[pp.int.general] philosophy vs. action

[Reinier Bakels]

Let me be brief. The ECHR is currently in function, actually since 1950 (I 
don't know about Spain). The EU "constitution" intended to incorprate the 
ECHR, but it did not yet happen. The ECHR signatory states are members of 
the (older) Council of Europe, that includes countries such as Russia and 
Turkey - but excludes Belarus.

Of course, the exception subsections do not allow infringement of human 
rights without a proper procedure, such as a court order if and when 
appropriate (but the police may check your driving licence without a court 
order - even though it infringes your privacy). The essence of these 
provisions is that they *not only* require a statutory basis, *but also* a 
certain permissible purpose, from a limitative catalog. A typical phrase in 
this context is "a pressing social need in a democratic society".

reinier

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carlos Ayala Vargas" <aiarakoa at yahoo.es>
To: "Pirate Parties International -- General Talk" 
<pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 6:42 AM
Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] philosophy vs. action


> Reinier Bakels wrote:
>>> Disagree: take the human rights out of the equation, then -at least for 
>>> PIRATA- no single trade-off can be possible.
>> I start to loose my patience.
> If having anyone losing patience because of PIRATA not willing to 
> trade-off on human rights ... well, the best I can say about is, not my 
> business.
>> you completely misunderstood an essential aspect of human rights. They 
>> are often contradictory. I explained you that most provisions of the ECHR 
>> have a subsection 2 (or 3, occasionally) that gives specific rules in 
>> case of conflicts.
> You mean that, e.g., ECHR allows privacy, freedom of speech and etc being 
> spoiled without a court warrant, in certain cases like "/*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*/" -I'm truly amazed with the /morals/ thing, which 
> by the way links to your previous "/the fact that such opinions are not 
> seen as crimes or torts imho does not imply that one is socially allowed 
> to say anything that is not against the law/" comment-? Yes, I am aware, 
> and that's why I prefer Spanish Constitution's inner bill of rights rather 
> than such wicked ECHR.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_8_ECHR
>
> However, my preferences doesn't really matter: since a 2005's Spanish 
> Constitutional Court decision, if any time Czech Republic and Ireland 
> finally sign Treaty of Lisboa -thus, making such Treaty coming into 
> force-, Spaniard's guarantees on rights and liberties would be going down 
> the sewer, and only ECHR will really matter. Does it please you? Because 
> it doesn't please PIRATA.
>> That is the trade-off I refer to.
> I know, and I reject it. Unless there is a court warrant, PIRATA rejects 
> such /subsections/. And as long as SC's inner bill of rights remains into 
> force, Spanish law also does.
>> E.g. no one can deny that privacy is naturally limited for reasons of 
>> personal safety.
> False. Read Spanish Constitution, read Spanish constitutional case law, 
> and later and only later, just try to make such statement. In Spain, at 
> least now, at least until Ireland and Czech Republic sign the Treaty of 
> Lisboa and unless in State of Emergency/Exception/etc:
>
> - you need a court warrant to seize publications
> - you need a court warrant to make home searches
> - you need a court warrant to spy private communications
> - summarizing: you need a court warrant to break citizens' fundamental 
> rights and liberties
>
> You don't like it? You don't find it logical? Honestly, I don't care: 
> those are our rights, those are our freedoms, and you are not entitled to 
> attack them not to deny logical abilities of those defending them -e.g., 
> myself-.
>>> Are you asking us to give them up?
>> If you mean a brand new copyright, yes.
> While I actually mean a brand new *author's rights* legal framework ... 
> thanks you for the /advice/: no, thanks.
>> It is like the social democratic ideology vs. communism.
> I'm not a /social democrat/ nor a /communist/, so ideological nuances 
> between those groups are not my business.
>
> What is actually my business, what PIRATA members chose me for, is to 
> defend the right of a fair trial when fundamental rights and 
> liberties -like freedom of speech and privacy- are attacked, and as it's 
> my duty, and I obey my fellow party members and not you, I'll keep 
> demanding that the limits to fundamental rights and liberties can only be 
> set by courts of justice and not by governments -among other reasons, for 
> the separation of powers' sake-. Whether you agree or not.
>> I meant something very different. I meant that politicians (usually) 
>> should not try to be a better government than the government, but *check 
>> what the government does*. Not just on a substantive level, but 
>> definitely also on a procedural level.
> That's what we are doing in PPI.
>> Really? Usually even a small minority can prevent that a topic is not 
>> discussed at all, and accepted without debate. Having a debate is the 
>> first step towards winning a debate!
> Having a debate is essential, I agree with you on that; however you said 
> "/asking questions will also trigger other politicans/", and I repeat 
> "/not in Spain/". And, as long as we in PIRATA are aware of that, the ones 
> we want to trigger by asking questions are not the politicians -talking 
> about actually unrealistic efforts ...-, but citizens who, by the way, are 
> the ones entitled to vote, i.e., the ones who can give the pirate parties 
> enough seats to have real strength to fulfill our goals.
>> While there is sometimes a quorum to decide whether a topic is a mere 
>> formality or deserves to be discussed, usually no majority is required, 
>> and opposition parties will be happy to join the PP.
> Almost all parties (more than 90 % of MPs) voted for a non-legislative 
> proposal urging the government to give pro-copyright lobbies censoring 
> powers on the Internet. Read my /lips/, Reinier: not in Spain -I wish it 
> were, however it's not-.
>> Well, if it is not perceived as "extremist" (another caveat for the PP!).
> Spanish Government calls /extremist /whoever that disagrees with him:
>
> - called /antipatriotic/ all who talked about economic crisis -now they've 
> passed, about 2009 forecast, from -1'5 % deficit and +1 % GDP (in 
> November) to -6 % deficit and -1'5 % GDP (in January)-
> - called /antipatriotic/ all who talked against private copying 
> levies -recently, a court ruled that entities are not obliged to pay 
> levies, as levies exists because of private copying, and only people (not 
> entities) are entitled to make private copying-
> - etc
>
> Do I look like if I care about whether the Spanish Government is going to 
> call PIRATA /extremist/ or not? Wake up, Reinier: *they are going to call 
> us /extremists/ anyway!
>
> *At least, concede PIRATA that -as we live in Spain, while you don't- it's 
> /slightly/ more probable that we are better aware of Spanish political 
> reality than you are.
>
>
> 
> Carlos Ayala
> 
> ( Aiarakoa )
>
> 
> Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman
>
> P.S.: Talking about patience: patience is what is needed to bear your 
> language -including such "/I start to loose my patience/" warnings- 
> without any moderator saying a word; if they tolerate your language, then 
> the only chance for me is to answer you -in an appropriate manner, of 
> course-; if you don't like me disagreeing with you, bad luck, I have my 
> own viewpoints whether you admit it or not.
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general