UN's "Ecocide" - The Wake-up Call Worse than Cap and Trade

 

The Activists' War on Private Property, Industrialization and the Free Market

As the self-proclaimed Superguardian of human rights, the UN defines the following 4 crimes  as "crimes against humanity," prosecutable under the jurisdiction of the ICC (International Criminal Court):

  • genocide
  • war crimes
  • ethnic cleansing
  • crimes against humanity

The UN works incredibly hard to be the final authority by citing these and other "international laws" to member states -- including the United States. 

Despite the fact that we remain the model for democracy throughout the world, the UN threatens to usurp the Constitution and the sovereignty of America by invoking the supremacy of international law. These attempts remains hidden from public discourse. If all the UN intends to accomplish were made  common knowledge, we'd have louder debates and realize that the problems of socialized healthcare is just the beginning.  

Realize that the UN doesn't have anymore muscle power than they did a decade or 25 years ago to address these crimes against humanity as they occur, but they have found another way to try to address these crimes-- and that is by aligning prevention through the utilization of resources of its member states, by its member states,  for its member states.    

In other words, member states have been compelled to adopt laws that would prevent these crimes against humanity from occurring. Laws against hate crimes are examples we can readily understand. But even though we create the laws and enforce them, the UN and international laws take precedence over member states' sovereignty. 

On the horizon is a 5th prosecutable crime, but it's not a crime against humanity. Including this crime would frame the new 5-crime set "Crimes Against Peace."  

This 5th crime against peace would be the crime against nature, called "Ecocide." 

Wesley Smith posts details from the UK article via First Things about the British radical who is campaigning the UN "to accept 'ecocide' as [an] international crime":

A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace - alongside genocide and crimes against humanity - is being launched in the UK. 

The proposal for the United Nations to accept "ecocide" as a fifth "crime against peace", which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins. 

The radical idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry. 

Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute "climate deniers" who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change. 

"Ecocide is in essence the very antithesis of life," says Higgins. "It leads to resource depletion, and where there is escalation of resource depletion, war comes chasing behind. Where such destruction arises out of the actions of mankind, ecocide can be regarded as a crime against peace." 

Higgins, formerly a barrister in London specialising in employment, has already had success at the UN with a Universal Declaration for Planetary Rights, modelled on the human rights declaration. "My starting point was 'how do we create a duty of care to the planet, a pre-emptive obligation to not harm the planet?'"

A Universal Declaration for Planetary Rights. 

Socialist Bolivia is among the first to work on an adoption of the idea of "ecocide." Bolivia was also one of the anti-accord noisemakers at Copenhagen. So was Ecuador, which has given "Nature"  Constitutional rights that read:

Persons and people have the fundamental rights guaranteed in this Constitution and in the international human rights instruments. Nature is subject to those rights given by this Constitution and Law.

Some may attempt to dismiss this as infighting over environmentalism, gone awry. This has nothing to do with climate concerns and everything to do with further weakening our nation. 

What it is, is exploitation of a radical idea to make all nations operate at the lowest common denominator. These radicals would curtail our ownership of private property, outlawing production and consumption, making the United States a 3rd world country, if this isn’t happening already. 

If the UN were to adopt a proposed 5th "crime against peace" -- the Crime Against Nature --  harnessing and utilizing energy in ways we see fit to benefit our nation would be impaired, and our nation's production and consumption would be subject to international regulations and restrictions. 

If this "crime" becomes international law and is enforced in our country, we can expect a restriction on our rights to personal wealth. In the same sense that cap and trade regulates, the amount of personal possessions -- and the industry involved in their production, consumption and disposal -- would be regulated.   

Again, the UN doesn't have the muscle power to enforce, so the United States would adopt regulations -- not necessarily laws -- to prevent over-production and over-consumption. 

This would be the end of industrialization, the end of America as we know it. 

President Obama has already stripped our national defense of the title of military superpower. Next will come the UN's blow to our nation's ability to rebuild itself as an economic superpower. 

This is akin to 9/11, where our military (pentagon) and the institutions of our industry and trade (WTC) were targeted and attacked, bringing our country to its knees. 

If this 5th Crime Against Peace were to become a recognized protection under international law, this would give the UN power to affect our legislation in the halls of Congress. It would be up to us, the people, to gain control, halt, and redirect those efforts. 

-- written with Hugo Estrada

1
Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Comments

I had heard a bit about the UN meddling in US law

...but mainly over the two documents dealing with the rights of women and the rights of children.  The issues with the rights of women document are (mainly) setting the legal marriageable age at a global standard, and mandatory state-funded abortion.  The one on the rights of children has too many issues to mention; basically a Scandinavian model of national citizenship for children rather than being a member of a family.

But this is the first I had heard of the environmental document.  It doesn't surprise me though.

It seems like we would do well to apply conservative principles to our UN membership; namely, a limited government, and greater autonomy of member states.  I'm really not sure if we will ever get around to having that discussion in this country.  The Left is too ready to accept that we are no longer to set the standard of the world, ie relinquish superpower status, in favor of being the lap-dog of European masters.  I think it can be seen that, over the years, we have done Europe a lot more good than they have ever done us.