<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Chris,<div><br></div><div>I think I did try to make the situation plain, though I appreciate I wrote a long email and perhaps the specific point was lost. There can be no 'official' manifesto decisions if we do not have a process to make those decisions. The process we establish, starting with the policy working groups, will decide the party's official line on the Obscene Publications Act.</div><div><br></div><div>Of course some people will emerge as leaders of camps and factions, and they will express points of view that not everyone will agree with. I consider John to be an early example of one of those people. We need to allow space for such people to express their points of view without being denounced or castigated, even if they hold a minority view. So whilst we can disagree with John about how best to discuss his opinions, we must all agree that John has a right to raise his opinions. I personally don't think that support for the Obscene Publications Act should be enough to bar someone from participating in PPUK, though that will get clarified as the machinery of decision making starts to grind into action. So right now, I do not know nor would I care to predict what the official party line will end up being. Perhaps individuals who share your views will comprise the majority. Perhaps not. So when you ask if the PPUK 'is planning' to support the Act, you ask a question that is impossible for me to give a full and satisfactory answer to. PPUK isn't the kind of thing that currently plans to support anything, though it is the kind of thing that plans to plan to support things, if you catch my drift.</div><div><br></div><div>PPUK is its members, so I am currently no more entitled to speak on their behalf than anyone else, especially as we lack the kind of mechanisms really needed to listen to members and gather their views. In fact, one of my major disagreements with some of the views expressed on the forums is that people are stating that they speak on behalf of the party, or of its members, or of the people, where I see no justification for that claim. I want to emphasize process because process will deliver a fair and democratic way to agree the manifesto. A no-holds-barred shouting match over the internet won't deliver a fair and democratic way to agree the manifesto, and is the main reason why I think bitplane's criticisms are unwarranted.</div><div><br></div><div>In the meantime we need to live with some of the inconsistencies that arise, such as the aspiration to run a party on democratic lines whilst not dwelling on the obvious point that we could not have written anything about policy on our home page, or handled a single media interview, if we first needed to complete the democratic process to reach a policy decision. We must start the ball rolling somewhere. Some things can be taken as read, such as that we all want to reform copyright and we all oppose creeping intrusion into our private lives. I urge you, if you want to get involved in the hard work of policy formulation, not to content yourself with discussion via the forum. Forums are an unreliable way to pursue collective decision-making. You may make a post, but there is no guarantee over who will read it. Better to contact the chair of the relevant working group, if you have not done so already, and engage personally with the process set up by the chair. Of course, there may be some debate about which is the right working group, though I would assume that Maven's freedom of speech group would be the uncontroversial choice for deliberating party views on the Obscene Publications Act. Find that group here: <a href="http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/wiki/Freedom_of_Speech_Policy_Working_Group">http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/wiki/Freedom_of_Speech_Policy_Working_Group</a></div><div><br></div><div>I hope this clarifies everything. It's flattering that you ask if I, or anyone else 'in the know' can tell you what the official decision is. The truth is that we are hurriedly trying to fill the vacuum of decision-making, whilst not succumbing to the temptation to pick the quickest and easiest route when this is unlikely to be the fairest or the most democratic. That means nobody, currently, is in the know! All we can know is that we're forming a party and working on the fundamentals. Fundamentals like party administration and process come before the party's manifesto, although we all care more strongly for the manifesto than for the dry topic of how to run a party. All I can ask is that people remain patient, or, better still, engage and support the development of the party's processes.</div><div><br></div><div>E</div><div><br><div><div>On 3 Oct 2009, at 12:18, Chris Lockie wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#000000; font-size:10pt;"><div>Thanks for that reply Eric as it addresses the point I brought up in the first place, which was reiterated by Janne.</div> <div> </div> <div>Despite your response I'm still none the wiser as to whether support for the Obscene Publications Act is the official line of the PPUK. Individual opinions are naturally the basis of discussion that leads to policy, but the individual opinions of yourself or John are not the issue here, nor your willingness to discuss them.</div> <div> </div> <div>The question is whether the PPUK is planning to support that Act, which many people (myself evidently included) see as unacceptable censorship for the reasons outlined by Janne below. If a stance is yet to be decided, happy days - people can contribute to the discussion and help form the policy. If it has been decided, and and the PPUK support the Act, this is an obviously troubling development.</div> <div> </div> <div>So, to Eric, or anyone else in the know, has an official 'manifesto' decision been made by the PPUK as to whether to support this Act?</div> <div> </div> <div>CL.</div> <blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 8px; FONT-FAMILY: verdana; COLOR: black; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" mce_style="border-left: 2px solid blue; margin-left: 8px; padding-left: 8px; font-size:10pt; color:black; font-family:verdana;"> <div>-------- Original Message --------<br>Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Pirate Party UK Critism<br>From: Eric Priezkalns <<a href="mailto:eric.priezkalns@pirateparty.org.uk">eric.priezkalns@pirateparty.org.uk</a>><br>Date: Sat, October 03, 2009 12:01 pm<br>To: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk<br><<a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a>><br><br>Hello Janne,<br><br>I would rather not talk about the piece you refer to. The individual <br>who wrote it, John, accepts he made a mistake in posting this to the <br>party's blog, and hence allowing it to look like an official statement <br>of the party. John is one of the most passionate people I have <br>encountered when it comes to Pirate politics, and he probably <br>considers me to be rather a moderate when it comes to some things, so <br>the last thing I want is to get into a mode of behaviour where every <br>individual point of view is raked over, in detail, and measured <br>against some ideal of what is or is not considered acceptable Pirate <br>thinking. John and I have talked about the views he expressed, and I <br>think we're all happy to move on rather than dwell on the subject <br>further.<br><br>What I would say is that we are aiming to build a movement of <br>thousands, if not millions. We are going to have to get used to <br>people having differences of opinion and finding compromises. To be <br>successful in democracies, we need to accentuate what we have in <br>common, not what we disagree about. The more people we engage, the <br>harder that goal is to achieve. That is one reason why I am not a big <br>believer in a political model based on web forums and IRC chat. They <br>may serve a purpose, but they do not scale well, any more than you <br>could invite thousands of people to a conference centre and expect <br>them all to get equal turns at speaking to the audience. Even if we <br>want to believe such a model could work, you could never force people <br>to listen, and the same is true of the internet. The freedom of <br>debate needs to be balanced with the time that people will spend on <br>debate, and we cannot allow debate to be won based simply on who has <br>the most time and hence who has the last word. We need to be <br>practical in our approach to building a political force. My concern <br>is that you are entitled to your opinion, and John is entitled to his, <br>but there is a seductive temptation to focus to much of our efforts <br>and debate on disagreeing with each other, because we actually listen <br>to each other. Meanwhile, the rest of the world can go on without <br>listening to us. So whilst I understand the passions, I keep wanting <br>to emphasize patience, tolerance, and finding common ground, over <br>demanding too much orthodoxy. We need to find ways for members like <br>John to instigate constructive debates, if they so wish, without this <br>being a regular and unending source of emotional stress for people who <br>either support or disagree with what he says. Unrestrained internet <br>dialogue is poorly equipped to do that, as it tends to bring out the <br>most extreme in people, and also encourages every discussion to be a <br>gladiatorial contest between individuals. Whilst I would not <br>recommend that John repeats what did in future, I do want John and <br>people like John to be committed and engaged in the movement, and I <br>can see that there needs to be times where we discuss our differences <br>of opinion, but other times where these are set aside and we focus on <br>the real and practical challenges we face. For those reasons, I would <br>prefer to shift the focus of discussion away from the rights or wrongs <br>of specific points of view, and instead to talk more with colleagues <br>from across the PPI about how to manage constructive political debate, <br>and use it to deliver consensus, whilst allowing individuals the <br>freedom to disagree.<br><br>E<br><br><br>On 3 Oct 2009, at 11:23, Janne Paalijarvi wrote:<br><br>> Thanks for your post, Eric, it sheds some light on the situation. I'm<br>> however still pondering the opinion piece text<br>> <a href="http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/blog/2009/aug/19/pirate-party-claims-using-common-sense-under-inves/" target="_blank" mce_href="http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/blog/2009/aug/19/pirate-party-claims-using-common-sense-under-inves/">http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/blog/2009/aug/19/pirate-party-claims-using-common-sense-under-inves/</a><br>> , and mostly the part that says:<br>><br>> "The strict adherence to not censoring books in the UK allows<br>> perverted stories to be published about illegal acts, and I for one<br>> don't understand why this is allowed to continue, let alone allowing<br>> the same to happen with images. It's not censorship, it's exercising<br>> good moral judgement on behalf of the voters who will elect us,<br>> something that is sadly lacking in Westminster currently."<br>><br>> I'm actually a bit shocked to read this, and I hope that I have<br>> misinterpreted something or lack relevant knowledge of the overall<br>> situation (English is not my native tongue). Some people on our<br>> Finnish IRC channel were also quite surprised to read the text, even<br>> though it is an opinion piece. Somebody earlier said that Bitplane was<br>> using straw man strategy when dealing with the Obscene Publications<br>> Act issue. Straw man or not, I still find the original quoted text<br>> quite disturbing and would like somebody to comment on it and/or point<br>> out the facts I'm missing.<br>><br>> My personal opinion about censoring books and images is roughly this:<br>> As long as individuals were not harmed in the making of an image or a<br>> book, there should be zero tolerance for censorship. I think this is<br>> the way most people sympathetic to Finnish Pirate Party think. In<br>> general laws should protect people from being harmed, not from things<br>> some individual finds disgusting (and somebody else possibly not).<br>><br>> Janne Paalijärvi<br>> member, Pirate Party Finland<br>> ____________________________________________________<br>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>> <a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br>> <a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general" target="_blank" mce_href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br><br>____________________________________________________<br>Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br><a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br><a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general" target="_blank" mce_href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br></div></blockquote></span></div> ____________________________________________________<br>Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br><a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br>http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>