If Canada has an obligation to the UN ILO Recommendations R202 and the OHCHR, Ontario has an obligation. Did you know English is an ethnicity just as French is an ethnicity? Is your constitution, somehow,enshrined by an ulterior motive being expressed subconsciously by a covert Marquis de Sade nation coming across the northern border at night with less ebonic accents whose real origin is Caribbean? Maybe there is a systemic interruption to have a conversation, to get your attention. Resisting the UDHR is death. A fish resisting water is death. Resistance is death. Could you write about US Code 18 Genocide and the conditions of life guaranteed and ensured by the U.S. Government commitment to the UDHR Article 25..in America ? You can; of course. The year is almost 2020. What is the cost of wasting fuel? What is the cost of wasting people in whom you have invested? The real truth is that economies that do not participate in the UDHR are considered primitive. Could cuts to education be logical in an era of on going automation? The funding to education is to stay consistent and with the right intention, this means there are enough teachers per student pursuant to the legislation that is subject to UN guidelines. The UDHR is the law and the Secretary of State for every nation is now also the UDHR compliance Officer to ensure his or her signatory nation is UDHR compliant pursuant to the OHCHR and the UN ILO Recommendations R202. The real truth is that at $73.97 per day per citizen to ensure and guarantee the functioning of your economy and also avoid the charges of intent to commit genocide contrary to domestic criminal law in the UK, Canada, the United States and Mexico, who would hesitate to fulfil the existing legal requirements under the UDHR, the OHCHR and the UN ILO Regulations R202? Compliance is also more logical than hoping or relying on pockets of citizens from compliant member nations such as China and Pakistan or India to prop up your economy with the economic and product sales stoked by the minimum income support monies their Chinese, Indian or Pakistani government may provide them as they live, eat and buy products as temporary residents or permanent residency applicants in North America. Advocating a delay to the fulfilment of the current legal requisites involving the universal minimum income support affecting the North American citizens or an under fulfilment at amounts less than $73.00 per day is a genocide offence as it advocates conditions of life that do not ensure and that do not guarantee the defined standards of life outlined in the UDHR and the OHCHR. In other words, advocating $12000.00 per year is a crime. Advocating a delay to a universal minimum income support until the year 2020 is a crime. Providing the funds only to certain denominations such as the Puritans or the Jehovah Witness congregation is a crime against the targeted Non Jehovah Witness population. It is a crime. The foreign populations are welcome as they come with the cultural caravans as they can still share and help North America to get their economy going again but relying on small pockets of Asian people who have no nexus to the absolute security of the North American continent while your population is illegally under funded is the economic misfeassnce leading to a dependence on foreign peoples. This is not mentioning the evident misfeassnce in relying on foreign debt when a balanced respecting the dignity of its own people's will generate a surplus. Let me call a Black Japanese person to see if he can explain it to you in English. Don't feel bad about The Anglo and criticise every little thing the Anglo may do but maybe ban the track suit as you normalize the Hijab. The former mayor of Toronato pointed out that what is happening is not only genocide but misfeassnce in public office. He was drugged up, poisoned and killed by who inherited his office. You are extending the reach and influence of the Asian economy in the frustration of your own. It is evident to me that out of self respect, you see lots of Asian vehicles and Asian people in Asia and you see lots of Asian vehicles and Asian people in North America. Do you see lots of -----people in------? You see some and you may see more since there is a financial drain, instead of a brain drain, pulling people out of the economic illegality and illogic of North America. Click here for more Please review the following: .318 of the Criminal Code of Canada prevents Genocide. 318 (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. Marginal note:Definition of genocide (2) In this section, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely, (a) killing members of the group; or (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. Marginal note:Consent (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General. Marginal note:Definition of identifiable group (4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318; 2004, c. 14, s. 1; 2014, c. 31, s. 12; 2017, c. 13, s. 3. __________________ United Kingdom The relevant provisions on crimes against humanity under United Kingdom law are contained in the International Criminal Court Act 2001, c. 17, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/pdf/uk pga_20010017_en.pdfhttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/pdf/uk pga_20010017_en.pdf. This is the original, as published version and does not take into account any amendments that may have occurred. Explanatory notes to this Act are also available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/ acts2001/en/ukpgaen_20010017_en_1 (last visited Apr. 29, 2010). This section provides that the jurisdiction contained in that Act for the offenses of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes applies to acts committed in England or Wales and to those outside the UK by a UK national, resident, or person subject to UK service jurisdiction (which is defined later in section 67). Northern Ireland is also included in the scope of the Act’s jurisdiction by virtue of section 58. Scotland has separate legislation—the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001, ASP [Act of Scottish Parliament] 13, available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/ scotland/acts2001/ asp_20010013_en_2#pt1-pb1-l1g1. The jurisdiction applies to acts committed in Scotland or outside the UK by a UK national or resident. ___________________________________ The United States of America __________________________ 18 U.S. Code § 1091.Genocide U.S. Code Notes Table of Popular Names prev | next (a)Basic Offense.—Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such— (1) kills members of that group; (2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group; (3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques; (4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part; (5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or (6) transfers by force children of the group to another group; shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). (b)Punishment for Basic Offense.—The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is— (1) in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), where death results, by death or imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both; and (2) a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in any other case. (c)Incitement Offense.— Whoever directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (d)Attempt and Conspiracy.— Any person who attempts or conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be punished in the same manner as a person who completes the offense. (e)Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the offenses described in subsections (a), (c), and (d) if— (1) the offense is committed in whole or in part within the United States; or (2)regardless of where the offense is committed, the alleged offender is— (A) a national of the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)); (B) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)); (C) a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States; or (D) present in the United States. (f)Nonapplicability of Certain Limitations.— Notwithstanding section 3282, in the case of an offense under this section, an indictment may be found, or information instituted, at any time without limitation. (Added Pub. L. 100–606, s § 2(a), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3045; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60003(a)(13), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(a)(4), (b)(7), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1806, 1808; Pub. L. 110–151, § 2, Dec. 21, 2007, 121 Stat. 1821; Pub. L. 111–122, § 3(a), Dec. 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 3481.) 18 U.S. Code § 1093.Definitions U.S. Code Notes Table of Popular Names prev next As used in this chapter— (1) the term “children” means the plural and means individuals who have not attained the age of eighteen years; (2) the term “ethnic group” means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of common cultural traditions or heritage; (3) the term “incites” means urges another to engage imminently in conduct in circumstances under which there is a substantial likelihood of imminently causing such conduct; (4) the term “members” means the plural; (5) the term “national group” means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of nationality or national origins; (6) the term “racial group” means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of physical characteristics or biological descent; (7) the term “religious group” means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of common religious creed, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals; and (8) the term “substantial part” means a part of a group of such numerical significance that the destruction or loss of that part would cause the destruction of the group as a viable entity within the nation of which such group is a part. (Added Pub. L. 100–606, § 2(a), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3046.) Effect of international treaties[edit] The UN Charters are Self-executing and do not require further domestic legislation to be enforced in the United States. The absence of Basic income is a crime against US citizens and is enforceable under US domestic law. Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253, 314-15 (1829) U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall writing: "Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract, when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department, and the legislature must execute the contract before it can become a rule for the Court." at 314, cited in Martin International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law et al. In the context of human rights and treaties that recognize or create individual rights, U.S. constitutional law makes a distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties. Non-self-executing treaties, which ascribe rights that under the constitution may be assigned by law, require legislative action to execute the contract (treaty) before it becomes a part of domestic law.[50] There are also cases that explicitly require legislative approval according to the Constitution, such as cases that could commit the U.S. to declare war or appropriate funds. Treaties regarding human rights, which create a duty to refrain from acting in a particular manner or confer specific rights, are generally held to be self-executing, requiring no further legislative action. In cases where legislative bodies refuse to recognize otherwise self-executing treaties by declaring them to be non-self-executing in an act of legislative non-recognition, constitutional scholars argue that such acts violate the separation of powers—in cases of controversy, the judiciary, not Congress, has the authority under Article III to apply treaty law to cases before the court. This is a key provision in cases where the Congress declares a human rights treaty to be non-self-executing, for example, by contending it does not add anything to human rights under U.S. domestic law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is one such case, which, while ratified after more than two decades of inaction, was done so with reservations, understandings, and declarations.[51] Under the principle of pacta sunt servanda a country may not invoke provisions of its domestic laws or constitution as justification for failure to comply with its international law obligations. Therefore, if a human rights treaty has been ratified by the U.S. but is not considered self-executing, or has not yet been implemented by legislation, it is nonetheless binding on the U.S. government as a matter of international law. War on Terror[edit] Main article: War on Terror In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. Government adopted several new measures in the classification and treatment of prisoners captured in the War on Terror, including applying the status of unlawful combatant to some prisoners, conducting extraordinary renditions, and using torture ("enhanced interrogation techniques"). Human Rights Watch and others described the measures as being illegal under the Geneva Conventions.[84] Command responsibility[edit] A presidential memorandum of February 7, 2002, authorized U.S. interrogators of prisoners captured during the War in Afghanistan to deny the prisoners basic protections required by the Geneva Conventions, and thus according to Jordan J. Paust, professor of law and formerly a member of the faculty of the Judge Advocate General's School, "necessarily authorized and ordered violations of the Geneva Conventions, which are war crimes."[85] Based on the president's memorandum, U.S. personnel carried out cruel and inhumane treatment on captured enemy fighters,[86] which necessarily means that the president's memorandum was a plan to violate the Geneva Convention, and such a plan constitutes a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, according to Professor Paust.[87] This research is provided by Angel Ronan Lex Scripta(TM). Please review the following: .318 of the Criminal Code of Canada prevents Genocide. 318 (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. Marginal note:Definition of genocide (2) In this section, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely, (a) killing members of the group; or (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. Marginal note:Consent (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General. Marginal note:Definition of identifiable group (4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318; 2004, c. 14, s. 1; 2014, c. 31, s. 12; 2017, c. 13, s. 3. __________________ United Kingdom The relevant provisions on crimes against humanity under United Kingdom law are contained in the International Criminal Court Act 2001, c. 17, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/pdf/uk pga_20010017_en.pdfhttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/pdf/uk pga_20010017_en.pdf. This is the original, as published version and does not take into account any amendments that may have occurred. Explanatory notes to this Act are also available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/ acts2001/en/ukpgaen_20010017_en_1 (last visited Apr. 29, 2010). This section provides that the jurisdiction contained in that Act for the offenses of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes applies to acts committed in England or Wales and to those outside the UK by a UK national, resident, or person subject to UK service jurisdiction (which is defined later in section 67). Northern Ireland is also included in the scope of the Act’s jurisdiction by virtue of section 58. Scotland has separate legislation—the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001, ASP [Act of Scottish Parliament] 13, available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/ scotland/acts2001/ asp_20010013_en_2#pt1-pb1-l1g1. The jurisdiction applies to acts committed in Scotland or outside the UK by a UK national or resident. ___________________________________ The United States of America __________________________ 18 U.S. Code § 1091.Genocide U.S. Code Notes Table of Popular Names prev | next (a)Basic Offense.—Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such— (1) kills members of that group; (2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group; (3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques; (4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part; (5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or (6) transfers by force children of the group to another group; shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). (b)Punishment for Basic Offense.—The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is— (1) in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), where death results, by death or imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both; and (2) a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in any other case. (c)Incitement Offense.— Whoever directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (d)Attempt and Conspiracy.— Any person who attempts or conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be punished in the same manner as a person who completes the offense. (e)Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the offenses described in subsections (a), (c), and (d) if— (1) the offense is committed in whole or in part within the United States; or (2)regardless of where the offense is committed, the alleged offender is— (A) a national of the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)); (B) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)); (C) a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States; or (D) present in the United States. (f)Nonapplicability of Certain Limitations.— Notwithstanding section 3282, in the case of an offense under this section, an indictment may be found, or information instituted, at any time without limitation. (Added Pub. L. 100–606, § 2(a), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3045; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60003(a)(13), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(a)(4), (b)(7), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1806, 1808; Pub. L. 110–151, § 2, Dec. 21, 2007, 121 Stat. 1821; Pub. L. 111–122, § 3(a), Dec. 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 3481.) 18 U.S. Code § 1093.Definitions U.S. Code Notes Table of Popular Names prev next As used in this chapter— (1) the term “children” means the plural and means individuals who have not attained the age of eighteen years; (2) the term “ethnic group” means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of common cultural traditions or heritage; (3) the term “incites” means urges another to engage imminently in conduct in circumstances under which there is a substantial likelihood of imminently causing such conduct; (4) the term “members” means the plural; (5) the term “national group” means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of nationality or national origins; (6) the term “racial group” means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of physical characteristics or biological descent; (7) the term “religious group” means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of common religious creed, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals; and (8) the term “substantial part” means a part of a group of such numerical significance that the destruction or loss of that part would cause the destruction of the group as a viable entity within the nation of which such group is a part. (Added Pub. L. 100–606, § 2(a), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3046.) Effect of international treaties[edit] The UN Charters are Self-executing and do not require further domestic legislation to be enforced in the United States. The absence of Basic income is a crime against US citizens and is enforceable under US domestic law. Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253, 314-15 (1829) U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall writing: "Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract, when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department, and the legislature must execute the contract before it can become a rule for the Court." at 314, cited in Martin International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law et al. In the context of human rights and treaties that recognize or create individual rights, U.S. constitutional law makes a distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties. Non-self-executing treaties, which ascribe rights that under the constitution may be assigned by law, require legislative action to execute the contract (treaty) before it becomes a part of domestic law.[50] There are also cases that explicitly require legislative approval according to the Constitution, such as cases that could commit the U.S. to declare war or appropriate funds. Treaties regarding human rights, which create a duty to refrain from acting in a particular manner or confer specific rights, are generally held to be self-executing, requiring no further legislative action. In cases where legislative bodies refuse to recognize otherwise self-executing treaties by declaring them to be non-self-executing in an act of legislative non-recognition, constitutional scholars argue that such acts violate the separation of powers—in cases of controversy, the judiciary, not Congress, has the authority under Article III to apply treaty law to cases before the court. This is a key provision in cases where the Congress declares a human rights treaty to be non-self-executing, for example, by contending it does not add anything to human rights under U.S. domestic law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is one such case, which, while ratified after more than two decades of inaction, was done so with reservations, understandings, and declarations.[51] Under the principle of pacta sunt servanda a country may not invoke provisions of its domestic laws or constitution as justification for failure to comply with its international law obligations. Therefore, if a human rights treaty has been ratified by the U.S. but is not considered self-executing, or has not yet been implemented by legislation, it is nonetheless binding on the U.S. government as a matter of international law. War on Terror[edit] Main article: War on Terror In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. Government adopted several new measures in the classification and treatment of prisoners captured in the War on Terror, including applying the status of unlawful combatant to some prisoners, conducting extraordinary renditions, and using torture ("enhanced interrogation techniques"). Human Rights Watch and others described the measures as being illegal under the Geneva Conventions.[84] Command responsibility[edit] A presidential memorandum of February 7, 2002, authorized U.S. interrogators of prisoners captured during the War in Afghanistan to deny the prisoners basic protections required by the Geneva Conventions, and thus according to Jordan J. Paust, professor of law and formerly a member of the faculty of the Judge Advocate General's School, "necessarily authorized and ordered violations of the Geneva Conventions, which are war crimes."[85] Based on the president's memorandum, U.S. personnel carried out cruel and inhumane treatment on captured enemy fighters,[86] which necessarily means that the president's memorandum was a plan to violate the Geneva Convention, and such a plan constitutes a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, according to Professor Paust.[87] This research is provided by Angel Ronan Lex Scripta(TM).
If Canada has an obligation to the UN ILO Recommendations R202 and the OHCHR, Ontario has an obligation. Did you know English is an ethnicity just as French is an ethnicity? Is your constitution, somehow,enshrined by an ulterior motive being expressed subconsciously by a covert Marquis de Sade nation coming across the northern border at night with less ebonic accents whose real origin is Caribbean? Maybe there is a systemic interruption to have a conversation, to get your attention. Resisting the UDHR is death. A fish resisting water is death. Resistance is death. Could you write about US Code 18 Genocide and the conditions of life guaranteed and ensured by the U.S. Government commitment to the UDHR Article 25..in America ? You can; of course. The year is almost 2020. What is the cost of wasting fuel? What is the cost of wasting people in whom you have invested? The real truth is that economies that do not participate in the UDHR are considered primitive. Could cuts to education be logical in an era of on going automation? The funding to education is to stay consistent and with the right intention, this means there are enough teachers per student pursuant to the legislation that is subject to UN guidelines. The UDHR is the law and the Secretary of State for every nation is now also the UDHR compliance Officer to ensure his or her signatory nation is UDHR compliant pursuant to the OHCHR and the UN ILO Recommendations R202. The real truth is that at $73.97 per day per citizen to ensure and guarantee the functioning of your economy and also avoid the charges of intent to commit genocide contrary to domestic criminal law in the UK, Canada, the United States and Mexico, who would hesitate to fulfil the existing legal requirements under the UDHR, the OHCHR and the UN ILO Regulations R202? Compliance is also more logical than hoping or relying on pockets of citizens from compliant member nations such as China and Pakistan or India to prop up your economy with the economic and product sales stoked by the minimum income support monies their Chinese, Indian or Pakistani government may provide them as they live, eat and buy products as temporary residents or permanent residency applicants in North America. Advocating a delay to the fulfilment of the current legal requisites involving the universal minimum income support affecting the North American citizens or an under fulfilment at amounts less than $73.00 per day is a genocide offence as it advocates conditions of life that do not ensure and that do not guarantee the defined standards of life outlined in the UDHR and the OHCHR. In other words, advocating $12000.00 per year is a crime. Advocating a delay to a universal minimum income support until the year 2020 is a crime. Providing the funds only to certain denominations such as the Puritans or the Jehovah Witness congregation is a crime against the targeted Non Jehovah Witness population. It is a crime. The foreign populations are welcome as they come with the cultural caravans as they can still share and help North America to get their economy going again but relying on small pockets of Asian people who have no nexus to the absolute security of the North American continent while your population is illegally under funded is the economic misfeassnce leading to a dependence on foreign peoples. This is not mentioning the evident misfeassnce in relying on foreign debt when a balanced respecting the dignity of its own people's will generate a surplus. Let me call a Black Japanese person to see if he can explain it to you in English. Don't feel bad about The Anglo and criticise every little thing the Anglo may do but maybe ban the track suit as you normalize the Hijab. The former mayor of Toronato pointed out that what is happening is not only genocide but misfeassnce in public office. He was drugged up, poisoned and killed by who inherited his office. You are extending the reach and influence of the Asian economy in the frustration of your own. It is evident to me that out of self respect, you see lots of Asian vehicles and Asian people in Asia and you see lots of Asian vehicles and Asian people in North America. Do you see lots of -----people in------? You see some and you may see more since there is a financial drain, instead of a brain drain, pulling people out of the economic illegality and illogic of North America. Click here for more Please review the following: .318 of the Criminal Code of Canada prevents Genocide. 318 (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. Marginal note:Definition of genocide (2) In this section, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely, (a) killing members of the group; or (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. Marginal note:Consent (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General. Marginal note:Definition of identifiable group (4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318; 2004, c. 14, s. 1; 2014, c. 31, s. 12; 2017, c. 13, s. 3. __________________ United Kingdom The relevant provisions on crimes against humanity under United Kingdom law are contained in the International Criminal Court Act 2001, c. 17, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/pdf/uk pga_20010017_en.pdfhttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/pdf/uk pga_20010017_en.pdf. This is the original, as published version and does not take into account any amendments that may have occurred. Explanatory notes to this Act are also available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/ acts2001/en/ukpgaen_20010017_en_1 (last visited Apr. 29, 2010). This section provides that the jurisdiction contained in that Act for the offenses of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes applies to acts committed in England or Wales and to those outside the UK by a UK national, resident, or person subject to UK service jurisdiction (which is defined later in section 67). Northern Ireland is also included in the scope of the Act’s jurisdiction by virtue of section 58. Scotland has separate legislation—the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001, ASP [Act of Scottish Parliament] 13, available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/ scotland/acts2001/ asp_20010013_en_2#pt1-pb1-l1g1. The jurisdiction applies to acts committed in Scotland or outside the UK by a UK national or resident. ___________________________________ The United States of America __________________________ 18 U.S. Code § 1091.Genocide U.S. Code Notes Table of Popular Names prev | next (a)Basic Offense.—Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such— (1) kills members of that group; (2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group; (3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques; (4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part; (5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or (6) transfers by force children of the group to another group; shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). (b)Punishment for Basic Offense.—The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is— (1) in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), where death results, by death or imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both; and (2) a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in any other case. (c)Incitement Offense.— Whoever directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (d)Attempt and Conspiracy.— Any person who attempts or conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be punished in the same manner as a person who completes the offense. (e)Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the offenses described in subsections (a), (c), and (d) if— (1) the offense is committed in whole or in part within the United States; or (2)regardless of where the offense is committed, the alleged offender is— (A) a national of the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)); (B) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)); (C) a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States; or (D) present in the United States. (f)Nonapplicability of Certain Limitations.— Notwithstanding section 3282, in the case of an offense under this section, an indictment may be found, or information instituted, at any time without limitation. (Added Pub. L. 100–606, s § 2(a), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3045; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60003(a)(13), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(a)(4), (b)(7), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1806, 1808; Pub. L. 110–151, § 2, Dec. 21, 2007, 121 Stat. 1821; Pub. L. 111–122, § 3(a), Dec. 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 3481.) 18 U.S. Code § 1093.Definitions U.S. Code Notes Table of Popular Names prev next As used in this chapter— (1) the term “children” means the plural and means individuals who have not attained the age of eighteen years; (2) the term “ethnic group” means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of common cultural traditions or heritage; (3) the term “incites” means urges another to engage imminently in conduct in circumstances under which there is a substantial likelihood of imminently causing such conduct; (4) the term “members” means the plural; (5) the term “national group” means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of nationality or national origins; (6) the term “racial group” means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of physical characteristics or biological descent; (7) the term “religious group” means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of common religious creed, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals; and (8) the term “substantial part” means a part of a group of such numerical significance that the destruction or loss of that part would cause the destruction of the group as a viable entity within the nation of which such group is a part. (Added Pub. L. 100–606, § 2(a), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3046.) Effect of international treaties[edit] The UN Charters are Self-executing and do not require further domestic legislation to be enforced in the United States. The absence of Basic income is a crime against US citizens and is enforceable under US domestic law. Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253, 314-15 (1829) U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall writing: "Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract, when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department, and the legislature must execute the contract before it can become a rule for the Court." at 314, cited in Martin International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law et al. In the context of human rights and treaties that recognize or create individual rights, U.S. constitutional law makes a distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties. Non-self-executing treaties, which ascribe rights that under the constitution may be assigned by law, require legislative action to execute the contract (treaty) before it becomes a part of domestic law.[50] There are also cases that explicitly require legislative approval according to the Constitution, such as cases that could commit the U.S. to declare war or appropriate funds. Treaties regarding human rights, which create a duty to refrain from acting in a particular manner or confer specific rights, are generally held to be self-executing, requiring no further legislative action. In cases where legislative bodies refuse to recognize otherwise self-executing treaties by declaring them to be non-self-executing in an act of legislative non-recognition, constitutional scholars argue that such acts violate the separation of powers—in cases of controversy, the judiciary, not Congress, has the authority under Article III to apply treaty law to cases before the court. This is a key provision in cases where the Congress declares a human rights treaty to be non-self-executing, for example, by contending it does not add anything to human rights under U.S. domestic law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is one such case, which, while ratified after more than two decades of inaction, was done so with reservations, understandings, and declarations.[51] Under the principle of pacta sunt servanda a country may not invoke provisions of its domestic laws or constitution as justification for failure to comply with its international law obligations. Therefore, if a human rights treaty has been ratified by the U.S. but is not considered self-executing, or has not yet been implemented by legislation, it is nonetheless binding on the U.S. government as a matter of international law. War on Terror[edit] Main article: War on Terror In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. Government adopted several new measures in the classification and treatment of prisoners captured in the War on Terror, including applying the status of unlawful combatant to some prisoners, conducting extraordinary renditions, and using torture ("enhanced interrogation techniques"). Human Rights Watch and others described the measures as being illegal under the Geneva Conventions.[84] Command responsibility[edit] A presidential memorandum of February 7, 2002, authorized U.S. interrogators of prisoners captured during the War in Afghanistan to deny the prisoners basic protections required by the Geneva Conventions, and thus according to Jordan J. Paust, professor of law and formerly a member of the faculty of the Judge Advocate General's School, "necessarily authorized and ordered violations of the Geneva Conventions, which are war crimes."[85] Based on the president's memorandum, U.S. personnel carried out cruel and inhumane treatment on captured enemy fighters,[86] which necessarily means that the president's memorandum was a plan to violate the Geneva Convention, and such a plan constitutes a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, according to Professor Paust.[87] This research is provided by Angel Ronan Lex Scripta(TM).
Please review the following:
.318 of the Criminal Code of Canada prevents Genocide.
__________________
United Kingdom
The relevant provisions on crimes against humanity under United Kingdom law are contained in the International Criminal Court Act 2001, c. 17, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/pdf/uk pga_20010017_en.pdfhttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/pdf/uk pga_20010017_en.pdf. This is the original, as published version and does not take into account any amendments that may have occurred. Explanatory notes to this Act are also available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/ acts2001/en/ukpgaen_20010017_en_1 (last visited Apr. 29, 2010). This section provides that the jurisdiction contained in that Act for the offenses of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes applies to acts committed in England or Wales and to those outside the UK by a UK national, resident, or person subject to UK service jurisdiction (which is defined later in section 67).
Northern Ireland is also included in the scope of the Act’s jurisdiction by virtue of section 58.
Scotland has separate legislation—the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001, ASP [Act of Scottish Parliament] 13, available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/ scotland/acts2001/ asp_20010013_en_2#pt1-pb1-l1g1. The jurisdiction applies to acts committed in Scotland or outside the UK by a UK national or resident.
___________________________________- Definition of genocide(2) In this section, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
- Consent(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
- Definition of identifiable group(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.
- R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318;
- 2004, c. 14, s. 1;
- 2014, c. 31, s. 12;
- 2017, c. 13, s. 3.
United Kingdom
The relevant provisions on crimes against humanity under United Kingdom law are contained in the International Criminal Court Act 2001, c. 17, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/pdf/uk pga_20010017_en.pdfhttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/pdf/uk pga_20010017_en.pdf. This is the original, as published version and does not take into account any amendments that may have occurred. Explanatory notes to this Act are also available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/ acts2001/en/ukpgaen_20010017_en_1 (last visited Apr. 29, 2010). This section provides that the jurisdiction contained in that Act for the offenses of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes applies to acts committed in England or Wales and to those outside the UK by a UK national, resident, or person subject to UK service jurisdiction (which is defined later in section 67).
Northern Ireland is also included in the scope of the Act’s jurisdiction by virtue of section 58.
Scotland has separate legislation—the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001, ASP [Act of Scottish Parliament] 13, available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/ scotland/acts2001/ asp_20010013_en_2#pt1-pb1-l1g1. The jurisdiction applies to acts committed in Scotland or outside the UK by a UK national or resident.
The United States of America
__________________________
18 U.S. Code § 1091.Genocide
prev | next
(a)Basic Offense.—Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such—
kills members of that group;
causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;
causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;
subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;
transfers by force children of the group to another group;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), where death results, by death or imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both; and
Whoever directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(e)Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the offenses described in subsections (a), (c), and (d) if—
the offense is committed in whole or in part within the United States; or
a national of the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101));
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101));
a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States; or
present in the United States.
Notwithstanding section 3282, in the case of an offense under this section, an indictment may be found, or information instituted, at any time without limitation.
(Added Pub. L. 100–606, § 2(a), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3045; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60003(a)(13), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title IV, § 4002(a)(4), (b)(7), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1806, 1808; Pub. L. 110–151, § 2, Dec. 21, 2007, 121 Stat. 1821; Pub. L. 111–122, § 3(a), Dec. 22, 2009, 123 Stat. 3481.)
18 U.S. Code § 1093.Definitions
prev next
As used in this chapter—
the term “children” means the plural and means individuals who have not attained the age of eighteen years;
the term “ethnic group” means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of common cultural traditions or heritage;
the term “incites” means urges another to engage imminently in conduct in circumstances under which there is a substantial likelihood of imminently causing such conduct;
the term “members” means the plural;
the term “national group” means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of nationality or national origins;
the term “racial group” means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of physical characteristics or biological descent;
the term “religious group” means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of common religious creed, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals; and
the term “substantial part” means a part of a group of such numerical significance that the destruction or loss of that part would cause the destruction of the group as a viable entity within the nation of which such group is a part.
Effect of international treaties[edit] The UN Charters are Self-executing and do not require further domestic legislation to be enforced in the United States. The absence of Basic income is a crime against US citizens and is enforceable under US domestic law.
Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253, 314-15 (1829) U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall writing: "Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract, when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department, and the legislature must execute the contract before it can become a rule for the Court." at 314, cited in Martin International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law et al.
In the context of human rights and treaties that recognize or create individual rights, U.S. constitutional law makes a distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties. Non-self-executing treaties, which ascribe rights that under the constitution may be assigned by law, require legislative action to execute the contract (treaty) before it becomes a part of domestic law.[50] There are also cases that explicitly require legislative approval according to the Constitution, such as cases that could commit the U.S. to declare war or appropriate funds.
Treaties regarding human rights, which create a duty to refrain from acting in a particular manner or confer specific rights, are generally held to be self-executing, requiring no further legislative action. In cases where legislative bodies refuse to recognize otherwise self-executing treaties by declaring them to be non-self-executing in an act of legislative non-recognition, constitutional scholars argue that such acts violate the separation of powers—in cases of controversy, the judiciary, not Congress, has the authority under Article III to apply treaty law to cases before the court. This is a key provision in cases where the Congress declares a human rights treaty to be non-self-executing, for example, by contending it does not add anything to human rights under U.S. domestic law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is one such case, which, while ratified after more than two decades of inaction, was done so with reservations, understandings, and declarations.[51]
Under the principle of pacta sunt servanda a country may not invoke provisions of its domestic laws or constitution as justification for failure to comply with its international law obligations. Therefore, if a human rights treaty has been ratified by the U.S. but is not considered self-executing, or has not yet been implemented by legislation, it is nonetheless binding on the U.S. government as a matter of international law.
War on Terror[edit]
In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the U.S. Government adopted several new measures in the classification and treatment of prisoners captured in the War on Terror, including applying the status of unlawful combatant to some prisoners, conducting extraordinary renditions, and using torture ("enhanced interrogation techniques"). Human Rights Watch and others described the measures as being illegal under the Geneva Conventions.[84]
Command responsibility[edit]
A presidential memorandum of February 7, 2002, authorized U.S. interrogators of prisoners captured during the War in Afghanistan to deny the prisoners basic protections required by the Geneva Conventions, and thus according to Jordan J. Paust, professor of law and formerly a member of the faculty of the Judge Advocate General's School, "necessarily authorized and ordered violations of the Geneva Conventions, which are war crimes."[85] Based on the president's memorandum, U.S. personnel carried out cruel and inhumane treatment on captured enemy fighters,[86] which necessarily means that the president's memorandum was a plan to violate the Geneva Convention, and such a plan constitutes a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, according to Professor Paust.[87]
Comments
Post a Comment