I am finding this discussion to be very interesting and illuminating. Thanks to everyone. gp<div><br></div><div>Aldo Matteucci is not a member of the IGC, but he read Paul's comments, and had this response which I think is worth sharing with the list.</div>
<div>(Aldo's latest Blog, "Are enabling technologies 'neutral'?" can be read at:</div><div><a href="http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/are-enabling-technologies-neutral/" target="_blank">http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/are-enabling-technologies-neutral/</a> )</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><font size="4"><font face="Garamond"><br>Mr. Letho writes: <i>The statement that "human rights [represent] legitimate aspirations - not obligations" is a contradiction. Rights are obligations that governments must respect, at least providing due process of law prior to depriving anyone of an alienable right, and not able to deprive the right at all, even with due process, if the right is inalienable. For Mr. Matteucci to define rights as mere aspirations is dangerous because it lowers the entire class of rights to the status of a mere hope or aspiration.</i></font></font></span></p>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><span></span><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><font face="Garamond"><span lang="EN-GB">The loose use of the term “right” is regrettable, but it is not my own doing. A good point of departure in understanding the quandary is the US DECLARATION of Independence, who also speaks of “inalienable rights” </span><i><span lang="EN-GB">“</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB">We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness</span></i><span lang="EN-GB">:” Now these “inalienable rights” were not enough to make slavery illegitimate in the country. It took a civil war, and AMENDMENTS to the US Constitution for this goal to be obtained.</span></font></font></p>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><span></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><font size="4"><font face="Garamond">The UNHDR is what its name purports to be – a DECLARATION. Strictly speaking it has no legal standing in international law (and even less in national law), even though the term “right” is used therein. The declaratory character of the UNDHR is best understood in the context of its creation. In 1948 the West was pressing for a legal title to Art. 1-19 (personal rights), and the Soviets were doing the same for Art. 22-25 (economic rights). The compromise is what we have now.</font></font></span></p>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><span></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><font size="4"><font face="Garamond">Conventions have been created under UNDHR, which have legal standing for the parties.</font></font></span></p>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><span></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><font size="4"><font face="Garamond">Mr. LETHO goes on as follows: <i>“The existence of a right is still meaningful even if I or others can't afford the practical means of exercising the right at the present time.”</i></font></font></span></p>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><span></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><font size="4"><font face="Garamond">I have not raised this issue. Indeed economic capacity may be a practical prerequisite for exercising personal rights. This is why FDR proposed a “Second Bill of (Economic) Rights” in 1944 – to guarantee the economic basis for personal rights. He never got anywhere, and there is no "right" to a job despite it being a “right” under UNDHR.</font></font></span></p>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><span></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><font size="4"><font face="Garamond">Finally Mr. LETHO writes: “<i>The debate, then, is whether freedom of speech is so fundamental that it is a non-derogable right, at least for those not in prison after due process of law. IN large part, political speech is non-derogable, as states may not suspend political speech related to elections by completely defunding or making media communications illegal.”</i></font></font></span></p>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><span></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><font size="4"><font face="Garamond">In the current context of international law, the source of rights is exclusively the sovereign state. It either accepts to be bound by an international treaty or convention to which he is a party, or he acts on his own volition. One may not claim an “inalienable right” in a national court on the basis of the UNDHR – not in Myanmar, China, nor the US.</font></font></span></p>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><span></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><font size="4"><font face="Garamond">So the whole discussion over whether internet access is a “human right” of a “civil right” is pointless, and should be discontinued. It is a red herring, artily thrown into the discussion. For all practical purposes it is a “civil right” in the US and is covered by the First Amendment, just as is the press, radio, or TV. To even raise the issue that it might be excluded seems preposterous to me.</font></font></span></p>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><span></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><font size="4"><font face="Garamond">Whether the specificities of the net require special regulations is a matter subordinate to the “civil right”.</font></font></span></p>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><span></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><font size="4"><font face="Garamond">At the international level I’d refrain from hectoring recalcitrant governments with the statement that internet access is a “inalienable human right”. I rather speak softly – if nothing else because of our own hypocrisy. The UK was in the forefront of the drafting of the legally binding EuCHR. The first case brought under this convention was the treatment of prisoners by the British in Cyprus. They had to argue that the EuCHR did not apply to Britain’s colonies.</font></font></span></p>
<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><span></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><font size="4"><font face="Garamond">Aldo</font></font></span></p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"></font><br clear="all">
Ginger (Virginia) Paque<br><div><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">Diplo Foundation<br><a href="http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig" target="_blank">www.diplomacy.edu/ig</a><span style="padding-right:16px;width:16px;min-height:16px"></span><span style="padding-right:16px;width:16px;min-height:16px"></span><span style="padding-right:16px;width:16px;min-height:16px"></span><div>
<a href="mailto:VirginiaP@diplomacy.edu" target="_blank">VirginiaP@diplomacy.edu</a><br><br><b><i><span style="font-size:10pt">Join the Diplo community IG discussions: <a href="http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org" target="_blank">www.diplointernetgovernance.org</a><span style="padding-right:16px;width:16px;min-height:16px"></span><span style="padding-right:16px;width:16px;min-height:16px"></span></span></i></b></div>
</span><br></div><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 9 January 2012 11:25, Paul Lehto <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com" target="_blank">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ivarhartmann@gmail.com" target="_blank">ivarhartmann@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<i>"</i><span><i>The only issue I missed in Vinton’s statement is the mention of
the pharaonic amount of financing invested in ICTs and Internet
broadband infrastructure in DCs, in particular in Africa, and the huge
sums paid by the mobile phone users. A large part of this treasury is a
misuse of precious financial resources which could be otherwise spent on
more vital needs for the population."</i><br>I completely disagree with this view for two reasons. <br>For one, as many have already pointed out, human rights, both freedom rights and social rights, form an indivisible body. Their protection and realization isn't leveled: it's impossible for a country to pretend to implement the right to life flawlessly before it then moves on to implementing the 'second most important right', as if there was a line of rights and an order of complete implementation. Freedom of speech and access to information is just as important in communities which suffer from lack of food and water as it is in developed countries. <br>
</span></blockquote></div><div><br>In fact, information-deficits have been found to be the very cause of famine in Africa, specifically a lack of information as to where available resources can be found. Thus, failures of communication/speech can be both the cause and the cure of a deficit in an allegedly "more fundamental" right like food. Other examples could be given.<br>
<br>Paul Lehto, J.D.<br> <br></div> <br></div><div><div>-- <br>Paul R Lehto, J.D.<br>P.O. Box 1 <br>Ishpeming, MI 49849 <br><a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com" target="_blank">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="tel:906-204-4026" value="+19062044026" target="_blank">906-204-4026</a> (cell)<br><br><br><br><br><br>
<br>
<div></div>
</div></div><br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>