<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.13" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>For the record: this is a
summary of what I presented yesterday in Helsinki.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>My perception is that the
"Manifesto" basically was supposed to fulfill two purposes: 1) a common
statement of principles endorsed by the entire PP movement worldwide
2) promotional material to attract voters. In my perception, it is beter to
divorce the two purposes, if only because the actual topics vary
by country, and promotional texts should address actual, topical,
local problems.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Apparantly not everyone
agrees on the need for a common "statement of principles", and personally I am
not sure either whether it is really needed. But if and when it
is needed, I suggested the following text (one A4 sheet): <A
href="http://home.kpn.nl/bakel362/PPI%20Principles.pdf">http://home.kpn.nl/bakel362/PPI%20Principles.pdf</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>To conclude this summary,
I'd like to emphasise the things that are not, and should not be considered PP
core issues, in my humble opinion:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>* Human rights, from a
legal perspective: politics should does not need law as a basis, but voters
who are convinced about a cause. Of course, PP will foster (some) human rights,
but not from the legal perspective that they are human rights. An important
practical reason to refrain from the human rights argument is that they are
susceptible to multiple interpretations, including interpretations completely
contrary to PP principles ("intellectual property deserves protection"). Rather
than debating which interpretation is right and which one is wrong, imho it
is more helpful to address the core of the issues directly.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>* Democracy: In my
perception, the Swedish PPs - which is the model for reference - tries to
use the *present* system as much as possible for its purposes, such as (in
short) improving copyright and privacy law. Constitutional reform is a separate,
very complicated topic. And I would not like to see PPs embrace the
perceptions of far-right populist parties who tend to argue that *all*
present politicians (except themselves!) are dishonest corrupt lazy people who
do nothing for the country.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>* Freedom of speech: of
course I am strongly opposed against Internet censorship. But - at least in The
Netherlands - the "freedom of speech" theme has been hijacked by (far) right
politicians (and media) who argue that this right implies a right to
offend. The freedom of speech is pretty strong under the case law of
the European Court for Human Rights. But imho one should not forget that while
criminal prosecution should be an extreme exception, some statements still
are socially inappropriate. The legal norm is (always) wider than the social
norm. But let me be explicit: in NL there is a debate whether a politician
is allowed to defamate muslims. Some argue that (as Rousseau said) in all cases
the freedom must be defended to allow opponents to say anything, even
opinions you absolutely abhor. In my perception there is a limit however
when a specific (and significant) part of the population is systematically
depicted as belonging to a dangerous/inferior culture and religion. Wich is not
allowed under Dutch criminal provisions developed in the 1930s when the jews
were seen as "rats" (etc.). Now muslims suffer the same fate. This is not
just a matter of offending people, but eventually a matter of destabilising
society. It happened in the 1930s, and it may happen again: a persistent
campaign may eventually convince many people that jews/muslims/xxx are
strange, dangerous, second class people. Perhaps the results of such a
polarisation have already materialised, leading to terrorism threat.
</FONT><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2>Sorry for the lengthy
explanation, but I feel that this topic deserves
due attention.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000ff
size=2>reinier</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>