Why we shouldn't support the International Criminal Court, part MCMLVII

Eight years ago, Steven den Beste wrote about the International Criminal Court, and predicted that it would not be an impartial enforcer of International Law, but rather would be used for selective prosecution of political enemies:

And here is the real point: I believe that many (not all, but many) of those who are supporting the ICC are lying when they say it won't be applied to the US and to Israel in this fashion. I think that the reason they are in favor of it is exactly that they hope it can be used to bring the US down a notch. There is, here in the US, a strikingly great correlation between those who are in favor of the ICC and those who otherwise profess that the US is too powerful, too influential, consumes too much, does too much, etc.

To this list we can add those who are insufficiently obedient to the Environmental Lobby:

A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace - alongside genocide and crimes against humanity - is being launched in the UK.

The proposal for the United Nations to accept "ecocide" as a fifth "crime against peace", which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins.

Any bets as to whether "ecocide" will trump keeping the developing world in poverty? But be reasonable, we're told - after all, it's not like the inmates will be running the asylum or anything. I mean, only serious, far reaching ecological catastrophe will be covered by this, right? Oh, wait:

Controversially, Higgins is suggesting ecocide would include damage done to any species - not just humans. This, she says, would stop prosecutions being tied up in legal wrangling over whether humans were harmed, as many environmental cases currently are.: "If you put in a crime that's absolute you can't spend years arguing: you take a soil sample and if it tests as positive it's bang to rights."

So now insects will have "human rights" under International Law. That sure saves all that tedious proving harm to people bit. Take the soil sample.

Progressives wonder why their agenda is increasingly unpopular. Perhaps it's because that as society has made major gains in quality of life - the air and water is much cleaner (at least in the West) than 30 years ago - the need to even bigger campaigns has led to policies that would keep billions in poverty, cause millions to die early, and force billions to settle for a worse standard of living than their parents had.

Kind of hard to get the masses behind that program, so let's apply the Police State.

Progressives, you need to rein in kooks like this. The rest of us are watching, hoping you'll prove me wrong. Sadly, confidence is not high.