[pp.int.general] Translation of the Pirate Manifesto

[Reinier Bakels]

> Rude is no stranger to you. If you want incorrect, I'd guess saying "I
> only got engaged in the "Manifesto" project early this year" is also
> incorrect, unless you consider late last year, to be the same as
> 'early this year'. If truth were Beauty, you'd have snakes biting the
> barber. I'm also unaware of anyone 'quitting' the project, except for
> Carlos, after your constant flames
Do you really get angry, because I am a few weeks wrong?? The essence is 
that I was not involved until 12/08, or 01/09, roughly.
But perhaps it is more important that indeed people quit the project, 
because the cooperation did not work (let me be polite!), which was long 
before the above dates. I think it is essential to note that.
>
>> I was there during the whole meeting. And from the atmosphere, I think it 
>> is
>> utterly unlikely that it was discussed "offline".
>
> whose atmosphere? since by the time of the Helsinki meeting, you'd
> been pretty vocal in your oposition to it for almost 2 months.
>
1. I refer to the atmosphere of the Helsinki meeting. Which was very 
constructive. But with very little attention to the "Manifesto" theme.
2. I tried to make constructive remarks. Yes, they were critical about the 
Manifesto drafts. Initially I still had the idea that I could contribute. 
But then the discussion went totally astray. At some point in time, I was 
even blamed for the *colours* I used in my e-mails!
3. Carlos got a could shoulder in Helsinki. No one expressed any 
appreciation for the work he did. Carlos blamed PP founder Rick Falckvinge 
for not cooperating. Rick only smiled and said that he did not like his 
comments (or similar words). he clearly was not prepared to waste much time 
to Carlos'allegations.
>>>
<snip>
>> * leading PP people quit in the course of 2008 because of conflicts
>
> WHO.
You referred yourself to a "boycot" by the Swedish Pirapartiet. Should I say 
more?
>> * the support and interest in the manifesto's at the Helsini meeting 
>> early
>> this year was ZERO
>
> I was unaware that the rule was 'Helsinki or it never happened'.
> Especially as there were not representatives from every party there.
My presumption was that people who take the trouble to travel to Helsinki in 
de mid of the winter carry some weight.
>> * still no choice has made for A, B or C, afaik
>
> Yeah, because some self-important lawyer dude, started disrupting the
> discussions every time they got started, going on about some weird
> legal arguments and how a small minority might turn arguemnts against
> us. If only I could remember that guys name.....
You mean me, of course, because I recognise the arguments. But you 
contradict yourself. You argue that I am totally important, and now you 
blame me for killing the entire project?
Whi says it is a "tiny minority" who will agree with me? If it is, ignore 
me, and go ahead. But don't spoil the PP movement!
>> * the substance all of the manifesto's suffers from major shortcomings 
>> (but
>> that is my opinion, as a professional in this field, though)
>
> Which field/ As far as I am aware, you might be a professional in the
> LEGAL field, but for the past year, i've asked you how many campaigns
> you've worked on, or what your experiance in the political field has
> been. you've refused to answer. In fact, I seemed to recall that the
> LAST time I asked you this, you said you weren't going to answer
> someone that was obviously a plant by the music industry.
>
So you are not? ;) The problem is that I try to make *substantive* 
arguments, and you question my authority. I don't claim any specific 
authority, only certain knowledge. If you don't find my arguments convincing 
because of their substance, OK tell me. But if you don''t want to accept my 
arguments because you think I am not entitled to give my advice, you are on 
the wrong track. presumably you won't believe me, but I tried to *help*.
If you perhaps believe that the substantive correctness of the arguments is 
irrelevant for campaigning purposes, then you may actually be correct on the 
short term, but I am persnally very opposed against that type of tactics. 
Anyway, it was not a deliberate tactic at all, otherwise you could have told 
me. And if it was, this type of campagning is high-risk.
Specifically, the human rights arguments can all be turned against you, as I 
explained before. I add one more: far right politicians have hijacked the 
freedom of speech right in my country to say terrible things that remind 
people of the Third Reich.
Another concern is that you risk to be perceived as amateuristic. The 
pitfall is that if you try to use legal arguments like human rights 
arguments, you expose yourself to lawyers, and they always read very 
carefully! They are the small print people! But the conclusin should not be 
that you should do a better *legal* job. The conclusion is tthat you should 
stick to *political* arguments in a political document.
>>
<snip>
>> But please be careful with human rights claims! There are human rights
>> advocates who say:
>> * People have the right of pervasive camera surveillance, to project 
>> their
>> "integrity" (a human right)
>> * authors are entitled to comprehensive compensation for all their work
>> * massive data retention is appropriate to protect citizens against
>> terrorist attacks
>> * and to protect the shareholder value of record companies that suffers
>> because of massive downloading - human rights protect property rights
>> There is no *human rights* argument that they are wrong!
>
> There are also people that say 'blacks are animals, treat them as
> such' or 'men have the human right to rape any woman they see, for the
> basis of procreation of the species', and so on. just because someone
> can MAKE an argument, doesn't mean the argument has any weight. You
> can make any argument or counterargument, but it's the quality of both
> that matters, and that's something a 'professional in this field'
> should understand. In fact these were exactly the arguments you gave a
> year ago as to why the manifesto was 'Bad'
Oh yeah, we are running in circles.
>
> These arguments of yours were pointed out (repeatedly) as factually
> and practically 'bullshit'  'early this year' and no matter how many
> times you repeat them, they won't become true.

Uh, they won't become false either because you keep repeating that! The 
difference is that I never heard your "rape for procreation" argument, but I 
did hear the above arguments (after the asterisks above) pretty often. 
Actually, they are pretty logical. I would even say that they are true. They 
are just other interests that have to be balanced against these arguments. 
Human rights are not much help to make the tradeoff.

Thats is a political choice. And for that purpose, you should write a 
political manifesto. I tried to make my contribution by the single sheet 
"principles" document I mailed you this morning.

Ws should also acknowledge national differences: in different countries, 
people make different trade-offfs. Privacy is very much a theme in Germany 
with its Nazi and Stasi past, in Sweden with its FRA law, and in Finland 
with its "Lex Nokia". The Dutch don't care about privacy. They are 
indifferent. I don't know why, frankly. In the 1930s, the Amsterdam city 
administration was very advanced, allowing the Nazis a couple of years later 
to selectall jews very easily ... unfortunately WWII references usually 
don't work, they are considered over the top.

reinier