I have recently returned from the National Catholic Women's League Convention, "People of God - A Time for Celebration," held in Charlottetown, August 13th -16th 2000. Overall the convention was exciting and invigorating as a wide range of social issues and League business was addressed by the national executive and the almost 1,000 attending members. However, the great and varied work of the League was overshadowed by the "discussion" or should I say lack of it, on the controversial decision by the national executive to support the March of Women 2000. Two words come to mind as I reflect on how the national executive handled this subject and they are fear and control.

A fear and control that saw the National President, Sheila Pellerin, ask to give her report at the very end of the published business day (4.00 pm) after delegates had been in assembly since 9.00am.

A fear and control that saw her read a prepared speech on the March of Women 2000 which implied a grave attack on the Catholic Women's League of Canada rather than an honest disagreement within the League about whether or not we should support the March. To rousing applause the president:
- reiterated the League's commitment to the supposed objectives of the March, (elimination of poverty amongst and reduction of violence against women) - reminded them of the League's commitment to protection of human life
- denounced those who opposed the March as ill-informed or misleading
- noted that the decision to support the March was not a top down one but a grass roots one
- informed members that the League had paid no dues to affiliate with the March therefore the decision did not betray League policy regarding, "coalition/affiliation, co-operation and sponsorship with other organizations and groups" (I suggest guidelines, 2,4 & 6 might not quite support this statement)
- pointed out to members the joint declaration in support of involvement issued on May 15th and the July 13th affirmation letter sent by the national executive to every member of parliament in Canada
- received a standing ovation from the assembly.

A fear and control that had Honorary Life member Clare Heron bring forward, immediately the president had finished her speech, a motion for the voting delegates to support the national executive decision. With only two members speaking against the March the voting delegates overwhelmingly gave their support. About 25% voted against supporting the March.

People of God - A Time for Celebration! - The sadness of this decision is that the national executive did indeed celebrate their victory, they had gained the vote! What is so sad is that the executive did not appear to realize that while it gained the vote it has lost touch with and even alienated a great proportion of the membership. From the very beginning all we have asked is that national executive reconsider its decision and withdraw CWL support from the March - given what has come to light in recent months.

Has the national executive heard? Yes. Has it listened. No? That has and will be a fatal mistake for the future of the Catholic Women's League. The handling of the March at national convention was an example of what has happened across this country in dioceses and provinces - achieving the vote, but further alienating the membership, treating not only CWL members but spiritual advisors and yes, even bishops with disdain and disrespect. In a letter dated August 4th, denying my request to present relevant information, regarding my strong objections to the March, to delegates at the convention, the national president noted "I am confident that voting members attending the national convention will be well informed on this issue." I have to believe that voting delegates were not well informed and that their vote reflected a misplaced loyalty to the national executive rather than an informed decision on the March.

During the national convention, in a Gathering Day presentation, Sister Donna Geernaert, S.C. stated that "Words are the way we say who we are." In the report of the Vision Committee of the Catholic Women's League of Canada - "Woman to woman: Witnessing to the Future" (a report which I will comment on more in the future) page 36, it states in part "There is also a need for clarification of terms commonly used by the League, especially in policy papers.... Misunderstanding could be alleviated by the creation of a glossary of words commonly used by the League." Both Sister Geernaert and the Vision Committee document address the issue at the core of the debate on whether or not the Catholic Women's League should have supported the March - the words we use and the meaning we attach to them!

On July 10th 2000 the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League issued a press release which accused the newly elected leader of a political party as being in "favour [of] state-sanctioned violence against women by forcing them to bear children they do not want and/or cannot care for....." He just happens to be pro-life.

On June 9th 2000, Francoise David, president of Quebec Federation of Women and spokesperson for the World March of Women in the year 2000 addressed the General Assembly of the Special Session of the United Nations including the following statements in her speech, "States must remember that women have an inalienable right to make choices about their lives and their sexual and their reproductive health. We demand that these rights be recognized.........we are determined and we are strongly committed to fighting until the rights of all women are acknowledged. Next fall, tens of thousands of women will be marching in cities and in villages to demand an end to poverty and violence against women. The World March of Women in the year 2000 will culminate here at the United Nations on October 17th...

Diane Matte, Coordinator for the Coordinating Committee, World March of Women in the year 2000, Montreal, in a March 29th reply to a letter requesting that a pro-life group be allowed to take part in the March, "..on January 28th it was unanimously decided that the demand to have a pro-life contingent at the World March is unacceptable to us since the anti-choice position defended by your organization is in clear contradiction with the objectives pursued by the March and specifically with one of our world demands..." A copy of this reply was sent to the national office of the Catholic Women's League of Canada at the same time.

Sponsorship of the World March of Women 2000 also entails support and promotion of several United Nations documents which offend our Faith positioning on extremely important moral issues - abortion, chastity, human sexuality - institutions - the traditional family, the Church, the Vatican - and roles/relationships - husband, wife, parent, child. These attacks cannot be separated from the supposed main objectives of the March - they are understood to be intrinsically part of the way this March addresses the issues of eliminating poverty amongst and reducing the violence against women. This is the crux of the issue and the national executive of the Catholic Women's League appear neither to have researched nor grasped this fact!

If "words are the way we say who we are," by supporting this March, the Catholic Women's League of Canada will be saying that it is a feminist organization - collaborating to ensure that access to abortion is a basic human right - that adolescent sexuality is liberated from parental supervision - that adolescents are educated in their new human rights to abortion and family planning over parental objection - that children's "rights" to freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of association overrides parental rights- that public proclamation of religious beliefs on moral issues may become crimes against humanity - and that homosexual relationships are assigned the same rights and privileges as traditional marriages and the founding family.

An internationally acclaimed human rights expert, Rita Joseph notes the following, "Radical feminism...is being imposed on countries through the prescriptive documents coming from the U.N. Conference circuit and from the UN treaty monitoring bodies, especially the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)......The objective is to bring the radical feminist directives in these documents from their currently legally non-binding status into an arena of legally-binding international human rights laws.." Invoking the priority of rights over national sovereignty, any local, cultural or religious opposition expressed by individual countries to all that is implied in the term, "reproductive health" could no longer be recognized as a legitimate reason for not complying with these newfangled "health rights" which were lobbied into existence by first world feminists generally at the expense of their sisters in the developing world.

Joseph also states, "The basic plan is ingeniously simple. The idea is to couch the feminist agenda in language of human rights," and then assert the ascendancy of human rights over the sovereign rights of nations. Reproductive rights as re-defined by the feminist-population alliance, have nothing to do with the "ordinary meaning" of the terms. So too, with the feminist definitions of elimination of poverty amongst and reduction of violence against women. Humbly, I suggest that the Catholic Women's League of Canada has not done its homework on this March and inadvertently or not has brought this great organization into very dangerous territory. Catholic Women's League members still have time to demand a withdrawal from this March and should do so as soon as possible. On October 17th 2000 the March of Women 2000 will hold two public events of grave concern to me as a Life member of the Catholic Women's League of Canada. One is a march on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, the other is a march at the United Nations. If the League has not withdrawn its support by the time these events occur - then it will be seen to have discarded its own objectives. I do not wish to consider the ramifications of this perception. In the Catholic Women's League Vision Committee document it states, "Without a strong identification to our mission and the objectives of the League we are little more than a social club" The League should heed this!

In closing, I am well aware that there will be those who will be aggravated and challenged by my comments, but this issue is too important to disregard. I have loved the League since I first took membership in 1984. It has a tremendous power and energy for great good, a respect accorded it which is equaled by no other women's group. I cannot sit quietly by and watch as it's great mission is pulled off-line. I know that all who belong to the League are strong and faith-filled women. That does not change the fact that lending the League's support to the World March of Women 2000 has been a grave error in judgement.

At our 20th annual national convention in 1940, in Timmins our national president, Almira McCabe stated, "We as Catholic women are fighting in defence of our faith and of our country. We are fighting in defence of social and political freedom. We must not fail, we must not falter." The media report on Mrs McCabe said, "She came, she saw, she conquered." We need to regain this spirit when the League cooperates, affiliates or makes coalitions with other groups. Our mission and objectives should conquer. At this moment in time the League has come to the March. The League has seen the March. The League has been conquered.

Respectfully submitted,
Mrs Jakki Jeffs
Life Member
The Catholic Women's League of Canada
11 Wagoners Trail,
Guelph, Ontario N1G 3M9
519 821-9604
519 824-7797 (w)
aflo@mgl.ca

The following are all encouraged to be supported, endorsed and upheld by the World March of Women 2000 :

The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women

In its introduction it states, "..unlike other human rights treaties, the Convention is also concerned with the dimension of human reproduction as well as with the impact of cultural factors on gender relations..." (Article 4) "The Convention also affirms women's right to reproductive choice. Notably, it is the only human rights treaty to mention family planning. States parties are obliged to include advice on family planning in the education process (article 10.h) and to develop family codes that guarantees women's rights to "decide freely and responsibly on the number of and spacing of their children and have access to information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights." (article 16.e) Article (10.c) mandates the revision of textbooks, school programs and teaching methods with a view eliminating stereotyped concepts in the field of education.

General Recommendation #24 (20th session, 1999) (article 12: Women and health)

*8."States parties are encouraged to address the issue of women's health throughout the woman's life-span. For the purposes of this general recommendation, therefore, women includes girls and adolescents..."

*14: "...States parties should not restrict women's access to health services or to clinics that provide those services on the ground that women do not have authorization of husbands, partners, parents or health authorities."

*18 "In particular, States parties should ensure the rights of female and male adolescents to sexual and reproductive health education by properly trained personnel in specially designed programmes that respect their rights to privacy and confidentiality.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Some of the rights given to children:

* right to freedom of expression to; "seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds...through any media of the child's choice." (This would certainly include even pornographic material)

* right to freedom of religion; (parents would not be able to prevent their child's involvement in a cult, also could not insist that the child accompanies them to church)

* right to freedom of association and assembly; (the child would have the "right" to be cajoled or seduced into relationships with whomever can gain power and influence over him or her and the parents would have no "right" to interfere.)

* right to child care services and facilities if parents are in the paid work force; (no similar "right" is provided for families to place children in private arrangements and no "right' is provided for a parent to remain at home to care for the child.)

*Right to protection from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or sexual exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parents...."(this article means that parents will have little or no right to discipline children or forbid certain activities when some child lobbyists begin to apply this article to parents who spank, give "time out" penalties, require certain behaviour etc.)

* right the family planning education and services; ( this would include the ‘right" to birth control and abortion even if these are contrary to the family's values.) (Reality, Spring 1991 page 8)

Beijing Platform of Action

Radical feminists controlled the United Nations Conference for Women. The resulting Platform for Action called for "main-streaming the gender perspective" and promoted the radical feminist ideology. Paragraph 28 states; "In many countries, the differences between women's and men's achievements and activities are still not recognized as the consequence of socially constructed gender roles rather than immutable biological differences." This is the radical feminist way of attacking motherhood as a unique vocation of women. Socially constructed gender roles means motherhood, which the Platform describes in the most demeaning of terms. Few delegates, in voting for such language, realize they are committing themselves and their nations to this attack. But that is precisely what is at the heart of "main-streaming the gender perspective."It should be noted that an attack on motherhood as a particular work of woman is an attack on marriage and family as we know it. It is not surprising that this document has hundreds of references to gender, but not one word of support for women who care for their own children as their primary work. By supporting all family arrangements but this one, the document in effect undermines the traditional family. This, of course is the intention of the radical feminists. One simply cannot ignore the perversity of a document which supposedly reflects the concerns of the world's women, but where the words wife and husband never appear. (Dale Leary - Human Rights and Gender Perspective - Family Research Council)

United Nations definition of "gender perspective"
"[To{ adopt a gender perspective is to distinguish between what is natural and biological and what is socially and culturally constructed, and in the process to re-negotiate the boundaries between the natural,(hence relatively inflexible) and the social ( and hence relatively transformable)." (Gender Concepts in Development Planning: Basic Approach (hereafter Gender Concepts)) September 13th 1995 - Sharon Hayes, Chair, Reform's Family Caucus and Deputy Health critic - explaining her return from the Fourth UN Conference on Women in Beijing.

* Myth 1: "The conference promotes women's rights." * Reality: The conference is really about "reproductive rights" and undefined "sexual rights."

Myth 2: "The Platform of Action is supportive of the family." * Reality: The Platform denigrates family and casts it as a place of violence and coercion.

* Myth 3: " The conference procedures are democratic and open to all." Reality: The process served well the ideas and the agenda of the NGO groups from developed nations.

*Myth 4: "The conference promotes equality." * Reality: The conference promotes division and reverse discrimination through "gender equality" and affirmative action.

*Myth 5: "U.N conferences are politically remote and mean little to Canada." * Reality: U.N. agreements are increasingly coercive and in fact challenge the sovereignty of domestic law. They effect every Canadian.

*Myth 6: "The Canadian delegation represents Canada." Reality: The Canadian negotiators presented a narrow, unrepresentative perspective of Canadian priorities.

"Before our country commits to the Platform for Action, the Government should put its position to the people and let them decide if this reflects their beliefs and priorities.

The International Criminal Court

Canadians should be alarmed about application of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Canada. On June 20th, Royal Assent was given to Bill C-19, which is a vast and convoluted statute, by which Canada agreed to accept and enforce in Canada all the decisions of the ICC. This agreement included enforcing payment of fines and reparations imposed on any Canadian convicted by the ICC.....One of the main concerns is that the ICC is not only a court to deal with established war crimes, but is also a human rights court. That is, although the court is supposed to deal with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, the definition of these crimes are so breathtakingly elastic and wide open to manipulation, the court's jurisdiction has become extremely wide-ranging....It is significant that the ICC has jurisdiction if an accused national's own country is unwilling or unable to prosecute ICC offenses. A political agenda has already been woven into the machinery of the ICC. All court officials and staff must be selected according to gender and must also have expertise on gender issues, including sexual and other violence against women, which is to be considered a matter central importance to the Court.

The feminist NGO's, who have undue influence on the established ICC, released documents in March in which they set out how the ICC will be used to restructure family life and religious practice worldwide. Specifically the feminists intend that the 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 gender sensitive judicial elite.

Since the ICC allows the prosecutor to accept the offer of free personnel to assist in the work of the ICC, we can expect well-funded feminist NGO's and others with their own agenda, to play a major role....The ICC also has extraordinary jurisdiction in countries that have refused to sign on to the ICC. The ICC claims jurisdiction over a non-signatory state and its citizens if one of its nationals commits an offense in a country that has ratified the ICC., (think US Peacekeepers) and also in a non-ratifying country should a national of a ratifying country commit an offense there. This is a direct infringement on the national sovereignty of nations..... [Bill C-19] Under Section 48, no Canadian can claim immunity or protection from arrest or extradition to the ICC by reason of any Canadian law....Bill C-19 also provides that these crimes prosecuted by the ICC will, henceforth, also be crimes in Canada as well....Bill C-19 was steam-rolled through parliament after only hours of debate and with few MPs or Senators having read the bill, let alone understood it. (Gwenolyn Landolt, lawyer and national vice-president of REAL Women of Canada. - Windsor Star, Opinion, August 28th 2000)