[pp.int.general] Article about Telecom Package approval

[Félix Robles]

I couldn't disagree more with that vision. Amendment 138 allows the
government to cut off internet without a previous authorization of a judge
and that's why Engström should have voted against it. You can try looking
Amendment 138 from infinite angles, and still it will be found to be an
awful law that Engström should have voted against.

The real reason why Engström voted for it is because in Sweden they don't
already have a law requiring the authorization of a judge before cutting off
internet, and maybe Italy also is in that position, but that doesn't make
Amendment 138 to be a thing we should applaud.

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Marco Confalonieri <
marco.confalonieri at email.it> wrote:

> This is the translation of an article written by Athos Gualazzi
> (president of the Italian Pirate Party) about the Telecom package.
>
> "The vote of the Pirates at the European Parliament"
>
> The Conciliation Committee had to discuss only about amendment 138.
> The other parts of the Telecom Package were well-established, and would
> not have been reopened for conciliation. An agreement about this was
> reached on the 6th of May, when PP was not part of the European
> Parliament. Therefore the objective was to persuade the Council, and
> part of the Parliament, to accept a text that would have offered to the
> citizens the same protections of amendment 138.
>
> The Greens, that contain PP, ALDE and part of the socialists obtained an
> article, that substitutes amendment 138, that strengthen the protection
> of the fundamental rights of the citizens in the Net, forbids  the
> "gradual response" and especially asserts that Internet is the key
> instrument for the enjoyment of some fundamental rights.  It's a concept
> that, until now, only Finland and Spain, in all the world, recognized.
> Article 1.3a hits the same objectives of amendment 138 and even goes
> beyond, although to do this had to resort to subtle (even if elegant)
> little ways.
>
> The article that substitutes amendment 138 in fact can mitigate the
> harmful effects of the articles that authorize traffic discrimination
> and undermine the Net Neutrality.
> It's a first step towards the very long process for the protection of
> the Net Neutrality in Europe, which certainly couldn't be enforced in
> three months by 1 MEP on 700.
>
> As a whole, it's an important step in the right direction. From the
> citizens' point of view the fundamental changes in the Package after the
> introduction of article 1.3a would have made the failure of the package
> more harmful than its adoption. The failure of the package would have
> meant green light for the "gradual response" law in Europe, like
> HADOPI2, would have left an open field for telcos to violate the Net
> Neutrality, and would have left in a limbo the recognition of Internet
> as a key instrument for fundamental rights, which is a key step towards
> the recognition of Internet Access itself as a fundamental right.
>
> In this way Engström, the Pirate MEP, showed great civil and political
> responsibility towards his constituents and towards the european
> citizens in general. Voting against the Package would have meant
> throwing in the wind all these conquests and confirm the idea of the
> Pirate Party's enemies, in the opinion of which the Party is not able to
> carry on a wide political project. Given the lack of arguments, the only
> weapon that the PP enemies in the European Parliament have, especially
> when there will come the other Pirate Andersdotter, is to let people
> believe that PP is a band of lunatic extremist dreamers with which is
> better not to mingle. What Engström made is remarkable, also because
> contributes to dismantle this vision.
> The impression, from what there is on newspapers, is that in Europe is
> rising an anti pirate-parties movement, that also involves the
> left-wing, eager to subtract even half a percentage point to the PP
> votes, letting people believe that they are the ones able to defend the
> citizens' rights dear to the PP voters, while the PP would be completely
> inadequate. Therefore it's essential to show that we are not a gang of
> fool downloaders without any social responsibility. We are not
> extremists that refuse any dialog or solution and we don't want to
> delegate others to defend the themes we care about, also because we know
> that in this period they would be "exchangeable" for others objectives.
> We are not so far away from the legal recognition of lobbies, there are
> also proposals in this sense, well, that we are considered Party,
> Association or Lobby doesn't matter, what matters is to stand for the
> rights of all and the path is still long. Don't forget ACTA.
>
>
>
> --
> Marco Confalonieri ass.prom.soc. Partito Pirata (PP Italy)
> http://www.partito-pirata.it
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20091129/7098eede/attachment.htm>