Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : GET THE U.S. OUT of The U.N NOW! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (175)	6/24/2002 12:13:05 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 411

Blair suffers a double defeat on asylum seekers at Seville summit By Francis Elliott in Seville (Filed: 23/06/2002) European Union leaders yesterday moved to establish an EU border police force to patrol shores, ports and crossing points against illegal immigrants. The dramatic attempt to strengthen "fortress Europe" could mean foreign guards wearing an EU uniform patrolling in Britain. European leaders gather for a group photo at the end of the Seville summit The heads of government said that the moves were a stepping stone to the creation of a fully fledged European-wide force which would act in tandem with each nation's police. The proposals were launched at the Seville summit against opposition from Tony Blair. The Prime Minister suffered a double defeat as his own rival plan to counter illegal immigration - withdrawing aid from some Third World countries - was thrown out. In contrast, the move towards a common border force, to be called the European Union Corps of Border Guards, was given an enthusiastic welcome. The summit agreed to launch a series of working groups to hone proposals made by Italy for the new force, which would have its own uniform and badge and be drawn from all 15 member states. It could be in place by 2007. As an early step, co-operation between the existing police and immigration units of member states is to be enhanced immediately. Gerhard Schröder, the German Chancellor, confirmed that enhanced co-operation was a mere stepping stone to the corps. "The creation of a common police force to guard our border remains the long-term goal," he told reporters at the close of the two-day European Council. Antonio Vitorino, the EU's Justice Commissioner, said that he expected the border force to become a reality within five years. "It is a gradual process, that will start with the mere co-ordination of efforts that could evolve quickly so that in the medium term, in four to five years, it will be possible to have a European border guard force," he said. The proposal is the latest attempt to harmonise Europe's legal systems. It follows moves to create a common body of criminal law, corpus juris, across the EU and to increase the powers of investigation handed to the Europol agency, including search warrants. European leaders have been rattled by the growing controversy over illegal immigration and the rise of Right-wing parties in recent elections. The new plan was taken up after Italy unveiled the results of a detailed feasibility study drawn up over eight months. At its centre were the remarkable results of a 15-day trial, held last month, during which guards from all 15 member states joined forces to patrol borders in France, Italy and Spain, including 24 airports. Officers on the teams succeeded in stopping 4,500 illegal immigrants and arrested 34 alleged traffickers during the study. Italy and Spain are among several southern states which are desperate for the EU to pool its resources and to share the burden of guarding their immensely long coastlines against a flood of human traffic. The Italian interior minister, Claudio Scajola, said: "The work that has been going on for eight months has been coordinated by our experts." Ministers of EU member states and the 13 EU candidate countries agreed at a meeting in Lisbon last month to set up a "task force" to coordinate efforts to curb illegal immigration at Europe's busiest air and sea ports. The body is now expected to develop Italy's plans for a common force. The British Government had claimed before the summit ended that the idea would not be taken up. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, made clear on Friday that he opposes the plan. "Such is the opposition to the principle of a European Union border police that it will not feature except as an acknowledgement that a discussion took place," said Mr Straw. In fact, the conclusions recorded that the leaders had "welcomed" the Italian plan and urged the creation "without delay" of a body to harmonise border controls. Eurosceptics said last night that moves towards a single EU border police were a prelude to a fully integrated EU force. Daniel Hannan, a Conservative MEP, said: "As usual, they are presenting something which, on the face of it seems reasonable, as a way of establishing a harmonising principle. "In this instance they are being particularly clever since they have chosen an area that has traditionally been a concern of the Right. "In fact the asylum crisis is the result of a previous integration of immigration policy and more of the same is not the solution." Failure to block the EU border police plan helped make the two-day summit one of Mr Blair's least successful. Having told other European leaders that it was "politically imperative" to agree a "tougher approach" on immigration he saw his rival plans unravel amid opposition from other EU countries, as well as from Clare Short, the International Development Secretary. Miss Short's comment that any moves to dock aid to poor countries was "morally repugnant" meant that Mr Blair had little hope of overcoming resistance led by President Chirac of France. telegraph.co.uk.

To: calgal who wrote (175)	6/24/2002 12:13:33 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 411

John Leo June 24, 2002 U.N. Women's right treaty should be ignored Once again the push is on for the Senate to ratify CEDAW, the U.N.'s women's rights treaty that has been hanging around since 1979. CEDAW is the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. There's a good reason why the Senate has ignored it for a generation: It's an incredibly toxic document, the work of international bureaucrats determined to impose a worldwide makeover of family relations and "gender roles." CEDAW is a blueprint for foisting the West's radical feminism on every nation gullible enough to sign on. (Talk about cultural imperialism.) Some 167 nations have signed the treaty, many with no intention of observing it. But the CEDAW ferociously monitors every nation's compliance. It has a few enforcement mechanisms and plans more. The idea is that someday, nations may not be able to resist. CEDAW is a more perverse version of American radical feminism, circa 1975: It bristles with contempt for family, motherhood, religion and tradition. Parents and the family don't count. The state will watch out for children's rights. The treaty extends access to contraception and abortion to very young girls, and imposes "gender studies" on the schools and feminist-approved textbooks on students. The committee enforcing CEDAW criticized Belarus for reintroducing Mother's Day ("a sex-role stereotype") and strongly urged Armenia to combat the image of "the noble role of mother." It complained that voters in Ireland seem to reflect Catholic values and warned Libya that the Quran can only be followed within "permissible" limits set by CEDAW. Feminists will decide what religions may teach. CEDAW busybodies are always eager to intrude. Recently they leaned on Denmark for not providing data on whether Danish fathers are doing their share of chores around the house. One of the CEDAW committee's techniques is to use broad language, which is then tightened and given a radical interpretation after signatories have accepted it. CEDAW did not announce that women's "right to free choice of profession and employment" would turn out to mean (as the committee now says) that prostitution must be decriminalized around the world. Similarly, CEDAW'S ban on "any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex" seems to make legal approval of homosexual marriage mandatory. Some analysts think CEDAW'S ban on "orientation" bias will make pedophile sex legal, since some people are "oriented" toward children. Linguistic sinkholes are so common that Muslim women wanted assurance that the term "sexual slavery" would not be defined later as including marriage. CEDAW reflects the rising importance of international conferences and the United Nations' nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). CEDAW bureacrats constantly monitor and hector the world's nations to comply. The World Bank now seems primed to serve as an enforcer for CEDAW. One World Bank document is titled "Integrating Gender into the World's Bank's Work: a Strategy for Action." The feminists talk about the World Bank's "accountability mechanisms." Translation: No CEDAW compliance, no loan. Worse, CEDAW backers intend to use the new International Criminal Court as an enforcement tool. Patrick Fagan of the Heritage Foundation, who follows CEDAW closely, predicts that the CEDAW committee will bring an ICC case against Catholic hospitals to break the hospitals' refusal to perform abortions. Language setting up the court is so vague that radical prosecutors and judges might be able to jail clerics who refuse to perform same-sex marriages or who decline to ordain women. The lesson here is that small groups of dedicated bureaucrats, out of the public eye, can make rules affecting the domestic affairs of countries that would be difficult or impossible to achieve democratically. The trick is to create "customary international law" out of marginal views, constantly repeated on the world stage. Rita Joseph, an Australian human rights specialist, says: "The basic plan is ingeniously simple. The idea is to couch the feminist agenda in language of human rights" and then assert the ascendancy of human rights over the sovereign rights of nations. Still, over the past five or six years, as awareness of the radicalization of the United Nations has set in, nonradical American NGOs have mounted resistance, often with the help of the Vatican and Muslim nations. This alliance has had some success in exposing the language and parliamentary games played by the radicals. CEDAW is coming up again now because of a fumble in the State Department. Someone listed CEDAW as a treaty the administration considered low-level but acceptable. President Bush now has to choose between antagonizing his base by calling for Senate ratification or antagonizing female voters by seeming to come out against women's rights. But if he can't dodge the issue, he will have to oppose the treaty. CEDAW is dangerous as well as stupid. ©2002 Universal Press Syndicate townhall.com