Bill C-19 - The Frightening International Criminal Court

Bill C-19 constitutes Canada's official acceptance of the ICC which was established in Rome in July 1998. This agreement is referred to at the UN as the "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."

Bill C-19 is a vast and convoluted statute implementing the provisions of the ICC. It is rare in Canada that Parliament passes a statute consenting to a UN treaty. Customarily, international treaties are not passed by Parliament, but are merely rubber-stamped by the Prime Minister as an executive decision. The ICC, however, required that a bill be passed because the ICC necessitated amendments to the Criminal Code and Extradition Act, etc., which require a parliamentary decision. Also, the "Rome Statute" necessitates that each country pass implementing legislation so that the ICC will have an effect domestically as well as internationally.

Despite contrary public perception, it should also be noted that the ICC will not be part of the UN. In fact, this court will be completely independent from the UN, and the UN Security Council will have no part in it (except for being able to delay investigations for 12 months). The ICC is a completely different and separate court, accountable to no one and no institution.

Under Bill C-19, Canada agreed to accept and enforce in Canada all the decisions of the International Criminal Court, no matter how outrageous these decisions may be.

One of the many difficulties with the ICC is that although it was supposed to deal solely with grave and well-established war crimes, it has become, instead, an ideologically driven feminist court to promote a feminist human rights agenda.

The feminist UN NGOs dealing with this court, who call themselves the "Women's Caucus for Gender Justice," have publicly admitted that this court will be used as a tool to change domestic laws to conform to their feminist goals. They issued two documents in March making this clear. The first one, "The International Criminal Court: The Beijing Platform in Action: Putting The ICC On The Beijing +5 Agenda", explained how the ICC could be used to enforce the feminist Beijing Platform for Action.

In the second document, entitled "Recommendations and Commentary to the Elements of Crime, Submitted to the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court March 13-20, 2000," they set out how the ICC would be used to restructure family life and religious practices world-wide. In particular, these documents stipulate that the ICC requires that custom, tradition, or religious considerations not be used to avoid obligations under the ICC. In short, it is intended that ICC violations are to become an engine for the elimination of cultural, ethnic and religious practices if they stray from the convictions of the ICC's judicial elites.

Liberal Senator Peter Stollery, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, acknowledged on June 28th that the ICC would be a feminist tool, when he stated during Senate discussion of Bill C-19 (Hansard, June 28,
2000, p. 1833) as follows:

… Honourable senators, the statute requires that a fair representation of female and male judges be taken into account in the selection process, as well as a fair representation of females and males in the selection of staff in the office of the prosecutor and all other organs of the court.

Provisions have also been adopted that require the selection of judges, prosecutors and other staff who have particular expertise in violence against women. This inclusion of staff with expertise in gender and sexual violence in war ensures that war crimes that are exclusively committed against women will remain a matter of central importance.

Concerns about Bill C-19 and the ICC

There are many reasons why Canadians should be concerned about Bill C-19 and the ICC. These concerns include the following:

1. Vague Wording of Offenses Under the ICC

Bill C-19 has adopted the provisions of the ICC which deal with three specific international crimes: (1) genocide, (2) war crimes and (3) crimes against humanity. However, the definition of these terms is so broad that it's frightening. For example, crimes against humanity and war crimes include the following: "enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy, inhuman acts causing injury to mental health, sexual violence, sexual slavery and prosecution against any identifiable group." With such a broad definition, the inability to obtain abortion or to enter into same-sex marriage will become international violations. So might traditional marriage if it is seen as "enslavement" or "persecution" of women.
It is significant that these crimes against humanity are not limited to actions by the State. On the contrary, private organizations or individuals are also subject to prosecution by the ICC. This means, a government, a minister, etc., of any country can be tried for such crimes. Significantly, Bill C-19 permits ICC investigations and prosecutors to conduct their investigations within Canada, and Canadian authorities must provide them with full cooperation, including the obtaining of documents, locating and seizing assets of the accused, conducting searches and seizure of evidence, etc, and, of course, surrendering persons accused of a crime to the ICC without hesitation or delay.

2. National Sovereignty

As if the vague wording is not sufficient, there is an even more troubling problem with the ICC. It has been given jurisdiction over crimes that will affect a territory or a country which has not even ratified the ICC. That is, ICC jurisdiction extends not only to any country ratifying it, but also to any citizen of a ratifying country, wherever the offence is alleged to have occurred, even if it's within the jurisdiction of a non-ratifying state. For example, American peace keepers working in Bosnia would be subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC, even though the US has not, and will not, ratify the ICC. That is, the tentacles of the ICC infringe gravely on national sovereignty.

In short, by asserting that the ICC can claim jurisdiction over non-signatory states and its citizens, the ICC claims international supremacy over the domestic laws of all nations. Bill C-19 happily confirms this where it provides, at S.48, that no one can claim immunity from arrest or extradition to the ICC by reason of any domestic (Canadian) law.

On the other hand, Bill C-19 provides that all ICC prosecutors and investigators have full diplomatic immunity, wherever and whenever (in and out of Canada) they carry out their investigations.

3. ICC is a Victim's Court

The ICC is to be dominated by perceived victims, who will be involved in every step of this process, and will be represented by counsel, etc. Contrary to our concept of fair and equal legal systems, the accused may not even be told the identity of his accuser and have no right to cross examine the accuser (the victim). That is, the right of an accused to fully and meaningfully confront his accuser, one of the most important aspects of our criminal law, is absent from the ICC.

4. Unaccountable Prosecutor

This travesty of a court is to be headed by an all-powerful, unaccountable Prosecutor who can accept and investigate complaints from anyone anywhere in the world - totally ignoring national sovereign rights. The prosecutor, by the way, will probably be our present Supreme Court of Canada judge, Louise Arbour, who previously served as a prosecutor of the UN's International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. Ms. Arbour is now sitting on the Supreme Court of Canada, we presume, for rest and recreation purposes only, pending the finalizing of the ICC.

At that time, Ms. Arbour will announce her "duty" to take on the onerous responsibility of Prosecutor, due to her intelligence, experience, compassion and … (you fill in the blank). She will then hold the most powerful and influential position in the world with a large staff, budget and salary to implement her feminist dreams. Ms. Arbour is keeping her fingers in the ICC pie during her sojourn on the Supreme Court, even though, as a judge, she is required to refrain from political activity. In an article in the Lawyers Weekly (June 16, 2000), Ms. Arbour ignored this restriction and defended the ICC, arguing against the attempt by the US to limit its jurisdiction. She, of course, wants the court to have absolute, undiminished power and jurisdiction. In addition, Ms. Arbour was honoured on June 2, 2000, at a banquet hosted by the World Federalists of Canada, the major NGO supporting the ICC, whose representatives are members of the Canadian delegation to the ICC. A non-political judge this woman is not!

5. ICC Decisions to Be Enforced in Canada

Unfortunately, under Bill C-19, Canada has not only agreed to accept the decisions of the ICC, but it has also agreed to accept and enforce any decision of the ICC (whose decisions will have supremacy over Canadian law). In fact, the government of Canada has agreed to seize the property, in Canada, of anyone found guilty of an ICC violation. (Just watch the seizure of property of religious authorities who will inevitably be found guilty of causing "forced pregnancy" and gender discrimination against homosexuals under the rubric of "crimes against humanity.")

6. Procedures of ICC Not Finalized

After the concept of the ICC was accepted in Rome in July 1998, there were a great many details to be worked out relating to the ICC's practices, procedures and rules of evidence, etc. These have not yet been finalized, and are still being negotiated at a series of ongoing Preparatory Committee Meetings in New York.
Yet, even without these significant points being settled, Canada jumped the gun and adopted the ICC, warts and all. Canadian Alliance MP, Maurice Vellacott stated (Hansard, April 14, 2000, p. 6159):

The details of precise meetings, of terms found in the statute, evidence and court procedures and administrative structure are to be concluded in consensus agreements adjacent to, not part of, after the fact, it seems. It is kind of like buying a pig in a poke or signing a blank cheque for these things to be worked out over the course of time, but we already agreed to be part of the deal.

7. Further Problems with ICC

The ICC may employ, free of charge, the expertise of personnel provided by state members and individual NGOs. This means, of course, that well-funded feminist NGOs, in countries such as Canada and the US, will be stacking the Court with their selected radical feminist and homosexual/lesbian personnel.

The $80 million annual costs of the ICC are to be defrayed by voluntary donations from NGO organizations, corporations and individuals. This is potentially a very dangerous provision, as it gives a whiff of justice-for-sale to well-funded foundations and NGOs who can afford to make generous donations to the court.

8. Bill C-19 Creates New Canadian Offenses

Bill C-19 creates domestic offences that precisely match those created by the Rome Statute. Not only will Canada enforce decisions made by the ICC, no matter how wild and unacceptable, but also, the offenses of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity will henceforth, under Bill C-19, also be offences if they occur within Canada. That is, Bill C-19 has created a whole new slate of offenses which judicially active courts will undoubtedly enjoy interpreting and applying within Canada.

REAL Women's Appearance Before Foreign Affairs Committee on Bill C-19

When REAL Women appeared before the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee on May 30, 2000 on Bill C-19, the Liberal-dominated Committee members were not interested in learning about the many grave issues arising from this crucial Bill. In fact, we were the only witnesses to reject the entire concept of the court, as well as its many controversial provisions as set out in Bill C-19.

In addition, we took the opportunity (the first we've had) at this hearing to raise our concerns about international agreements affecting Canadians, seldom being debated in Parliament. Historically, this is due to the fact that formal treaty-making power is not found in the Constitution Act of 1867 (which did not contemplate that Canada would ever become an independent nation.) However, in 1947, when Canada appointed, for the first time, its own Governor General, Britain issued Letters Patent granting Canada the right to exercise all powers and authority formerly held by Britain. Although this broad power includes treaty making powers, it does not mean that this power should not be subject to approval by Parliament, which is only a reasonable requirement in a democratic country.

For this bold statement of fact, we were reprimanded by Committee Chairperson, MP Bill Graham (Rosedale) who dislikes REAL Women's views on every issue. Liberal MPs serving on the Committee stared in stunned silence during our presentation. They couldn't believe that REAL Women would actually have the audacity to publicly state that (1) Bill C-19 was imperfect, and (2) MPs should actually have knowledge and information about international treaties and debate them before they are ratified.

Finally, we were disturbed during this difficult House of Commons Committee hearing to learn that "Canada is the first country to develop comprehensive implementing legislation for the ICC" and that Canada's legislation will be used as a model to be followed by other countries throughout the world.

In this regard, the Canadian government, through the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Justice Department, has provided funds to draft an International Manual for implementing the ICC. This manual was written mostly under the direction of the Canadian "experts" in these government departments. Canada, in short, has played the leading role in creating the monstrosity of the ICC at the UN.

Axworthy Insults Canadians

It is difficult enough to accept that Foreign Affairs Minister Axworthy has steam-rolled this dangerous Bill through Parliament with few individuals having knowledge of it, but Mr. Axworthy also lied about it.

He was in New York in July, speaking like a used car salesman ingenuously trying to sell the ICC as a court which will supposedly bring justice to international criminals. (Don't we wish!) In this regard, it should be noted that neither the US, the world's super power, or Israel, with its difficulties with its Arab neighbours, have endorsed the ICC for obvious reasons, i.e., they would be particularly vulnerable to the designs of this politicized court. Like a good used car salesman, however, Mr. Axworthy did not disclose the court's defects or how it will really function, nor was he truthful about the ICC's acceptance in Canada.

When Mr. Axworthy was interviewed by the New York Times, he had the gall to claim that Canada had had a "national debate" about the ICC and that the country signed on to the ICC wholeheartedly.

As pointed out by the National Post, in an editorial dated July 25, 2000:

Actually, the House of Commons debated the matter for precisely six and a half hours. The Senate dispatched the matter in a matter of minutes. As far as the web site is concerned, Mr. Axworthy has indeed posted a series of his most self-congratulatory speeches on his department's site. To say that any of this is the equivalent of a national discussion is a farce. The Liberals rammed this matter through Parliament with precious little thought to the consequences, as generally happens when the Liberals see an opportunity to attract attention to themselves on the international stage.

Mr. Axworthy appears to have been so caught up in his vision of the international laurels he expects to receive for Canada's leadership role in establishing the wretched ICC, that he has blinded himself to the "little" issues of national sovereignty, the manipulation and power of this court world-wide, as well as its negative implications for Canadian citizens.

The ICC will become established in The Hague once 60 countries have ratified it. As of June, the ICC has been ratified by 14 countries, with Canada, as of June 30th, being the 15th.
It seems that the only positive information about Bill C-19 and the ICC, was stated by MP Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance Foreign Affairs Critic, during the debates in the House of Commons, when he said that his party would repeal this Bill!

Please write to Foreign Affairs Minister, Lloyd Axworthy and raise your objections with him over his unethical and improper actions in pushing Bill C-19 through Parliament.

The Hon. Lloyd Axworthy
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Lester B. Pearson Bldg.
Tower A, 10th Floor
125 Sussex Drive
Ottawa ON K1A 0G2

Tel: 613-995-1851
Fax: 613-996-3443

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS