By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)
May 12, 2003
The Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice, which was formed in 1997 to advocate for “a gender perspective in the negotiations toward the International Criminal Court, (ICC) " has announced its mission was successful. Having succeeded in its push for formation of the ICC as well as for the acceptance of its definition of “gender crimes,” the group and its worldwide network of feminist groups have also succeeded in getting its selection of judges for the court approved.
Radical Feminists in USA are now plotting, with a group of Democrat Senators, to accomplish similar control over the United States Supreme Court. The National Organization for Women (NOW) is lobbying furiously to block the appointment of Judge Patricia Owen, for example. As a Texas Supreme Court Judge, Owen ruled in favor of a law requiring minors to notify parents before getting an abortion.
The Women’s Caucus has changed its name to “Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice” and is encouraging feminist groups like NOW to “own the ICC and incorporate this new mechanism of international justice and accountability more fully into the consciousness of our work and strategies."
What, if anything, does this have to do with the United States? According to Secretary of State Colin Powell, President Bush’s refusal to urge ratification of the ICC was because the Court and its prosecutors were “beholden to no higher authority, not beholden to the Security Council, not beholden to anyone else, and would have the authority to second-guess the United States after we have tried somebody.”
The Women’s Caucus recently announced a “victory” in getting control of the International Criminal Court by forcing approval of pro-abortion advocates as the ICC’s judicial leaders. Canadian Philippe Kirsch was elected the President (Chief Justice) of the 18 judge panel and Akua Kuenyehia of Ghana and Elizabeth Odio Benito of Costa Rica were elected vice-presidents.
Most people still think the ICC is organized to judge tyrants of the world. However, according to a Canadian ICC watch group called Real Women of Canada, “Any hope of achieving an impartial, objective Court to bring the tyrants of this world to justice dissolved in the wake of actions taken by a Canadian delegation determined to turn the ICC into a powerful vehicle to promote world-wide radical feminism, including abortion and homosexual rights. What should have remained solely a criminal court has, in effect, been transformed into a human rights ombudsman as well.
“The proposed ICC statute was sprinkled with provisions to protect against sexual violence and ‘gender’ discrimination. The 18 judges and the prosecutor were to be appointed on the basis of their expertise with gender issues and sexual violence. The prosecutor was to have unfettered power, effectively being unaccountable to sovereign states of the UN, and would initiate ‘investigations’ of virtually any nation in the world, based on complaints from individuals, special interest groups and victims. Such broad, unchecked powers are a direct assault on the sovereignty of individual governments and their respective judicial systems.”
To assure the formation of the ICC as a “powerful vehicle to promote world-wide radical feminism,” Canadian Philippe Kirsch “used procedural abuses and manipulation to push a radical feminist/pro-abortion ideology for the court.” In March 2003 Philippe Kirsch was elected as President and Chief Justice of the 18 member ICC court and his feminist allies, Akua Kuenyehia of Ghana and Elizabeth Odio Benito of Costa Rica were elected vice-presidents.
At the present time, “procedural abuses” of a very similar nature are taking place in the United States Senate to block any judge who MIGHT rule against the radical feminist agendas on abortion and homosexuality. Dr. Richard G. Wilkins, Professor of Law at Brigham Young University, a leading authority on the ICC, warns that while the ICC claims to consider only "genocide," "war crimes," and "crimes against humanity," the definitions of those terms has been left so vague as to be open to “virtually any interpretation.” Professor Wilkins, former Assistant to the US Solicitor General, said the ICC could eventually be used to try "the Pope or other religious leaders" since issues such as abortion and homosexuality would inevitably fall within the ICC's jurisdiction
In his paper entitled Ramification of the International Criminal Court for War, Peace and Social Change” Wilkins goes on to say the ICC Statute “transfers a vast amount of decision making authority from previously sovereign nations to an international court that will be remote and unable to be controlled by or accountable to the diverse peoples and cultures of the world. It does so by means of vague statutory language, capable of expansion.”
Admiralty Courts, remote courts over which the American colonists had no control, were a major cause of the America Revolution. The vague language of the ICC can, and with its chosen judges undoubtedly will be, interpreted to mean that any nation with laws against abortion on demand or homosexual marriage is “guilty” of crimes against humanity, undoubtedly leading to future wars , according to Dr. Wilkins.
The successful tactics used to seize control of the International Criminal Court, were almost entirely unreported by the media. Now we have been warned. So far, the Democrat obstructionists in the Senate have been successful in blocking Bush appointees who might become Supreme Court Judges some day.
However, unlike the ICC judges, Americans have some control over those trying to seize total control of the Supreme Court. Fourteen of those obstructionists will be up for re-election in 2004. To protect our court system, now is the time to begin plans to oust them from the Senate in the November 2004 election.
To comment: mmostert@bannerofliberty.com