From: "Hebraic.Heritage.Newsgroup@sol.wwwnexus.com"
<Hebraic.Heritage.Newsgroup@sol.wwwnexus.com>
To: Hebraic Heritage Newsgroup <heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>, Hebraic Heritage Newsgroup 2 <heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>
Subject: Clinton Signs Executive Order 13107
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 15:55:48 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Clinton's Order Would Make
His and Monica's Kind of Sex
a "Human Right" Protected
by International Law

http://www.reagan.com/HotTopics.main/document-1.5.1999.9.html

By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original
Sources, (www.originalsources.com)

January 5, 1999

Clinton's December 10th Executive Order 13107 which
specifically orders implementation of the United Nations
"International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and
other relevant treaties concerned with the protection and
promotion of human rights to which the United States is now or
may become a party in the future."

This, in effect, by fiat, and without any discussion, much less
approval by the Congress, makes thousands of pages of
International Law new Federal law. So, what's in those
thousands of pages?

For starters, let's take the International Community's
definition of "gender" as defined by Lesbian, Homosexual and
Feminist members of the committe that wrote, and passed, the
document in question. In view of the past year in which the
President claimed he did not commit perjury because, under his
definition, oral sex is not sex, his Executive Order in the
midst of impeachment appears to be his latest ploy to avoid
removal from office.

Under his executive order, removing him from office over sex,
or lying about sex, may be a violation of International Law,
making the House of Representatives and maybe the Senate
subject to censure for violating his Human Rights.

Sound far-fetched? Yes. But, you haven't been carefully
following what has been adopted, under the energetic push of
the Clinton Administration, at the United Nations in defining
"Human Rights." Richard Wilkins, Professor of Law, J. Reuben
Clark School of Law, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah has
been watching.

He participated in The United Nations Diplomatic Conference of
Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International
Criminal Court held from June 13 through July 17, 1998 that
adopted a document that is part of the "law" Clinton has now
declared you and I subject to. If you think we have problems
because we have a President who doesn't know what "sex" or the
word "is" actually means, wait until you read what Clinton's
delegation, the Canadians and European Union demanded at the
Rome Conference on the meaning of the word "gender" as it
relates to International Criminal Law:

Fortunately, Richard G. Wilkins and other sane people were also
there and blocked some of the worst wording in the document.
Every since Professor Wilkins has tried to get the word out
about the direction the UN is going. He, William O. Perry and
Marcus R. Mumford wrote a legal description of what took place
and an anlysis of the meaning of the document. Their entire
report may be found online at:
http://www.law.byu.edu/NGO_Family_Voice/ICC_Report.html

Vaguely defined "crimes" have been written into the UN
Documents, totally unbeknownst to the American people.

For example: "The broadly drafted, vague crimes condemned by
the draft ICC statute were of serious concern to NGO Family
Voice. As a Family Voice briefing paper explained:

The vaguely worded `crimes' created by the ICC, including the
`war crime' of `enforced pregnancy' and the `crime against
humanity'of `persecution,' pose serious risks of condemning
(and eliminating) traditional cultural and religious values.
Among other things, the crime of `persecution' could be used to
criminalize denial of homosexual marriage and outlaw all
religious practices that differentiate between men and women.

Below is their report on the Conference's discussion and
adoption on the meaning of "gender" from the "Rome Statute on
the International Criminal Court" which, their report points
out "represents a dynamic shift in international politics."

From: B. "Gender"

The term "gender" appeared in various places throughout the
English text of the draft ICC statute. "Gender" - in ordinary
usage - brings to mind typical notions of "male" and "female."
Indeed, in the French and Arabic versions of the draft statute,
traditional phraseology referring to "the two sexes" rather
than "gender" was used. See, e.g., French Version, Section 2,
Article 5, "Crimes Against Humanity," =B6 1(h) ("belonging to one
of the two sexes"); Arabic Version (same citation) ("belonging
to one of the two kinds of sex"). In English, however, the
drafters of the ICC statute used the term "gender" - an
unfortunately ambiguous word hardly limited to "the two sexes."

In modern society, "gender" is capable of expansion well beyond
traditional conceptions of male and female. Delegates to the
Beijing Conference for Women, for example, expended
considerable time and effort discussing the precise meaning of
"gender." One of the notions discussed was a conceptual scheme
advanced by Anne Fausto-Sterling in an article entitled The
Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough. Her article
envisioned a new social order where "the sexes have multiplied
beyond currently imaginable limits," a world where the
classifications of "parent and child, male and female,
heterosexual and homosexual" would "have to be dissolved as
sources of division" because society "would permit ambiguity in
a culture that had overcome sexual division." As a result of
such contentious arguments, and prior to the conclusion of the
ICC conference, "gender" had never been defined in any U.N.
consensus document.

The cultural storms surrounding "gender" blew strongly
throughout the ICC conference. As originally drafted, Article 5
of the ICC criminalized "persecution" on grounds of "gender," ,
at 26, and Article 20, in turn, forbade any "adverse
distinction" on the basis of "gender" or "similar criteria," at
47. These legal requirements, if unmodified, could have been
used to create presently unrecognized, international
"gender-based" rights - including international same-sex
marriage and global invalidation of all laws regulating
homosexual behavior.

"Gender," as Fausto-Sterling's five-gender discussion
demonstrates, does not have a precise international law
definition. U.N. activities, furthermore, have only increased
this ambiguity. The U.N. Commission on Social Development and
other U.N. entities, for example, have repeatedly argued that
gender is a "social construct" not tied to "immutable
biological differences." See, e.g., Report on the World Social
Condition 1997, U.N. Commission for Social Development, at 156,
U.N. Doc. E/95/15. Moreover, in , U.N. Human Rights Committee
(decided 31 March 1994), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992, the
United Nations Human Rights Committee concluded that the
prohibition of discrimination on the basis of "sex or other
status" contained in the Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights invalidated Tasmanian
laws that "discriminated" against homosexual conduct. Taken
together, such concepts rendered Articles 5 and 20 of the draft
ICC highly problematic.

If "gender" is a mere "social construct," it almost certainly
includes such "constructs" as "sexual orientation." And, if
"adverse distinctions" cannot be drawn on the basis of "gender"
or "similar grounds," the ICC would quite likely mandate the
same result announced in . Indeed, in a recent address, given
before the United Nations University in Tokyo on January 27,
1998, Mary Robinson, United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights, stated that newly emerging international norms were
"surprisingly apt" for the "new complexities" of modern times,
"whether they are linked to the rights of indigenous peoples or
the right to development or discrimination on grounds of gender
or on the basis of sexual orientation." In short, as originally
drafted, Articles 5 and 20 of the draft ICC could have required
massive global restructuring of domestic laws regulating sexual
conduct and marriage.

Clarification of the "gender" language in the draft ICC statute
became one of the primary aims of NGO Family Voice. Family
Voice made it clear, however, that it did not seek to
subordinate or subjugate women. On the contrary, emphasizes
that men and women are "equal partners." , =B6 7. Family Voice's
purpose was simply to preserve the truths stated in the , that
marriage is a relationship "between a man and a woman," that
"[g]ender is an essential characteristic of individual . . .
identity and purpose," and that certain gender-based roles
(such as motherhood and fatherhood) deserve - not just
recognition - but special protection. See generally , =B6=B6 1, =
2,
4, 6 & 7.

Early negotiating efforts on "gender" were quite
straightforward. NGO Family Voice simply pointed out that,
while the English version of the ICC draft statute used the
problematic term "gender," the French and Arabic versions of
the statute did not. As a result, and to prevent ambiguity,
Family Voice argued that the phrase "the two sexes" or the
words "male and female" should be inserted for the English term
"gender." (). Early on, most nations agreed with this position,
and the Committee of the Whole voted to define gender as "male"
and "female." Copelon's group, however, responded that any
limitation of "gender" to "male" and "female" would improperly
"narrow the working understanding of gender within the U.N.
system." As a result, negotiations on the issue became intense
and continued until the very end of the conference.

During these negotiations, NGO Family Voice's contacts with
Islamic countries were vitally important. Family Voice had a
two-hour discussion with the entire Iranian delegation on
"gender" during the third week of the conference. Qatar and
Saudi Arabia were also instrumental. Indeed, following a
two-hour meeting during which the implications of "gender" as a
"social construct" were discussed, the Ambassador of Qatar
realized the invasive nature of the issue and insisted that the
battle be brought into the open. From this meeting until the
last day of the conference, Qatar vigilantly fought to exclude
undefined "gender" language, often taking on 20 to 30 countries
at a time.

When debate on Articles 5 and 20 came to a head during the
fourth week of the conference, Qatar immediately opposed use of
the undefined term "gender." Qatar's position was supported by
nearly 30 other countries whom NGO Family Voice had heavily
lobbied on the issue. (gender materials prepared by NGO Family
Voice). As with the debates on "enforced pregnancy," Canada and
the European Union were indignant with any opposition to
"gender." In fact, during debate on Article 20, a Canadian
representative asserted that, although Article 20 would
invalidate domestic laws (including marital laws) that
differentiated on the basis of sexual orientation, opposition
to this outcome was the result of mere "bigotry." An angry
Islamic and Catholic response to this Canadian assertion
resulted in the Chairman halting all debate for the day.

To avoid continual open confrontation on the issue, "backroom"
negotiations on "gender" were organized by Canada and other
western European nations. These negotiations spanned nearly
three days of the final week of the conference. During this
period, NGO Family Voice continually aided friendly
delegations, making sure hasty compromises were not made. The
three days were not pleasant, and ugly personal attacks on
religion and values-oriented NGOs increased dramatically.

At the end of the three-day "backroom" marathon, however, a
satisfactory compromise was reached. That compromise yielded -
for the first time - a definition of the word "gender." The
definition provides that "gender means the two sexes, male and
female, within the context of society. The term gender does not
mean anything different than this." , Art. 7 =B6 3, at 6. The
definition is expressly referenced following every repetition
of the term "gender" within the ICC statute.

NGO Family Voice was grateful for this outcome. For the first
time in U.N. history, "gender" has been defined as "male" and
"female." And, while the ICC definition is not perfect,
advocates can no longer assert (without further explanation)
that "gender" is a mere "social construct" unrelated to
"immutable biological differences." See, e.g., Report on the
World Social Condition 1997, at 156. Gender, as the recognizes,
means "male and female." , =B6 2. Furthermore, far from
constituting mere "learned behavior," Report on the World
Social Condition 1997, at 156, gender is an "essential
characteristic of individual premortal, mortal and eternal
identity and purpose." , =B6 2. The ICC statute, as amended,
takes a step toward (rather than away from) these important
truths.

Does all this help you better understand what Clinton is REALLY
up to in issuing an Executive Order to "enforce" UN "Human
Rights" Documents?

***********************************************************************

The London Electronic Telegraph

ISSUE 1320 Tuesday, January 5, 1999

http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/

Magazine will fund DNA tests on Clinton
By Hugh Davies in Washington

CLAIMS by an Arkansas prostitute that President Clinton
is the father of her 13-year-old son are being scientifically
tested by an American weekly magazine.

Phil Bunton, British-born editor of The
Star, which has a good track record of
Clinton exposures, said yesterday: "It
could be a 13 year-old hoax, we don't know
yet." His paper is comparing the DNA of
Bobbie Ann Williams and her son, Danny,
with that of the President.

Mr Bunton was reticent about his efforts to
obtain a sample from Mr Clinton. Some
details of Mr Clinton's DNA "markers" are
contained in the FBI report that Kenneth
Starr, the independent counsel, used to
prove that his DNA was on a stained
cocktail dress belonging to Monica
Lewinsky. Dr Charlotte Word, deputy
laboratory director of Cellmark Diagnostics
in Maryland, a DNA fingerprinting expert,
said the markers in the report "may not be
sufficient to establish to a high degree of
certainty" that Mr Clinton was the
biological father. But the data would be
enough to eliminate him as the father.

Apart from directly asking Mr Clinton for a
DNA sample, the only way of positively
typing him would be for The Star to obtain
the sample of the President's blood
examined by FBI scientists. The agency has
sent this to Mr Starr, cautioning him in a
letter to keep it refrigerated in isolation
from other evidence.

Bobbie Ann Williams, who is black, said she
first met Mr Clinton while he was out
jogging near his governor's house in 1983.
She claims that he paid her $200 (=A3120) for
a sex act behind a hedge. There were 12
more encounters, one of them, allegedly, an
orgy with herself and two female friends.

She claimed in a previous interview with a
tabloid that Mr Clinton paid them $400 each
to come to a house owned by his mother. She
claimed that after watching the three women
in different sexual positions, Mr Clinton
then turned to her.

She said: "Finally he was ready for
straight sex and tried using a condom, but
he took it off. He said: 'I don't like
them.' I didn't care. It didn't matter to
me. I guess that we didn't think much about
it. We were done in about three hours and
he surprised us all with a $50 tip apiece.
We were really happy, and we giggled all
the way back to Little Rock."

She said that she told Mr Clinton she was
pregnant. She said: "But he just laughed.
He was rubbing my big belly and said:
'Girl, this can't be my baby.' But I knew
it was."

The woman insisted that her son was "as
white as any white child." She said: "The
older he got, the more he started looking
like his daddy, Bill."

Another tabloid, The Globe, said that Miss
Williams' account was subjected to a
lie-detector test which indicated that she
was telling the truth".

**********************************************************************