[pp.int.general] [RULING] 2012-5 (Validity of 2012 GA Conference)

[David Arcos]

http://bit.ly/S36Cv4


On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Antonio Garcia <ningunotro at hotmail.com>wrote:

>  (sorry for the missing capital letters in the text that follows, they are
> under embargo pending assessment of a received threat)
>
> we are already breaking apart... out of sheer incompetence, movementwide.
>
> the critical mass of this collective's collective unconscience is almost
> permanently established, and logic, ethic and the rule of law are only
> secondary to the direction in which the ad-hoc majority at any time decides
> to fart. More decisively so in any simulacre of a general assembly.
>
> it becomes very unrewarding to stay true to the supposed core values of
> the movement when it shows at any time that the majority is absolutely
> unconscient about them in the best of cases, or willingly does not give a
> damn, and abiding by the rules only seems to be a handicap for those who
> still appreciate some.
>
> i'm still awaiting any kind of argumented response to the facts and
> reasoning exposed in the following mail sent to the court of arbitration:
>
>
> > On 05/24/2012 06:03 PM, Antonio Garcia wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Maxime!
> > >
> > >
> > > Dissenting opinion
> > >
> > > Maxime Rouquet : Considering the initial meaning of the statutes was to
> > > prevent multiple Ordinary Members in a given state, and encouraging the
> > > cooperation inside a Federation (in article VI of the statutes), I
> think
> > > we should not have accepted Pirate Party of Catalonia as an Ordinary
> > > Member without having changed and clarified what exactly we meant by
> the
> > > word "country", and made it sure Pirate Party of Catalonia and Pirate
> > > Party of Spain cannot work together inside a federation.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for having the guts to speak up.
> > >
> > >
> > > As you can imagine, we here at the Spanish Pirate Party have not been
> > > pleased at all to see what a fuck of a subterfuge the CoA has used to
> > > turn down the badly formulated complaint of PP-UK. We're having trouble
> > > not forcing Arturo Martinez to walk the plank ;) , and hang the rest of
> > > the Court for High Treason.
> > >
> > >
> > > As you know, the situation with Pirates de Catalunya is really
> tricky...
> > > they even dared blackmail the whole Assembly and in particular Thomas
> > > Gaul when they threathened to derail the PPI GA and make a real scandal
> > > before all the international press gathered at the venue for the
> > > occasion... less than a month before two crucial elections in Germany.
> > > We in Spain acknowledge that Thomas did what was within his powers to
> > > resist while risking that scandal.
> > >
> > >
> > > Here in Spain, many PIRATA people fear a direct confrontation with
> > > Pirates de Catalunya, because they do not hesitate to use dirty tricks
> > > and talk themselves out of adverse situations with the conversation
> > > skills of the few real demagogues and propaganda people that form their
> > > inner core, and as not many of our people are experienced enough to
> > > withstand their insistence and intimidation tactics.
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyway, it was trying to minimise bad impact for PPI and PP-ES that I
> > > devised the strategy of tactically voting, in a very explicit way
> (thank
> > > you Slim Amamou for being very smart and tweeting the good picture) in
> > > favour of the full membership of Pirates de Catalunya to the PPI.
> > >
> > >
> > > The rationale being that our one vote was not going to be of any real
> > > use if there was not a clear majority for or against the proposition
> and
> > > could even become very problematic at home if it came close of being
> the
> > > tie breaker for the decision. So, we figured out that if there was a
> big
> > > majority in favour of letting PP-Cat in as full member, our negative
> > > vote would be worthless anyway, and if there were a big majority
> against
> > > it then our positive vote would not matter either. If it were a tie
> then
> > > there is a bigger problem in PPI than this single issue anyway. So we
> > > used our vote to do Public Relations and gain us some goodwill as the
> > > ones that were not making things worse for everybody. At the same time
> > > we explained to everyone we could talk to without our Catalan brethren
> > > eavesdropping why the situation was that difficult, why we were playing
> > > it smart, and all the good reasons why they should not forget to vote
> NO
> > > to full membership of PP-Cat.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, you know how things went... the very improvised way.
> > >
> > >
> > > I did not care that much, because I knew that the Statutes changes that
> > > had to create the structure for it to be possible to have two full
> > > members per country had not been voted upon, so a simple complaint to
> > > the CoA should suffice to void the Australian motion and its results.
> > > PP-UK did the right thing, albeit judging from the results in a quite
> > > clumsy way. It'd be great to have the complaint text and the records of
> > > the deliberations, to have some fun ;) .
> > >
> > >
> > > The way they arranged to reinterprete the meaning of the word country
> to
> > > grow us a new Gibraltar in Spain is exhilarating and caught us a little
> > > bit by surprise, I'm afraid... instead of jumping PP-Cat out (although
> I
> > > heard the option of jumping PP-ES out was even more funny), they split
> > > the country to make there be two of them!
> > >
> > >
> > > Really funny.
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyway, everybody has had its time to be funny, now it's time for the
> > > really serious stuff.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In accordance with the CoA Rules of Procedure section about Anonymous
> > > complaints as stated:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_CoA/Rules_of_Procedure
> > >
> > >
> > > Anonymous complaints
> > >
> > > Anybody can contact either the Court of Arbitration or one of its
> member
> > > by the channel of his choice to issue a complaint about the functioning
> > > of the PPI or the PPI by itself, provided they are suspected of a
> > > violation of the PPI Statutes, of the Pirate Party movement core
> values,
> > > or would be victims of such a suspected behaviour.
> > > The Court of Arbitration then decides whether the claim seems
> > > well-grounded, and if so can initiate an own intended procedure without
> > > the need of disclosing the identity of the complainant. This decision
> is
> > > sent to both the complainant and the PPI officers, organs or members
> the
> > > complaint is referring to, and is subject to the same time limits
> > > applied to regular complaints.
> > >
> > >
> > > I choose you as the member of my choice to present the following
> > > complaint about the CoA ruling 2012-3 that resulted in the admittance
> of
> > > PP-CAT as a full member of PPI in such a way as to constitute a breach
> > > of the Statutes as 1) Proper procedure for the admittance of a new full
> > > member was not respected; 2) Spurious interpretation of the meaning of
> > > the word "Country" was used insofar as only the existence of dubious
> > > significance in the dictionaries was used as an argument, and the facts
> > > and occurrence of the word was not checked against the historical facts
> > > and context when these Statutes were crafted (none of the founding
> > > members had trouble nor could or did foresee it emerging related to
> > > multiple Pirate Parties existing in one of their single countries, as
> it
> > > happening is antithetical to genuine Pirate Core Values, so in their
> > > context COUNTRY meant as they all were... Sovereign Nations); 3) The
> > > Honourable Court of Arbitration permitted herself to twist the real
> > > wording of Section III Paragraph (4) of the Statutes to grant the
> > > Assembly seemingly unrestricted decision powers as to the admittance of
> > > new members, in order to take for granted the validity of the Motion
> > > presented by the Australian Pirate Party, whereas that paragraph only
> > > grants discretional powers to decide whether "AN APPLICANT" that has
> > > duly submitted his candidature papers and fulfilled al requisites shall
> > > be granted the status they ASKED FOR or the other possible one. As I
> say
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Maxime,
> > >
> > > As we have never spoken to eachother, let me please introduce myself
> > > before we start talking. My name is Antonio García and I am one of the
> > > delegates that represented the Spanish Pirate Party in the 2012 PPI GA.
> > >
> > > https://yfrog.com/gzy0wyclj
> > >
> > > I'm the one voting ;) .
> > >
> > > I do still not know what the PPI thinks about Pirates de Catalunya,
> > >
> > > though I can imagine you got a better picture of them now you had to
> > >
> > > face their irresponsible behaviour and outright blackmail at the end of
> > >
> > > the GA when they realised they were not going to get what they longed
> > >
> > > for.
> > >
> > > Believe me, I felt sorry for everyone while I saw them trying to
> > >
> > > maneuver in such a way as to not to ruin the PPI GA with a scandal in
> > >
> > > front of all the german press that was attending, less than a month
> before
> > > two crucial local elections in Germany were due.
> > >
> > > I spent more money I could afford to just make sure I'd be there
> > > instead of any of the other possible candidates from Pirate Party
> > > Spain, because I knew some of the alternative candidates that might
> > > have gotten elected otherwise and as they are young and inexperienced
> > > I could not trust them to behave properly and not ruin the PPI GA.
> > >
> > > The situation in Spain of the Pirate Parties (both of them, no, all
> > > three of them ;) ) is very bad, as far too many of their members are
> > > quite young and rather the Anonymous and free-loader kind of people
> > > that only thinks about having fun or getting some benefit while they
> > > "play" politics. Pirates de Catalunya has a very strong "separatist"
> > > membership and following they cater for, something that does not
> > > really fit within the Pirate Ideals, and all they are doing at the
> > > moment is manoeuvring to get their candidate on the n° 1 spot in the
> > > 2014 European elections through a Confederated candidature they may
> > > break loose from very easily if we get one Catalan elected MEP. That
> > > is why they are not happy with the fact that the actual PPI statutes
> > > requires the plural membership formula to be a Federation and they
> > > submitted amendments to the PPI Statutes in that sense. They also want
> > > full membership because the idea they have is to destroy the Spanish
> > > Pirate Party by starting a Confederation of Spanish Pirate Parties
> > > where they are encouraging other regions to form their Pirate Party
> > > too, and the more people follow their ideas the more regions of Spain
> > > would get barred for the Spanish Pirate Party... until it vanishes as
> > > all territories get their own Pirate Party and the Confederation
> > > agreements stipulate that no two parties shall compete electorally in
> > > the same territory.
> > >
> > > You have seen Kenneth Peiruza at work in the PPI GA. If they favour
> > > Direct Democracy it is solely because they are a few demagogues and PR
> > > people who think that they will be the more able to get the upper hand
> > > in whatever dialectical dispute may arise in a group where most of the
> > > participants are rather passive. You say how they played on the
> > > feelings and primary instincts of the Assembly, not caring what they
> > > risked as a scandal for the PPI and the negative fallout for PP-DE.
> > >
> > > My personal strategy for the PPI GA 2012 was to avoid as far as
> > > possible any possible direct confrontation that might give the PPI and
> > > the Pirate Movement bad publicity. That is why I engaged personally
> > > with the delegates to the GA and explained the situation to them. I
> > > told them that the Pirate Party of Spain would be strategically voting
> > > in FAVOUR of the full membership of PP-CAT in order to minimise
> > > animosity between the two Spanish Pirate Parties both at the PPI GA
> > > and at home, because our ONE vote would anyway be useless, and
> > > conflictive if it were a tie breaker, if no clear majority was either
> > > for or against full membership of PP-CAT, but that we believed that
> > > full membership of PP-CAT to PPI would open a Pandoras' Box whose
> > > consequences for PPI would be hard to estimate, and that they should
> > > vote massively against it and do themselves a favour.
> > >
> > > But they managed to push for a vote playing with the feelings of the
> > > delegates rather than their intelligence, and that is what we could
> > > not avoid because it is very hard to counter irresponsible mass
> dynamics.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I do not know how many Pirate Parties were exactly accredited
> > > for participation, nor what the voting threshold is for validly
> > > accepting new full members... but they got 8 positive votes (mine
> > > included of course), 3 negative votes and not less than 5 abstentions
> > > (plus any accredited party that did not even bother to state anything).
> > >
> > > First, I'd say I do not know if 8 votes, while constituting a majority
> > > result for the motion are sufficient quorum to get the PP-CAT full
> > >
> > > membership status through that vote.
> > >
> > > I stayed very calm, because I knew that it did not matter... the
> > > Statutes had not been amended to make room for more than one full
> > > member per country, so I only had to wait until somebody complained
> > > because of this to the CoA and the decision resulting from that motion
> > > would have to be undone.
> > >
> > > PP-UK presented such a claim to the CoA, so all was well. I was
> > > contacted by caring pirate colleagues from other Pirate Parties asking
> > > whether they could be of any help, and I contacted the CoA who told me
> > > that additional evidence would not be needed. Of course I believed it,
> > > as I was convinced of that myself. But then, the CoA published its
> > > very crafted decision playing with the meaning of the word "country"
> > > to make it as if Spain were two countries and each Pirate Party was
> > > the one full member of his own country (plain bullshit of course ;) )
> > > and we are thus in trouble still. They did not give the Spanish Pirate
> > > Party (as an affected country that got the seccession of part of its
> > > territory decreed by a foreign tribunal ;) ) a fair chance to defend
> its
> > >
> > > position on this issue during the trial.
> > >
> > > That is a first important point.
> > >
> > > But there is more... the CoA, presumably on purpose, or by sheer
> > > incompetence, did cite and instrumentalize part of the PPI statutes
> > > wrongly. They argumented in ruling 2012-3 of may 15th:
> > >
> > > "9) Considering Section III, paragraph (4) of the Pirate Parties
> > > International Statutes states that the General Assembly can grant, at
> > > its own discretion, the status of Ordinary Member or the status of
> > > Observer Member."
> > >
> > > And this is an too simplified interpretation of what that section and
> > > paragraph of the PPI Statutes state, who literally says:
> > >
> > > (4) The General Assembly is authorized to grant, at its own
> > > discretion, the applicant one of the following Member status in Pirate
> > > Parties International
> > >
> > > a) Ordinary Member
> > > b) Observer Member
> > >
> > > And are to be understood as a direct and related following to the
> > > preceding point:
> > >
> > > (3) Requests for Membership shall be submitted in writing to the Board
> > > at least four weeks before the meeting of the General Assembly. They
> > > shall include contact information and a statement on the adoption of
> > > the statutes and internal regulations of the Pirate Parties
> > > International, in addition to a copy of the statutes and by-laws and
> > > the political program of the applicant and information on the
> > > background and organization of said applicant. The Board will transmit
> > > the application to all Members at least two weeks before the meeting
> > > of the General Assembly.
> > >
> > > There is another point in the statutes that says something more
> > > similar to what the CoA cites, when talking about ordinary members in
> > > section IV:
> > >
> > > (3) The General Assembly is authorized to grant Member status in
> > > Pirate Parties International to any Pirate party, which subscribes to
> > > the association’s principles and accepts its statutes and internal
> > > regulations.
> > >
> > > But obviously... it would have been invoked in the CoA ruling about
> > > the acceptance of the applicants that submitted their application
> > > after the deadline if it was meant not to be relativized by Section
> > > III paragraph (3).
> > >
> > >
> > > NOW... I have searched through the PPI website, and I could not find
> > > any evidence of an application form for full membership of the PPI
> > > coming from PP-CAT.
> > >
> > > NOR... have I found in the minutes of the Assembly session any
> > > evidence of PP-CAT applying for full membership in due course, be it
> > > voted upon or not.
> > >
> > >
> > > As a result, I conclude thus that PP-CAT has NOT applied in due form
> > > for full membership at the 2012 PPI GA Assembly, and as such they were
> > > at that ocasion ===NOT APPLICANTS=== as is needed to invoke on their
> > > behalf Section III paragraph (4) of the current PPI Statutes.
> > >
> > > The Assembly has NO discretional powers to grant membership to any
> > > Pirate Party she wishes without these Parties being subject to the
> > > requisites of the formal and statutory admission procedure.
> > >
> > > Therefor, the verdict published as CoA Court Ruling 2012-3 is VOID!
> > >
> > > Therefor, the motion submitted by PP-AU was illegal and should never
> > > have been discussed, making any of its results VOID!
> > >
> > > Therefor, the Pirate Party of Catalonia can under the present
> > > circumstances not be said to have acquired full membership status
> > > through the acts performed at the 2012 PPI GA.
> > >
> > >
> > > Now, not to exacerbate the situation with PP-CAT within Spain, I would
> > > love it if this argumentation was presented to the PPI Board and the
> > > PPI Court of Arbitration by somebody else than PP Spain.
> > >
> > > Maybe another Pirate Party could do so, or it is enough to submit the
> > >
> > > facts anonymously for the Board of PPI or/and the Court of Arbitration
> > >
> > > to start the proper procedure on their own once under knowledge of
> > >
> > > the facts, or if no alternative is available PP Spain will have to sign
> > > the necessary paperwork itself.
> > >
> > > But what has to be done, shall be done.
> > >
> > >
> > > Pirately yours,
> > >
> > >
> > > Antonio García
> > > Pirate Party Spain
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If at all possible, please reformulate the context of this complaint
> > > letter in your own words, as my writing style and argumentation
> > > skills are not unknown among quite a few Pirates.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Once more, thank you for having the guts to be independent and
> > >
> > > integer.
> > >
> > >
> > > Please aknowledge receipt of the present letter as soon as possible.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Antonio García
> > > Pirate Party Spain
>
> as you may have guessed, my patience with the irresponsible behaviour is
> over, as it will otherwise be totally impossible to perform politically as
> desired and worthy of our movement in the various upcoming elections. some
> instruments and strategies that are ready to be used and could be killer
> applications towards achieving astonishing results simply can not b handed
> over for their use by unconscient, playing, kiddies.
>
> antonio garcía
> not representing here the pirate party of spain
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20120818/8f12259a/attachment-0001.html>