rights again Re: [governance] Inputs ...

[Avri Doria]

<discussion on rights and not the content of the paper
   - which i will state no opinion on due to possible conflicts of
     interest as a consultant for the IGF secretariat>


On 3 Sep 2008, at 13:07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> A narrow interpretation restricts rights to those that enable rights  
> holders to file a suit against those who violate the right. I don't  
> see who could be held accountable for the lack of "an Internet in  
> ones own language". The latter might be a political goal but it  
> certainly doesn't sound like a right to me.


While i agree that we have to be careful with devaluation of rights by  
making the definition too broad, this would argue that there are no  
rights without authority - the prerequisite  of 'someone to be held  
accountable' that is being offered in several people definitions.

i believe we have rights, i would call them fundamental rights, on  
account of our definition of what it  means to be human within a  
society and not because we have someone to hold accountable.  Holding  
someone accountable is secondary to the existence of a right not the  
prerequisite for one.  People had rights before the UDHR was adopted,  
they just were not spelled out in that form.

There are rights that are fundamental because we are human and that is  
how we have agreed to define being human, some of these rights have  
been guaranteed, minus caveats like article 29, in the UDHR.  There  
may also be fundamental rights that have not yet been protected (e.g  
sexual orientation, assistance for disability - though these may fall  
under the general rubric of other status in the UDHR)

There are also derivative rights  - those things that are rights by  
virtue of fundamental rights being dependent on those things.

As an argument, the right to Internet for all in all languages could  
be interpreted as being a requirement by which a fundamental right -  
education can be met.


e.g.

UDHR Article 26.

       (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be  
free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary  
education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education  
shall be made generally available and higher education shall be  
equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

       (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the  
human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights  
and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance  
and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and  
shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance  
of peace.

       (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education  
that shall be given to their children.

      (2 and 3 may contradict each other (parent chooses the education  
of intolerance), but that is another discussion)


The Internet was designed to be an educational tool - and has become  
an indispensable part of learning about today's world and, i would  
argue, it is impossible to be fully literate in today's world with  
having learnd the Internet and through the Internet about the world.   
So I would argue that the right to a multilingual Internet is a  
derivative of the fundamental right of education.

I believe similar arguments can be made for development being a  
derivative rght - many of the other fundamental rights cannot be met  
without development.

So while I believe rights spring from a source deeper then who is  
accountable for them, we do find that anyone who is a UN member is  
committed to the UDHR and is accountable for the fundamental rights by  
the declaration they 'signed.'  And I believe that a strong argument  
can be made that they are also responsible for all of the rights that  
derive from these.

While there is much room for argument about interpretations on what is  
truly necessary to meet the requirements of the fundamental rights, i  
think it is essential to press on the right to those things that are  
seen as necessary to meet the fundamental obligations.  And while that  
fact that someone is accountable is not the source of the rights, it  
is good that some nations have agreed that they are responsible for at  
least this set of rights and should be held accountable not only for  
rights that are written (caveat, they should feed and stop torturing  
first) but for all those things that are rights by virtue of being  
necessary to enable the other rights.


a.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance