyond belief.” He relates that Canada was a main protagonist in favour of gender, abortion, a powerful prosecutor and universal jurisdiction of the court.  The chairman of the committee of the whole was a Canadian and the alternate head, Alan Kessel, was also a Canadian. Valerie Oosterweld, a “gender expert” from the left-wing International Center for Human Rights and Democratic Development in Montreal, dominated the Canadian negotiations and was an often seen and aggressive spokesman for the Women’s Caucus agenda. She was labelled “the snake” by third world delegates. The Canadian delegation hosted a secret, out-of-order meeting for delegates from 30 selected countries at the Canadian Embassy. One of the main speakers at this meeting was Rhonda Copeland, head of the Women’s caucus, who promoted the “enforced pregnancy” and “gender” agendas. A senior Canadian pro-family lobbyist states that “the Canadians ran the conference.” The following approved ICC items are the most serious causes for concern: 1. The strange term “forced pregnancy” now has official recognition as a new international crime. Although quite narrowly defined, the definition could be interpreted as prohibiting any nation from outlawing abortions of children conceived by rape. This exception to the principle that nations have a sovereign right to legislate on abortion could eventually undermine the entire principle. As one pro-family lobbyist said, “this is a step in the direction of having all restrictions on abortion declared criminal.” 2. The words “within the context of society” could be used by western legislative activist judges to undermine the traditional values intent of the entire definition of “gender”. 3. The “universal jurisdiction” application of the ICC is an ominous new development in international relations. The ICC has been given authority to impose its jurisdiction on nations that did not ratify this agreement. A pro-family legal expert states that this violates the Vienna Convention on Treaties which states that treaties are binding only on nations who consent to them. 4. The prosecutors will have extraordinary power. The provisions of the final statue deliberately contain very little to check and balance that power. 5. The court may be funded in part by private donations. International Planned Parenthood, Ted Turner, Bill Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation and other anti-family/anti-life individuals and organizations will likely take full advantage of this opportunity to bypass governments and change the world via this court. 6. The prosecutor's office may be staffed by volunteers. We can be certain that the women's caucus will be generous in its provision of volunteers to the court. 7. The first chief international prosecutor is highly likely to be Canada's Louise Arbour. A key Canadian pro-life lobbyist says that “she has it in the bag.” Louise Arbour is a radical feminist. She has a reputation for arrogantly breaking rules and doing things the way she wants. With significant funding, staffing and leadership of the court engineered to come from extreme anti-family sources, the court could cause serious harm to the international social community, rather than bring about the great advance in international justice sincerely hoped for by the many delegations that voted for the ICC . 8.  Individual and special interest groups may lay complaints with the court. This could turn the court into an extraordinarily powerful instrument of forced social change by feminist, homosexual and other radical social change groups. A key U.S. pro-family lobbyist and legal expert at the ICC states that “this will be the court for social reconstruction of the world for the next 100 years.” Pro-family activists should spread the word around the world about the dangers of this court and influence governments to NOT ratify the ICC agreement as currently worded. Failing that, they should urge governments to influence the implementation of the court to strictly ensure that its staffing and direction are not manipulated to serve any radical social change movements. http://www.lifesitenews.com/resources/international-criminal-court-approved/

Please enter the word you see in the image below: