[pp.int.general] "Natural" law

[Reinier Bakels]

I am afraid we are running in circles now. For the sake of argument, let us 
start from the ECHR, because that is a Convention which can often be invoked 
in court, has been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (and by 
national courts where allowed, e.g. in NL), and is more clearly worded than 
the UNDR, in particular with its exception rules. The exceptions recognise 
that none of the rules is absolute. Nor is there a hierarchy of humn rights, 
as is sometimes advocated.
Both actual politics and literature show that there are "human rights" 
interpretations that require pervasive intellectual property(*) to be 
recognised - and privacy to be reduced to a bare minimum for the safety of 
the people. I strongly recommend not to try to win this debate, but to 
address the related issues directly. My experience is that human rights 
arguments often don't work in politics. Do you have different experiences, 
either personally or from news reports?

(*) Now I use the term deliberately - as a concept that includes both 
written and non-written intellectual property law. A nightmare for pirates.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carlos Ayala Vargas" <aiarakoa at yahoo.es>
To: "Pirate Parties International -- General Talk" 
<pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] "Natural" law


> Reinier Bakels wrote:
>> Secondly, there is indeed a link with human rights, to the extent that 
>> human rights are also assumed to be given
> /Given/ ... by UN's 1948 representatives? If not, by who/what?
>> In a political context, I am afraid that human rights arguments are not 
>> always effective, and may even be counter-productive.
> For PIRATA, human rights -in the UDHR form- are as important as breathing; 
> and I can assure that for me, breathing is always effective and never 
> counter-productive. As long as we can't give up breathing -without dying-, 
> PIRATA can't give up defending UDHR -because we, the PIRATA members, free 
> and voluntarily agreed to use UDHR as our basis-.
>> I mentioned before that some people argue that strong copyright is a 
>> "human right" associated with the personal dignity of the author.
> Yes, I remember it; maybe you remember that I replied that such people -I 
> guess you mean the pro-copyright lobbies- may lie and distort facts as 
> much as they want; one of our duties, in my opinion, is to counter and 
> deny those lies and distortions.
>> And extreme enforcement, sacrificing all privacy, "indispensable" for the 
>> human integrity and safety right (under whatever wordings) against 
>> terrorism. Such arguments are by no means uncommon.
> They're not uncommon -traditional politicians and mass media spread they 
> quite often-, in spite of what they're not true -e.g., if they aim to seek 
> and arrest terrorists, they have to seek and arrest terrorists, not to 
> apply data retention to all citizens (regardless of whether we have 
> criminal records or not)-. Even if mass media were 24/7 broadcasting lies 
> about author's rights, that wouldn't make those lies and distortions 
> become true.
>> Some people may consider such arguments as an intellectual challenge. I 
>> would prefer to stay away from (somehow) weak arguments in a political 
>> context.
> I'm aware of that preference from you; however, as I said before, same as 
> I can't give up breathing, I can't give up defending human rights; and 
> same happens to my fellow PIRATA members -and I guess also to most or even 
> all members of the rest of pirate parties-. The scope of UDHR's article 
> 27.2 can be redefined, according to the UN ESC's 2005 provisions; can ... 
> and I would also say that should, among other reasons, because privacy, 
> freedom of speech and other fundamental rights, including the rights from 
> article 27.1 -also included in the Covenant- cannot be spoiled in the name 
> of author's rights, as stated in UDHR's article 30.
>
> http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
>> No human right is absolute (as is recognised in the ECHR).
> While Spain is an ECHR signatory, PIRATA rejects some provisions of ECHR 
> (UDHR is our basis as a party, not ECHR); that implies that maybe some day 
> in the future we will have the need of proposing changes to ECHR. Of 
> course, as long as we are allowed to even propose changes to ECHR, i.e., 
> is ECHR changeable? I agree with you, Reinier, in that changes to such 
> texts have to be handled with care, and observing rule of law ... but 
> that's not what I'm asking to you; what I ask you is, is ECHR changeable?
>> The exception conditions are lawyer stuff, not suited for politics.
> The exception conditions have to be decided by sovereigns -i.e., 
> citizens-, and lawyers are just part of citizens.
>> The solution imho is to be explicit:
>>
>> - promote privacy as the right to be left alone
> What about right to a fair trial -in Spain, when RMOs accuse you of 
> violating author's rights in the civil scope, you are the one who have to 
> prove your innocence, not them proving you're guilty-? What about right to 
> not being discriminated -in Spain, no matter whether you're an author or 
> not, you cannot enjoy your author's rights unless you join a RMO (and then 
> you cannot enjoy them anyway, as it's the RMO who decides on your works)-?
>
> Reinier, I believe that privacy definitely is not the only thing that 
> matters, nor /the/ right to be left alone -but one of the rights and 
> freedoms to be left alone-.
>> - promote *balanced* decision making on copyrights
> On author's rights, yes. Though leaving /the 1000/ (/Plataforma PAZ /and 
> pro-copyright lobbies equivalents in other countries), if not aside, at 
> least with the weight that really should be given to them -tiny, tiny 
> weight-.
>> - promote the freedom of information (send AND receive) as a basic value
>> - etc.
> Hope that such /et cetera/ is an enormous /et cetera/.
>> Succh items can be defended even without recourse to UNDR of ECHR, with 
>> very concrete examples from practice.
> UDHR's Article 12 states: "/No one shall be subjected to arbitrary 
> interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to 
> attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the 
> *protection of the law against such interference or attacks*/"; the 
> highlighted part is interpreted in Spanish Constitution (article 18) as 
> the home being inviolable, and "/*no entry or search may be made without* 
> the consent of the householder *or a legal warrant*, except in cases of 
> flagrante delicto/"; and secrecy of communications guaranteed, 
> particularly regarding postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, 
> "/except *in the event of a court order*/".
>
> UDHR asks for protection of the law against attacks on privacy, and 
> Spanish Constitution provides the formal protection -later not observed by 
> governments nor RMOs-; why shouldn't we do the same? How can be building 
> our platforms on human rights a bad move? It is essential for PIRATA, and 
> while of course you are up to suggest us to forget what is essential to 
> us, I think you shouldn't expect us to do it.
>
>
> 
> Carlos Ayala
> 
> ( Aiarakoa )
>
>                                                              Partido 
> Pirata National Board's Chairman
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general