The UN Genocide Treaty ..THE ROOT OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS which is leading to the ultimate death of free speech

[link to www.remnantofgod.org]



The GENOCIDE
Treaty

Only a national government has the power to produce “genocide,” which is the killing of an entire race of people. And only a government, when its troops invade other nations, can attempt to destroy an entire race outside of its borders. Neither an individual nor a group of individuals can commit genocide. And, if they try, they would quickly be jailed under already well-established criminal statutes. Thus we see that only nations can commit genocide, never individuals. Only a nation can blot out a race; an individual can only kill individuals.

But now we have a new international law governing nearly every civilized nation on earth,—that is able to charge innocent citizens with “genocide” for having done something that a national government considers harmful to other religions!

On December 11, 1946, the United Nations General Assembly voted unanimously to declare genocide as a crime under international law. Nearly a year later, on December 9, 1947, the same assembly unanimously adopted what isknown as the “Genocide Treaty.”

Because of obvious omissions and inherent dangers in that treaty, the United States did not ratify that treaty for decades afterward. Finally, 40 years later, under immense political pressure from various sources, the United Sates approved it on February 19, 1988

Nearly eight months later, on October 14, 1988, the Senate gave final approval to the treaty as they enacted certain

legislation which would impose extremely heavy penalties to those found guilty of violating that treaty. The Genocide

Treaty (also called the “Genocide Convention”) was signed by President Reagan on November 11. On December 9, 1988, the treaty was ratified by the United States of America—and became an important law of the land—when it was formally filed by a representative of the United States president at the United Nations headquarters in Lake Success, New York. In an official ceremony, before all the delegates in the General Assemble Hall, the document was handed to the secretary general of the United Nations.

And, because it is now on the statute books of 96 different nations of earth,—the Genocide Treaty has become the first worldwide man-made law in the history of mankind! Why was the United States hesitant for so many years to adopt the provisions of that treaty as a law governing people of the United States? Why is it considered so dangerous?

First: Under this recently enacted treaty, one man can be held as a genocidist for killing just one other man. Yet we all know that the killing of one man by another is in no way genocidal!

“Genocide: the deliberate and methodical annihilation of a national or racial group” (Macmillan Dictionary), “the systematic killing of a whole group of people or a nation” (Webster’s new World Dictionary). “Genocide means the physical dismemberment and liquidation of people on large scales: an attempt by those who rule to achieve the total elimination of a subject people.”—I. Horowitz, Taking Lives: Genocide and State Power, chapter 85.

Second: A man can be tried and found guilty of committing “genocide,” which is the destruction of an entire race of people—without having killed anyone at all! “But the treaty definition differs substantially from that of the dictionaries. It includes such items as ‘mental harm to members of the group,’ or moving them from one place to another, or even birth control. It would not be difficult to imagine a situation at a later time in which a special class of people were hailed into court on the

charge of genocide. Their crime? having brought ‘mental harm’ to members of a certain religious organization, by their words, actions, or distribution of proscribed literature.”—The Genocide Treaty, October 1968, 5.

Third: If a man is accused of “genocide,” he can be hailed into a U.S. court or be sent to a foreign court to stand trial under non-U.S. laws as a Genocide Treaty violator. “[Senator Jesse] Helms had blocked action in the past, complaining that the treaty could threaten the Constitution and subject the United States to spurious lawsuits by other countries [that sought to have U.S. citizens arrested and turned over to them for trial].”—Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, February 22, 1986, 458.

Fourth: The Genocide Treaty Itself has such vague wording that leading American jurists and attorneys have declared it to be dangerous! They tell us that all kinds of people can be accused of having violated the Genocide Treaty.

“The Genocide Convention [Genocide Treaty]” is such a vague and dangerous treaty that to cure its imperfections would require changes so substantial that they would have to be regarded as amendments requiring renegotiation of the convention by the United Nations itself].”—Charles Rice, Professor of Law, quoted in Congressional Record, February 13, 1986, S-1288.

Many of its terms are shrouded in uncertainty.”—Senator Strom Thurmond, of South Carolina, Senate debate, October 10, 1984, in Congressional Record, December 1984. [Speaking of the Genocide Treaty] A statute which forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that man of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.”—Orie L. Phillips, “The Genocide convention: Its Effect on Our Legal System, “American Bar Journal, 1949.

Fifth: That which makes a man’s actions to be in violation of the treaty—is the motive that others assign to those actions! “Motives” means the reason why he did it. Almost any kind of criminal action can be classified as “genocidal,” according to this treaty.

“The description of the ‘crime’ of genocide provided by the restricted Genocide Convention is so expansive and all-inclusive as to cover almost any wrongdoer, perpetrating almost any criminal act of violence or advocacy of violence against almost every type of victim.”— Robert A. Friedlander, “Should the U.S. Constitution Treaty-Making Power Be Used as the Basis for Enactment of Domestic Legislation?” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, No. 2, Spring 1986, 268-269.


50% rule..more in link

Last Edited by Uncle Fuck Stick on 11/11/2015 06:32 PM