Cops for One World

The Love Bug has unleashed a force far more dangerous to conservative notions of nationalism and individualism than the Million Mom March.

I call it One World Law Enforcement.

The temporary headquarters for this conspiracy is Paris,, where leaders from the Group of Eight nations are meeting with Internet security experts to draft an action plan for fighting computer crime.

The key to the effort is “harmonizing” the world’s laws to ensure there are “no safe havens” from which to launch hacks or virus attacks.

Who could be against that, you say? Well, let’s ask a few questions and see if you might be against that.

Who decides what’s illegal? Right now they’re going after just hacking, fraud and child pornography, but those targets could easily (and quickly) be joined by others newly deemed illegal. What happens to national laws that conflict with what the bureaucrats decide? If local efforts are deemed “inadequate” (and who decides that?), do foreign cops come in? What happens then to national sovereignty?

The bureaucrats don’t want to hear from you on this. The Paris meeting will make recommendations for a summit in Okinawa this summer, where presidents and prime ministers will take the first step toward creating a treaty on the subject. (A separate meeting is working on the treaty’s language.) The treaty would then be handed to legislators on a take-it-or-leave-it basis pass this without amendment or become an international pariah.

The U.S. is more aggressive than most countries in this area, pressing ahead for an international police force to go after those deemed the bad guys. Europeans just want to promote cooperation and the use of existing laws.

Of course, one reason why the U.S. is aggressive now is that its national laws aren’t under threat. We already have strong laws against hacking, fraud and child porn. You could add laws against online gambling and wouldn’t find any objection from Congress.

But in many areas the U.S. is a haven for what other nations will call license and illegality. Our First Amendment protects what Europe considers hate speech, not to mention adult pornography. Our Second Amendment protects attitudes towards firearms other nations consider obscene in the extreme. And if we’re going to have uniform enforcement, especially involving grave crimes, America’s death penalty is bound to get in the way.

Uniform laws would also prevent democracies from changing their minds. Differing laws are already stifling trade in alcohol and pharmaceuticals of all kinds. Defining the word “drug,” and making uniform worldwide laws based on the definition, seems an impossible task, and we’re talking here about huge markets for e-commerce.

To make this non-controversial, consider just the alcohol laws. The Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc. once broke Georgia law by sending me a 12-pack of beer to celebrate its Michelob.com web site. (Don’t worry, Mr. Busch, I (ahem) disposed of the evidence.)

The point is that when we take one step toward world government, even with the noblest of intentions, we’re going down a slippery slope. A little awareness of that fact wouldn’t hurt.

Related reading

KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA
pokemon go
/IMG/261/280261/snapchat-logo-app-store-320x198
rsz_adblock
<