[pp.int.general] "Natural" law

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

Reinier Bakels wrote:
> 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.
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_ECHR
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Spanish_Constitution_of_1978/Part_I

UDHR on privacy: "/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 requirement for 
interferences are that they must not be arbitrary; also, there is the 
right to be protected against arbitrary interferences)
ECHR on privacy: "/there shall be no interference by a public authority 
with the exercise of this right *except* such as is in accordance with 
the law and is necessary in a democratic society *in the interests of 
national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the 
country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of 
health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of 
others*/" (I don't know what is worse, reading such exceptions or not 
being able to find the protection)
Spanish Constitution on privacy: "/*No entry or search* may be made 
*without* the consent of the householder or a *legal warrant*, *except 
in cases of flagrante delicto*.*Secrecy of communications is 
guaranteed*, particularly regarding postal, telegraphic and telephonic 
communications, *except in the event of a court order*/" (at least 
Spanish Constitution provides explicit protection from judges and courts 
of justice)

ECHR's wording is pretty worse, in my opinion, than the other two; UDHR 
is maybe more abstract, while ECHR makes -in my opinion- a disagreeable 
implementation. At least ECJ didn't ruled on the PROMUSICAE vs 
Telefonica judgment that we, the Spaniards, should change our 
Constitution's wording ... don't know whether we should be pleased by 
ECJ due to it.

In other words: I'm unable to start from ECHR. Of course, as long as I 
observe rule of law, and as Spain is one of ECHR's signatories, I'm 
obliged to observe it; however, in the national scope, I feel currently 
safer with my national constitution's provisions -the /anti-Bono/ (anti 
/Telecom Package/'s Amendment 138, and /anti-Trautmann re-Amendment/) 
provisions and such-, so please don't ask me to start from ECHR, at 
least not if we are talking not about where we are, but about where we 
want to be. Believe me, apart from obliged allegiance to ECHR, I'm not 
interested on (I dislike) several of its provisions, and probably PIRATA 
will aim to change those provisions.
> The exceptions recognise that none of the rules is absolute. Nor is 
> there a hierarchy of humn rights, as is sometimes advocated.
As I said in my last mails, rather than talking about /exceptions/ I 
prefer to talk about balance of rights; mainly because, e.g., citizens' 
rights on culture are not exceptions, but true rights declared in 27.1 
UDHR. Actually, did you know that Treaty of Rome (that constituting an 
European Community) didn't mention at all /c word /nor /intellectual 
pro...whatever/? Maybe we should ...
> 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.
.... not to avoid the /language arena/, otherwise we may find 50 years 
later a Treaty of Rome/ reloaded/ with even worse provisions. With your 
permission, we in PIRATA are going to keep trying to win in the 
/language arena/. We are comparable to Getafe F.C., while pro-copyright 
lobbies are rather comparable to Sevilla F.C., Valencia F.C., FC Bayern 
München and such big football clubs ... however, Getafe lost by a tiny 
margin -respectively: 1-0, 3-1 (both in Cup finals) and 4-4 (on away 
goals, in UEFA Cup quarterfinals, with a last-minute goal and playing 
arguably better than Bayern)-, and could have won any of those 
matches/ties in spite of the size difference.

While not being aware of that difference would be delusional, being 
scared by it is not an option for us.
> My experience is that human rights arguments often don't work in 
> politics. Do you have different experiences, either personally or from 
> news reports?
 From the Internet, and from the people who I personally know; and from 
their reactions when told about the RMOs abuses and the current legal 
framework nonsenses, yes, I have different experiences. From the 3 
million signatories of the /Todos Contra el Canon/ -a platform that 
actually uses to appeal to human rights arguments-, yes, I have 
different experiences.

http://www.todoscontraelcanon.es/index2.php?body=suscribe_entidades
> (*) Now I use the term deliberately - as a concept that includes both 
> written and non-written intellectual property law. A nightmare for 
> pirates.
huh? /non-written intellectual pro...whatever/ law? Which is that law?


                                                                                               
Carlos Ayala
                                                                                                
( Aiarakoa )

              
                                                            Partido 
Pirata National Board's Chairman