 UN_List: for United Nations articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register Don't forget:
|
Posted on 05/23/2002 5:48:21 PM PDT by Asmodeus
Rumblings are leaking out of Washington that Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-DE) and the Clinton holdovers in the State Department are conspiring to resuscitate the long-moribund United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). A hearing was scheduled for May 15 and then postponed, but the State Department has placed it on a list of acceptable treaties.
CEDAW is not acceptable, and George W. Bush's entire constituency is up in arms against it. It was signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Bill Clinton made an attempt to get it ratified in 1996, but no one rallied to support it except the Clintonista feminists.
The notion is downright ridiculous that American women (the most fortunate class of people who ever lived) should submit to a treaty that dictates uniform rules for 130 other nations (all of which treat women worse than the United States). But the whining feminists induce some men to do foolish things, and endorsing this terrible treaty is one of the most foolish.
Ratification of CEDAW would be craven kowtowing to the radical feminists, exceeded only by the treaty's unlimited capacity for legal mischief. It would be a massive interference with U.S. laws as well as with our federal-state balance of powers.
Even Edmund S. Muskie, when he was Secretary of State, admitted that this treaty applies "to private organizations and areas of personal conduct not covered by U.S. law." His memo said that the treaty completely fails to take into account "the division of authority between the state and federal governments in the United States."
Article 1 purports to abolish discrimination against women "in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field." "Other fields"? Private relationships should be none of our government's business, much less the business of the United Nations.
Article 2 reiterates that the treaty would "eliminate discrimination against women by any person, organization or enterprise," including "customs and practices" as well as all "public institutions." This would include mandating the longtime feminist goal of a gender-neutral military.
Article 3 would require us to pass new federal laws not only in political but also in "social, economic and cultural fields." Article 5 would require us "to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women" and to give assurances that we are following United Nations dictates about "family education."
Article 10 would make it a federal responsibility to ensure "the elimination of any stereotyped concept of the roles of men and women at all levels and in all forms of education . . . by the revision of textbooks and . . . teaching methods." The UN would be authorized to revise our textbooks to conform to feminist ideology and semantics.
Article 11 would chain us to the feminist goal that wages should be paid on subjective notions of "equal value" (i.e., the discredited notion of "comparable worth") rather than on objective standards of equal work. It would also require another long-time feminist goal, a federal "network of child-care facilities."
Article 16 would require us to allow women "to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children." This is feminist jargon to lock the United States into a perpetual treaty obligation to allow abortions at any time for any reason.
On the other hand, this language would not protect Chinese women victimized by their government's policy of forced abortions. China takes the position that it is not "responsible" for a woman to bear more than one child.
Article 16 also levels a broadside attack on states' rights. It would obligate the federal government to take over all family law, including marriage, divorce, child custody, and property.
To monitor U.S. "progress" (i.e., compliance) under this treaty, Article 17 sets up a committee of "23 experts." No doubt that means "experts" in feminist ideology, such as Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer and Patricia Schroeder.
CEDAW's international "experts" have already issued negative reports about the practices of countries that were rash enough to ratify the treaty. They criticized Ireland for "promoting a stereotypical view of the role of women in the home and as mothers," Belarus for "such symbols as a Mother's Day," Slovenia because "less than 30 percent of children under three years of age were in formal day care," and recommended "the decrimininalization of prostitution in China."
CEDAW would clearly diminish the rights and benefits American women now enjoy, as well as give extraordinary powers over U.S. laws to busybody global bureaucrats. We hope President Bush will unsign it just as he unsigned the International Criminal Court Treaty.
UN_List: for United Nations articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register Don't forget:
|
They support terrorists. They stab President Bush in the back.
And to this day, they attack researchers in alternative energy in the US.
Why are these people overriding US security?
ANYTHING that comes from the UN is BAD FOR AMERICA!!
Because a woman has never been lawfully elected? There had not been a non-Protestant President until Kennedy in 1960. For what it's worth, I believe a woman will be elected President before very long. Perhaps as early as 2004. See message #7 in this thread for my reasoning.
The first is that women are discriminated against in the political arena.
Let's see. My representive is Lois Capps. Before that, it was Andrea Seastrand. My Senators are Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. That sure doesn't look like discrimination to me (I did not vote for the liberal Democrats, but I did vote for Seastrand). For an example of real discrimination, look at Hillary!'s Senatorial election in New York. The loser who ran against her didn't attack her as he properly should have because she was a woman.
The other one is that women are somehow inferior to men.
I don't think you'll find anyone in this forum who believes that.
But that doesn't eliminate the need for equalization.
You obviously have never been outside the United States. If you would like to be equalized to the level of Japanese women, for example, go ahead. No one here will stop you.
1. If a treaty that has been signed by the President of the United States has not been ratified by the United States Senate within a period of seven years from the date it was signed by the President, such signature shall be considered null and void.2. All signatures on outstanding treaties not ratified at the time of adoption of this ammendment will be considered null and void if they have not been ratified by seven years after this ammendment is ratified.
3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
This ammendment would prevent a lot of mischief by future presidents. If it were adopted, President Bush would not even need to unsign this treaty. It would die from neglect.
While I dont sit home and bake cookies, I have the choice to do so or not.Choice is what freedom is all about. For men and women.With choice comes responcibility.You cant have one without the other.
Respect is earned, as is revulsion.I find it revolting that the womens movement has been hijacked by the "elitists" who have no conception of what most women want or need.MOST women want men.Whether you believe the design is nature or nuture is irrelevant.Women are different from men.The majority of humanity truly appreciates and really enjoys this fact.In western civilizations, we are still struggling to adapt to the incredible advances in technology and education we have created which have tended to blur the biological imperatives, and immature people of both sexes tend to seek simplistic answers as to what role they should play in our society. In eastern civilizations, these advances are really just being found out about.No society reacts nicely when change is immediate.Especially a change of this magnitude.
Unfortunately,those who want power more than happiness see the differences between the sexes as an opportunity to continue conflict and maintain controll.
The rest of humanity desire partners of the opposite sex. Actively seek them in fact.The basic design is unchanged.
I hope the shrill voices of unhappy power seekers, equally distributed between the sexes, will mute as the rest of us muddle our way through the 21st century and hopefully find our longed for partners in the process.
The UN also wants your 38.
Which is why I advocate getting the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.I firmly believe the world as a whole would be better served.
I agree. If it's not resolved within that President's term, it would become void.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
