By Tim Bloedow
The Interim
Canada is set to become one of the first countries to ratify the highly controversial Rome statute, which will be used to set up a global criminal court. On June 13, the House of Commons passed Bill C-19, the Crimes Against Humanity Act, the purpose of which is to “implement in Canada the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.” The legislation passed with a vote of 224-36. LifeSite News reported that the vote fell “along party lines, with all parties [voting] in favour except the Canadian Alliance.” The bill now goes to the Senate.
The progress made towards the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been one of the most disturbing developments in the United Nations’ international agenda in recent years. Despite claims from its supporters, including Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy, the ICC strikes at the heart of national sovereignty. The Liberals even refused to pass an amendment to C-19 which would have guaranteed protection of Canadian sovereignty, Lifesite News reported. The ICC is supposed to be set up once 60 countries have officially ratified it. “As of June 12,” LifeSite reported, “twelve countries have already ratified the agreement. The full 60 ratifications are expected by December this year.” Other countries which have already ratified the treaty included Italy, Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, France, and Venezuela.
The particular concerns pro-life forces have surrounding the ICC, however, are the attempts that feminist extremists at the UN have made to include “enforced pregnancy” as a crime against humanity. Enforced pregnancy has been demonstrated to include the existence of legislation banning abortion. The term has been more specifically defined in the ICC documents, but pro-family forces are convinced that feminists will continue to fight to have the definition widened to include laws against abortion.
Gwen Landolt, vice-president of REAL Women of Canada has been a leading pro-family campaigner at the national and international level for many years. She appeared before the House of Commons foreign affairs committee during hearings on Bill C-19 and used her wealth of experience to place on public record many disturbing aspects of the Liberal globalist agenda at the UN, particularly in relation to the ICC.
She argued that no effective accountability structure exists for the court, thus making it highly susceptible to “politicization.” Furthermore, she said “there is a real risk that the ICC will be captured‚ not by governments, but by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and others with narrow special interests.” She also said that the definitions of the crimes the court is supposed to address – genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity – are “at best, breathtakingly expansive. They are so elastic that the ICC will enjoy a wide discretion in applying them. Clearly, this is not a court of limited jurisdiction.”
Mrs. Landolt, a lawyer by trade, added that the court has also been “altered from a criminal court into a human rights tribunal.” Furthermore, she noted, contrary to public perception, it is not part of the UN as is the International Court of Justice in the Hague; it is “a completely independent institution. Independent, that is, except for the influence of the radical feminists – mainly American based – who have so enormously influenced its structure and procedures.”
At the committee hearing Mrs. Landolt told her audience of MPs that feminists played a dominant role in the structure and procedures of the ICC and that their proposals undermined “the fundamental principles of impartiality” that should be required for the court. She noted specifically that “Canada even attempted to have judges accepted to the court not on the basis of merit but on his/her experience on gender issues of the Statute.”
Mrs. Landolt objected to the risk posed by the use of “enforced pregnancy” as well as to the use of the term gender. “The western powers, again led by Canada,” she said, “objected to any definition that limited the word ‘gender’ to mere males and females.” A compromise definition, qualifying it to “the context of society” disturbs her. “It is understood that as a result of this definition, those who oppose homosexual/lesbian practices might well find themselves under indictment and prosecution by the ICC in the future”
Mrs. Landolt, pointing to the Treaty Monitoring Committee for CEDAW (the Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women) to show precedent, also told MPs that there were real concerns about the way the ICC would be expected to treat freedom of religion. She also talked about the anti-democratic way in which the government approves treaties without passing them by Parliament, concluding with the observation that “Bill C-19 is a rare exception in that it deals with the Rome Statute [which] requires that the Canadian government pass legislation to implement it.”
