[pp.int.general] court of arbitration

[Andrew Norton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 3/22/2011 3:56 PM, Thomas Gaul wrote:
>> So, all meetings of the GA, be they the annual one, OR the extraordinary
>> one JUST for voting on the board has at least 5 weeks notice, PLUS get
>> emailed to all members, AND on the website. That means we ALWAYS have
>> *AT LEAST* 5 weeks notice of an election.
>>
> Where do you read: /announcing of elections/? The statutes explicitly
> state out: /Meetings of the General Assembly will be announced at least
> five weeks prior to the meeting/. It is about the meeting. Not the
> elections.
> 
I read it the same place as evidently someone read that they must be
elected immediately. The only difference is I used common sense, and
pirate principles. I didn't use the same sort of scummy procedural
tricks we all are opposed to.

> Any criticism you offer at the moment is criticising the GA as a whole.

Oh no, I hope I don't make it cry! If you, and the body as a whole,
can't do some HONEST, CRITICAL self analysis, then you've certainly got
no business being on the Board.
> 
> Please get it straight - as you are being a democrat - that the GA as
> the highest organ within PPI is free in its decisions.

Ah, not quite. That's kinda the point of the statutes. The Ga can't just
'do whatever', and in fact the court is supposed to help ensure that.

If it were any other thing, there wouldn't be an issue. However, the
issue is the makeup of this body.

> 
> If the PP-US is opposing this decision it has to formally call for a
> decision by the Court of Arbitration.

You've not really thought that through. In order to call for a decision
by the court, first that would mean recognising the court. Since the
problem is the improper recognition of the court, it doesn't work.

It means saying the election was valid, then asking the court to decide
if the election of itself (in some cases the votes to elect are the same
people as 'somehow' wound up on the court) and then rule. Either you
really don't understand the issues, or you're being deliberately obtuse
and ignorant.
> 
> This is part of the so called "rule of law". Not the one who shouts
> aloud may be right, it might be the mice whispering somewhere in the
> corner. CoA will take care of it. That's the way the General Assembly
> did decide upon.

Well, This is the problem when things are rushed through. There's no
thought, or no time to think. Someone says 'we have to elect this now'
and someone else says 'why' and they go 'because the statutes say so'
and then 'ok' and the issue is spread like that, and the issue is
brought up and passed before any real investigation, discussion, debate,
can be done.

I think we've all seen the kinds of laws that get passed when this sort
of tactic is used. Usually ones that don't stand up to scrutiny, so
therefore have to be passed 'quickly' or without time for debate.

In the UK, there was the Digital Economy Act. The Patriot ACt in the US.
In France in April with the HADOPI law.

Here's the point.
No-one's arguing that it was 'the actions of the GA'.
No-one's arguing 'the court needs to be elected'
What *IS* at issue is that the court was filled by an unpublicised vote,
created at incredibly short notice, where many members were unable to
participate (some because the remote participation wasn't working,
others because they just didn't know)

Since that is contrary to one of the core principles of the pirate
movement, that you keep arguing 'it's ok' or 'the GA did it, and they
can do anything' boggles the mind. Do you actually understand democracy?
Do you understand that for an election to be free and fair, all parties
must have equal chance to participate (especially as has been pointed
out already, the court is binding on all members), even if by proxy.

Why are you so afraid to have a free and open election on this? What
exactly is so bad about it that we had to ignore one of our core
principles for some expediency? Just how important are your principles
to you?

> 
> If you want to change the way it is, PP-US as any other PP within PPI is
> allowed to go for a change of the statutes.

What's it matter what the statutes say? "the GA as the highest organ
within PPI is free in its decisions." so it can just ignore them and do
what it wants.

This is my point. the PPI *must* act in accordance with the goals and
interests of it's members.

This is an issue that could only come up once, and thanks to the actions
of some, pushing this through like this, it happened. But here's another
thought. Just imagine what this is going to do to the credibility of the
PPI when (if?) the press pick up on this. Or what it'll do to a Pirate
Party that tries to critisise a law that was passed int he same manner
as this election. You'll make parties a laughing stock.

But hey, as long as it's not Germany, you don't care, right?

> 
> Best regards
> 
> Thomas
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general


- -- 
Andrew Norton
http://ktetch.blogspot.com
Tel: (352)6-KTETCH [352-658-3824]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNiRrxAAoJECjjuYTW3X5HQHEIAMNddxbYcwPxt+JRc3DgT9b5
RGUjECVRgVSygsVsSZFzxXxsSaDs1BZZVQNqM53VLthlFcHqXUBrYDAlIEkRk1Ir
YPAcShXWAORg716izVpww7r1Yozgklg7SyGNHjhbpS2loKr/whTRGYPd1CppWkIw
oPQPciGEik/DljAq3ERbRNUSSPJXgfexfuE86QQNtnS6Ep3bFgyYFw0F2pWDkelo
llXgNgeqDPZPlraVPJjatnSOVNI/2kSY7lBplJXJHyb4ApXRahT809oj0uZH2zrr
clMw6eumrWMegT/Nh4lVg+b6sCIiMeiRk0LvIehNrM9BXnJeTxT0fIAkqNmDwUA=
=tFqR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----