Responding to Helms' remarks, Sen. Boxer agreed with him that the United States "is, in fact, a leader of human rights" and "should be in the leadership and out front on this issue." However, Sen. Boxer asserted that the inability to even bring CEDAW to the Senate floor, much less to ratify it, was an "embarrassment" that "takes away our ability to lead for equal rights for women." She added that it was a "disgrace that we are not a party to this treaty" because, "since 1981, when it entered into force, it has had a positive impact on the countries that have signed it."
Regardless of your religious beliefs, this is a bad Treaty!
Please document this claim, if possible. Also, why just China? What about Russia, France, America?
The effect of the Optional Protocol is likely to be even more harmful in the developing world. During negotiations on the Optional Protocol, it was poignant to hear from African delegates and NGOs who believed that the Optional Protocol would help eliminate truly oppressive economic and cultural practices which often leave women at the mercy of unmerciful men. However, it is far more likely that the complaint process will be commandeered by well-funded, international NGOs with narrow mandates to promote abortion or homosexual rights - both of which are offensive to most African cultures.Ultimately, individual freedom - for both men and women - is better served by keeping power close to home. Sovereignty and rights to self-determination are as important to women as to men. The Optional Protocol to CEDAW attempts, more than any previous protocol, to limit sovereign rights, and will impinge on freedom and fundamental rights if applied as urged by the CEDAW Committee.
This article was written by Babette Francis, National & Overseas Coordinator of Endeavour Forum Inc. and Kathryn Balmforth, Director of the World Family Policy Centre, Brigham Young University, both of whom attended the 43rd Session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women meetings in New York in March 1999.
Helms bump. Look alive, once Giddy is in this will be the last time that you see conservative leadership of ANY sort from this state for years to come
I would do far more than not ratify this treaty. I would treat it as the asinine foray into what does not concern the UN, that it so obviously is. It deserves ridicule. It deserves contempt. It must never be treated seriously. When we end up debating whether life has a purpose, as an issue of State, we have crossed the line between the rational and mad.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
More women's rights advocates are beginning to believe that attaining their rights is not exclusively a women's project-that they need to help create "a more productive and humane future rights for everyone." Women's claims of the universality of full citizenship rights is easily lost in the local cultural or national identity. To win their equality, some women believe that international human rights law takes precedence over domestic law, that Muslim women's rights will not be won on the local level. Other women believe that direct advocacy of universal human rights will not work because most people do not want it, at least when it is incompatible with their cultural traditions and mindset. But nations have shown that they want to publicly claim support of these goals for the public relations value even if the reality is something altogether different.
Public response to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) provides an interesting picture of where countries actually stand on equal rights issues and the strategies they use to bypass the provisions of this treaty. Ann Elizabeth Mayer looks at the rhetorical strategies that proclaim support for women's rights which often do just the opposite in practice. She calls them "the new world hypocrisy." CEDAW is an international treaty whose text was finalized in 1979. Although many countries have either ratified or acceded to the treaty, they have employed various strategies to circumvent its provisions.
Most strategies used to circumvent this treaty are arguments seen in the public sector at large concerning human rights, building upon the argument that higher unalterable laws than the treaty are in effect. As we have seen, the traditional texts of Islam are sacred. Although Muslim countries have tended to ratify the treaty, they accompany their ratification with reservations, which is allowed under international law. However, the reservations are not supposed to be incompatible with the purpose of the treaty. Many women believe that Muslim countries have tried to enjoy the good public relations of attending ratification, without the intent of honoring its provisions. For example, in response to Article 16 which provides for equality of men and women in all matters of marriage, divorce and family relations during marriage, Egypt's 1981 reservations stated that it had to adhere to shari'a which would also ensure a "just balance" and "complementarity" between the genders, that the husband would pay bridal money upon marriage and a payment in the event of divorce, the women retained full rights over her property and did not have to maintain her keep, and a judge had to rule on a wife's bid for a divorce, but not the husband's. However, the issue of "complementarity" is overruled by Article 5 which calls for the elimination of stereotyped roles.
Egypt's reservations are based upon old shari'a laws that are assumed to be the final authority. Yet, no national consensus has confirmed that shari'a laws are even represented by Egypt's current personal status laws. The result is that observers do not want to disrespect religious differences, and therefore, the reservations have been allowed to stand. Morocco made similar reservations in 1993 to the provisions of Article 16 that Egypt had made, again appealing to the authority of shari'a. However, after just a few months, Morocco changed its shari'a-based personal status code and allowed some of the provisions which had concerned its earlier dissent. The ability of the country to change its shari'a is just the point. The laws have never been immutable and have changed over the centuries according to the needs of day. Mayer believes their changeability is what negates the appeal to their authority.
The United States never did ratify CEDAW, nor did it ratify its own Equal Rights Amendment. Conservatives like the late Senator Sam Ervin appealed to the law of nature, saying that the treaty "made men and women into identical legal beings with the same rights and subject to the same responsibilities." The higher law cited by American opponents was not religious but secular. Ratification could violate the US Constitution which requires that family law be deferred to the states. The US does not allow its constitution to be judged by international standards.
Our forefathers deliberately wrote a document that is difficult to change, based on the fact that the United States is a republic rather than a democracy. The elaborate checks and balances protected the new republic against the undue influence of any one interest group. The most potentially dangerous faction of all-the majority-was designed to be controlled by the sovereign states. It is this type of local and national textual restrictions that pose the greatest problems for women seeking international solutions. Mayer believes that state law must be brought into conformity with international laws that guarantee universal human rights.
The Vatican's appeal to higher authority was to that of church tradition and it also appealed to nature. It then introduced another rhetorical strategy into the international cauldron. It dissociated the concept of equality into two spheres-one abstract and one practical. Women were to be equal in dignity, if not in rights. That way, the Pope could maintain the abstract equality of women while he denied the practical issues of that very equality. Often, the use of the appeal to authority is executed when agreement on the issue at hand is in danger of being debated. All the writers of Faith & Freedom would agree that this is what is happening in fundamentalist Islamic regimes throughout the Middle East today. Feminists are working diligently to replace shari'a-based laws with international laws guaranteeing human rights to all.
U.N. bureaucrats are at it again, critics say — this time with a plan for an international treaty on women's rights.
So what's wrong with the idea of guaranteeing women equal rights? It's all in the fine print, according to opponents of the agreement who see it as an attempt by the U.N. to interfere with domestic U.S. politics.
"This committee has reprimanded Mexico for having a lack of access to easy and swift abortion, has reprimanded Luxembourg for 'promoting a stereotype of men being the breadwinners of families,'" said Wendy Wright of the Concerned Women for America, a Washington-based activist group. "It's like the Equal Rights Amendment on steroids."
The United States is currently considering ratifying the treaty, so the U.S. Senate could hold hearings on the matter within the next week. It will be discussed under its formal name, the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
Those who want the treaty passed say it's nothing more sinister than a genuine effort to give women the rights they deserve, especially in the developing world.
"The right to healthcare, the right to education, the right to participate effectively in political decision making, the right to property and the right to vote … These are the fundamental human rights," said Leila Milani of the Coalition for Equal Rights.
Opponents of the treaty are particularly irked by the way it would be enforced. A committee will periodically sit at the United Nations with every state that has signed on and lean on those it thinks aren't moving fast or far enough.
Some American critics gripe loudest at what they call the convention's pro-abortion tone.
"It reprimanded Italy for allowing doctors to not participate in abortions out of conscientious objections," said Wright, "so this treaty goes far beyond the idea of trying to stop discrimination against women."
As far as this treaty is concerned, the word family planning does not include abortion. And this treaty is abortion-neutral.
The State Department has not voiced any objections to the treaty, and the Bush White House has remained silent on it. But that may change, with both sides hoping the Senate hearings will force the administration to take a stand.
Right now, as we speak, the Bush Administration is determining its position on CEDAW. You can affect that position by calling the White House and saying, "Un-Sign CEDAW." (Rhymes with Hee-Haw). The number is
202-456-1111. They are waiting for your call.
Do it now!
And for added impact, email Secretary of State Colin Powell at
secretary@state.gov
and write, "Mr. Secretary, Un-Sign CEDAW."
Do these things right now.
THEY are deciding.
WE can stop the radicals right in their tracks.
Do it.
Call the White House
"Resistance to the emerging global capitalist order has been similarly mobilized by appealing to biological determinist notions of masculinity. Scholars have pointed out the ways in which religious fundamentalism and ethnic nationalism use local cultural symbols to express regional resistance to incorporation by a larger, dominant power (see especially Jurgensmeyer 1995 and Barber 1995). These religious and ethnic expressions are often manifest as gender revolts, and include a virulent resurgence of domestic patriarchy (or militant misogyny); the problematization of global masculinities or neighboring masculinities (as in the former Yugoslavia); and the overt symbolic efforts to claim a distinct "manhood" along religious or ethnic lines to which others do not have access and which will restore manhood to the formerly privileged. In effect, masculinity becomes a rhetorical currency by which opposition to global integration, state centralization and increasing ethnic heterogeneity can be mobilized. In such cases, we expect to find ideas of traditional, local masculinities and their accompanying hierarchies reaffirmed. Typically, as Connell notes (1998: 17), "hardline masculine fundamentalism goes together with a marked anti-internationalism"."This is another one of those examples of feminist activism where if you take the word "man" and replaced it with the word "Jew" or "Black" you would assume that you were reading something spewed out by the PLA or the KKK. This is the real reason you want to get on the horn and tell your congresscritter to oppose this bigoted piece of international socialist garbage before their chivalry hormones kick in and somebody convinces them that it's "for the children."
Thank you for being in touch with me with your thoughts on the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Treaty.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is an international bill of rights for women. It is based on the premise that in many parts of the world, women have not enjoyed, to the same extent as men, the basic rights and protections outlined in international human rights agreements and conventions. CEDAW brings together, in a single comprehensive human rights treaty, the provisions of previous United Nations' instruments concerning discrimination on the basis of sex, and extends them to create a tool dedicated to the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.
The Convention requires States Parties to eliminate discrimination against women in the areas of civil, political, economic, and cultural rights. It also establishes measures for States to pursue to achieve equal protection for women and men of their human rights. States are obliged to work for equality in public life, for example, in the realm of legal status and political participation, and also in private life and customs. For example, in pursuing CEDAW's goals, States Parties are encouraged to introduce measures to prevent the unhealthy practice of genital mutilation.
The Convention was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in December 1979. Ratification was rapid, and Treaty came into force on September 3, 1981. As I am sure you are aware, today 169 countries - more than two-thirds of the members of the United Nations - are party to the Convention. The Carter Administration signed it in July 1980, and it has been waiting for Senate approval since that time.
CEDAW's goals are very ambitious, and it will certainly take a great deal of time, patience, and focus to achieve them. Some critics oppose the notion of an international convention to guarantee women's rights around the world. I support the concept of trying to ensure that women around the world receive basic rights similar to those guaranteed to every American under our own Bill of Rights. For many years, American missionaries, religious organizations, and other Americans have worked hard to promote the rights and protections that American citizens enjoy. I hope the deliberations on CEDAW will provide an opportunity to review whether this Treaty can serve the same purpose.
Because of some of the questions and misconceptions about CEDAW, I think it is important to share what the Treaty is not about. This Treaty is not designed to push for radical changes. It addresses the importance of equality for women throughout the world - whether they are in traditional families or working to provide for their families on their own. I believe that it is critical for the United States to be supportive of women's equality around the world. CEDAW does not impose a radical or even specific agenda, but instead encourages all countries to promote higher standards of treatment and protection for women. It does not promote "same-sex marriages," which at any rate are prohibited in the United States by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
I appreciate hearing from you, and I want to be very sensitive to your concerns and interests when CDAW is deliberated in the Senate. In light of the many different views and perspectives that exist in West Virginia and around the world towards issues like this, I hope we can continue finding common, constructive ways to strengthen the lives of women around the world, and particularly in countries where women do not enjoy the most basic of human rights. Again, thank you so much for sharing your views.
Sincerely,
John D. Rockefeller IV
How dare Rockef***er use "The Bill of Rights" and "the U.N." in the same letter!!
Hate creates violence.
Violence creates war.
The poltically correct say they do it to SAVE humanity, but the very thing they say they're trying to prevent is mulitplying in stregth every day because of political correctness docturine.
There's more hate in the world today because of political correctness and the thought police than ever before.
The liberals are out to destroy America.
Either by other nations deciding they've had enough of the liberal crap, or simply from within.
Either way, they're killing us. They're signing all our death warrents.
"Ten nations will gather together in secret and come against Babylon the great and destroy her. The kings of the earth who have grown rich off her luxeries will mourn. Merchant ships will dare not go near her shores."
How could they do that?
I immediately emailed Powell, and within seconds I got a canned response.
Thank you so much for the alert, madfly. I shall now follow through with my reps.
"I call on the Senate, again, to ratify the United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms ofdiscrimination against women ... it is, to say the least, an embarrassment that the United States has not done this...President Bill Clinton
Human Rights Day, December 10, 1996"...it is long past time for America to become party to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
March 12, 1997"Violence and discrimination against women don't just victimize individuals; they hold back wholesocieties ... Guaranteeing human rights is a moral imperative with respect to both women and men. It isalso an investment in making whole nations stronger, fairer, and better. "
From the official U.S. Government statement to the World
Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, Austria, 1993