If the USA is the land of equality and freedom then why this?

Question

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6922749.stm

Answer 1

Hello! America thumbed its nose at the UN to set up Guantanamo and they refused to sign Kyoto even though they are the world's largest CO2 output source. America is practically a rogue state just as bad as Iran.
*

Answer 2

Just because both Iran and the US oppose CEDAW does not mean that they do so for the same reasons. I am a confirmed feminist, but I feel uncomfortable about an extranational judicial body, composed of officials who were not democratically elected or appointed through Constitutional mechanisms, claiming supremacy over our laws, and especially over our Constitution. And AS a feminist, I would feel particularly uncomfortable about a Syrian or an Iranian official telling the US how to handle matters of gender. Wouldn't you?

Most disturbingly, ratifying CEDAW would require the US to amend its Constitution -- effectively abrogating the amendment process established by the Constitution itself. I am not comfortable with this -- are you?

In case you are curious, CEDAW would additionally require the abolition of Mother's Day and Father's Day, and suppressing images or discourse that promote different gender roles, appearances, etc. Are you ready to kiss the First Amendment good-bye? I am not.

It hardly requires a citation that even good medicine may have such detrimental side effects, they would outweigh the benefits. A lot of people ignore the issue of national sovereignty when they ponder international treaties or "courts". They really shouldn't. It is a crucial issue -- unless you want our courts to relinquish their independence, and the will of our democratically elected legislatures to mean even less than it does now.

Answer 3

Its not about equality, the USA is not against that. Its opposed to allowing any foreign power to have any sort of legal power over the USA.
The dont recognise the The Hague (international and independant court system) and any US president is immune from international prosecution, even if tehy commit genocide.

They have laws of their own regarding the equality of women.
The big proble is Iran and other 'hardcore' muslim nations where women are second class citizens, MUST dress a certain way, can be beaten without a crime being commited, and if they are raped that is considered extra marital sex and the woman victim can be executed for it.
Islam is ok, Islamic extremism is completely wrong and anybody that doesnt want to live under that way of life should be allowed to leave those countries and be taken in by other nations.

Answer 4

First of all, this drivel comes from the BBC, the "informational" outlet for the new Marxist in Britain, the most recent 'former' ally of the United States.

Second of all, Cedaw is a UN invention. It's design is reminiscent of KYOTO, in that it is full of unachievable, Utopian goals.

Thirdly, to enforce such an agreement would mean inspection. Try to imagine inspecting the entire United States and it's 300 million people for systemic women's rights abuses. Guess who would have to pay for it all.

Shouldn't the UN deal with the women's rights abuse that lives right under their nose and in violation of human rights regulations that are already on the books and universally ratified?
Sexual mutilation in Africa? Did that one get by them? No, they sent the French who are just exasperated over the fact that "These people just don't seem to want to talk". They said that after standing by while 3000 people were murdered most of them women and children.

What has been the response of the UN to Islamic fundamentalists machine gunning girls going to school because female education is subversive to Islam? Oh, they condemned it in "the strongest possible terms". Gee thanks, every thing's better now.

Answer 5

The USA stopped being the land of equality a long time ago -- when it starting allowing discrimination in the form of gender prejudice and affirmative action.

In our history, we've never had true equality -- we just shift which groups are being discriminated against at any given time.

Answer 6

Yes, the US is free, and there is equal opportunity. Your source is a bunch of known, left wing liberal loonies. Women in the US have rights. Women in Iran have no rights. Signing an agreement means nothing to either country.

Answer 7

If they cleaned out the dead wood in the senate that bill would pass in no time. It is the old guard, used to ruling women with an iron fist, that are blocking it. It really doesn't matter to them but because they did it that way a 100 yrs ago they do it that way too.

The most progressive bunch in politics.

Answer 8

It says why right in the article. It probably isn't a priority here as those "basic" rights that need to be protected for women are well protected in both the Constitution and legislation.

Answer 9

Why would we need to? Women's rights are protected here. We don't need to join a stupid international coalition just to prove it. We have a female secretary of state; we have a female running for president right now. What else do we have to prove?

Answer 10

And who was the president and vice pres when they refused to sign Kyoto? Bill Clinton and Al Gore.....

Answer 11

There are inherent dangers in the treaty’s details. Let me begin with a concise summary statement. In a nutshell, there are two major problems with CEDAW – the content of the treaty and its implementation: CEDAW’s content is contemporary colonialism; it exports –forces down the throats of signee nations – its Neo-Marxist agenda. CEDAW’s implementation is through judicial imperialism; a committee of 23 UN-Appointed women determines whether a nation is in compliance with the treaty – including whether the laws of the country align with the treaty. What the United Nations hasn’t been able to accomplish through democratic processes, they hope to force by judicial fiat.

1948, the UN approved the VERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTSdocument that states the obvious, that marriage is between a man and a woman who form a family with that family being the natural and fundamental group unit of society that is entitled to protection by society and the State. Further, the document affirms that motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.


Fast forward to 1966 and you’ll notice some very significant changes in the next major UN document – the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This document calls for “The widest possible protection and assistance” for the family and it again calls the family the “natural and fundamental group unit of society.” However an innocuous sounding, but important modifying clause was added – “while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children.” In other words, family is only important to society as it relates to the care of children. When we get to CEDAW we begin to better comprehend the progression because NOW the role of the family is even further modified and its significance re-defined – remember the catch phrase “it takes a village to raise a child?”


Then, in 1981, CEDAW defined “maternity” as a social function and stated unequivocably that the “interest of the children is the primordial consideration.” Note the cumulative effect of one change added to another with these subtle shifts in language. First, family is the basic unit of society, then family is important only when children are dependent upon it; then children are the responsibility of the whole village; now there is a movement that children should be autonomous.


The content of CEDAW is bad for women and bad for the country. But there is more – you can begin to see the other dimensions of the problem when you think about the interpretations that the liberal court judges will make in specific cases.

In a conference workshop, the American Bar Association panel of lawyers casually discussed how CEDAW would be used in court to challenge state and federal laws and policies that they deemed discriminatory.


What the liberals have not been able to market to the American public and achieve through democratically elected representatives, they seek to impose by means of an imperial judicial system.


And with the court-imposed laws, the stakes are high because the problems resulting from their mistakes and misdeeds are much more difficult to remedy. Judicial usurpation of power has gradually increased until now it is breathtaking in its audacity. Robert Bork calls this new regime our “Judicial Oligarchy.” George Will refers to the Justices as "our robed masters."


The magnitude of the threat posed by erroneous rulings of the Supreme Court was clearly illustrated in both this century and the last. Most historians agree that the Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case was a major factor in propelling us into Civil war in the Nineteenth Century. But the bloody casualties of that horrific war are dwarfed by comparison to the 30 million plus deaths stemming from the Court’s foolish and fraudulent Roe v. Wade ruling in the Twentieth Century.


Yet the blood spilled in the Nineteenth Century abolished slavery. Today, despite the millions of babies that have been aborted -- an American Holocaust whose magnitude exceeds that of Hitler’s by 5 times—the task of eradicating the abomination of abortion still looms before us. Were Lincoln here today, he would doubtless warn us—based on his own bitter travail—of the cost we will pay for this travesty of justice.


If we fail to recognize the strategies of the forces of deception and death, we increase the duration and destruction of their attacks.


They have largely established judicial oligarchy domestically. Now they seek to expand their tyranny internationally through the force of international law. This can be done formally, and informally. Returning to the case of Australia provides an illustration of the informal approach. The goal of Australian feminists is a percentage of women in positions of political influence equal to their percentage in the population. Writing for the Australian Women Lawyers, Hilary Charlesworth described how CEDAW pursues social engineering:


The main method is to try to put pressure on Australia through encouraging the CEDAW Committee to ask Australia questions on this topic when Australia makes its next periodic report under CEDAW. This may sound a rather indirect form of enforcement of the international guarantee, but the usefulness of the technique should not be underestimated.