[pp.int.general] purpose of manifesto

[Reinier Bakels]

> Reinier, have you paid ANY attention to what we've talked about on this? 
> Legal issues, relevence of ECHR or anything else is UTTERLY irrelevent.
>
> The point of the Manifesto is to be, as I've described it before, a 
> statement of commonalities between parties. That is all. If we all
(snip)
> For the grown ups, it is a statement of what each party has in common with 
> its beliefs, and individual party manifestos. It is a Venn diagram of the 
> policies of each party (and since you've not understood that, try here - 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_Diagram ). There are no references to 
> laws, to any statements of fact, or indeed anything beyond the general 
> assertion that 'we believe this should be so'.
>
> Thus, everything I've left below this is utterly pointless and irrelevant. 
> Not everything has to refer to human rights documentation, or be 
> evidentially correct. It would seem that you have been disruptive of this 
> process, though, without even bothering to understand the absis of the 
> document. As I tell my kids (4, 6 and 12) If you don't know, ask, don't 
> pretend you do, because you just look silly. You are looking silly to me.

It seems there is a total confusion about the purpose of a "Manifesto". 
Sorry about that. I have been informed (offline) that the purpose of the 
Manifesto is to establish a word-wide identity of the concept ("brand") 
Pirate Party as a political movement, e.g. for reference by national Pirate 
Parties. In my (perhaps incorrect) perspective, the efforts to create a 
common document merely were a service to national Pirate Parties, in order 
to avoid a duplication of work. I have attended both PPI meetings last year, 
in Berlin in January and in June in Uppsala, and I did not get a different 
impression there.

Furthermore, I gather that you are the WW coordinator for the PPI manifesto, 
and Carlos is considered the coordinator for Europe. I appreciate that if 
you consider a Manifesto a purpose in itself, as a "project", it is 
frustrating if someone is as critical as I am. Sorry! Otoh, if it would be 
merely a service, it is logical for a representative of a national PP to 
consider whether such a Manifesto is helpful or not.

My political perspective is that there is an urgent need to put 
counterweight on the balance in matters of copyright and privacy (to name 
just the two imho most urgent issues), against the persistent capaigns of 
corporate lobbyists and "law and order" politicians respectively. In Europe, 
such problems are exacerbated by the "democratic deficit" of the European 
Union. Issues like (presently) ACTA, the proposed neighboring rights term 
extension, the telecom package ("three strikes"), the EPO software patent 
debate all require immediate action. Of course such activism should be based 
on a common "philosophy", but in my experience many activists easily agree 
on such a philosophy without an explict, abstract process. While some of the 
present problems have a WW scope, many have not. In Europe, the prime 
problem - and opportunity! - is the European Union. If you really care about 
a WW policy, you have to address the developing nations problems as well 
(the "Geneva" problem) which is very complicated (and actually very 
different).

I gather that some people find me "arrogant" because of my comments, in 
particular on "human rights", in particular in a political context. Well, in 
law school in The Netherlands, and during my stay at the Max Planck 
Institute in Munich in 2003, I had the opprtunity to follow lectures in 
constitutional law. And I was involved in the political struggle against 
software patents from 2002. You don't want me to be arrogant, but you don't 
want me to be shy about my *actual* experience (as far as it can be 
helpful), do you? In particular from the software patent "project", I have 
learned that human rights arguments are *not* very effective, and 
occasionally even *counterproductive*. So as in the Manifesto proposals, the 
human rights argument is very dominant, I don't consider them useful, 
period. If eventually a majority of national pirate parties would adopt this 
style of Manifesto, we have a big problem: in my perspective then we have to 
choose between *either* those principles *or* a pragmatic political 
approach. The end effect could be a schism. I hope that you appreciate the 
compelling logic of this line of thought - I do not mean a threat.

Conceivably any international union of pirate parties may object the use of 
the designation "Pirate Party" for unauthorised political movements, not 
agreeing with the Manifesto. But then I'd like to remind you that the 
designation "Pirate Party" itself is controversial. There are many activists 
who subscribe (more or less) to the PP cause, who frown upon the name. In my 
understanding, the PP movement emerged more or less as a joke when the 
Swedish government established an "anti pirate bureau" - which "obviously" 
called for the establishment of a "pirate bureau" - the foundation for the 
eventual pirate party. While proponents argue that the word "pirate" 
provokes a shock effect which is helpful for promotion, others argue that 
this word inherently has a potemtially counter-productive negative 
connotation: one would not establish a "theft party" either. In sum, it is 
primarily the political direction that matters, and the "PP" designation is 
a means to an end, not a condicio sine qua non.

IMHO, politics must achieve results, not promote philosophies.

reinier