[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

Tue Sep 9 01:53:17 EDT 2008

>"right to have an Internet in ones own language"

>What if I say, "I speak Tamil at home, this discussion is an important
public discussion, I demand an instant Tamil version in my mail box of all
messages that >everyone writes"  or what if I say "I want all
intgovforum.org and all the collateral resources translated in Tamil in a
Tamil website before this IGF is allowed to >progress any further"? And what
if I demand the proceedings of the IGF simultaneously interpreted in Tamil
and all documents officially transcribed and published >in Tamil? And in
Spanish and Portuguese and American Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese and in
Toda, the language of the Ooty mountains, in Sanskrit, in Tulu, in
>Assamese, in Kannada?

Siva

While I do agree with your earlier proposition that care must taken that
governments do not wrongly exploit the language of right, I cant agree with
the basis of your above understanding of 'rights'.

A 'right' isn't an electrical switch, which if pressed and full outcome is
not realized, the 'right' can be said to be meaningless. (This is true of
all right - negative and positive.)

You may want to try your above analysis of 'meaninglessness' of linguistic
rights on the Internet to the 'right of education' enshrined in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This was done in 1948, however
universal primary education is far from being completely realized. However,
the existence of this 'right' gives civil society the basis and strength for
making a strong political claim to universalisation of education policies, a
struggle which is being keenly fought in India right now, when the right to
education bill in final stages, while neoliberal influences in the
government, who are more worried over India's corporate performance, are
actively trying to stall it by citing funding problems. 

Another example; India's trade minister recently justified India's tough
stance at the WTO negotiations on safeguards aimed at protecting vulnerable
farmers in India, stated that he cannot back down on this issue because it
is not about commercial interests of India, on which negotiations are
possible, but it is about right of livelihood of Indian people. You can see
how a 'rights' claim differentiates and makes for higher and stronger basis
than a mere ordinary political claim, like protecting India' commercial
interests. 

But giving the above analysis of positive rights you may be falling in the
trap of Milton's simplistic rhetoric of caricaturing positive rights - like
right to livelihood or work, which he see as the right of everyone and
anyone to insist on employment with IT for Change, though of course we would
gladly employ Milton :-).

Parminder 

  _____  

From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 9:32 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Cc: Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

Meant to be addressed to: Hello Ian and All, (Milton's opinions are well
respected. But this message is technically isn't a reply to Milton)

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
<isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Milton,

"right to have an Internet in ones own language"

What if I say, "I speak Tamil at home, this discussion is an important
public discussion, I demand an instant Tamil version in my mail box of all
messages that everyone writes"  or what if I say "I want all intgovforum.org
and all the collateral resources translated in Tamil in a Tamil website
before this IGF is allowed to progress any further"? And what if I demand
the proceedings of the IGF simultaneously interpreted in Tamil and all
documents officially transcribed and published in Tamil? And in Spanish and
Portuguese and American Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese and in Toda, the
language of the Ooty mountains, in Sanskrit, in Tulu, in Assamese, in
Kannada?

There is so much to be DELETED in this draft.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
India

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

Well there might be different emphases in a womens rights movement Milton
and I don't think we need to demand the emphases be exactly the same. But
that and many other issues here can wait till another day.

The important thing is that we seem to agree on the main thrust of the
submission. I've enjoyed seeing the differing points of view here but
perhaps now we need to collectively concentrate on getting the text together
- next week the ongoing debate can happily continue.

Ian Peter

Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd

PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000

Australia

Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773

www.ianpeter.com

  _____  

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: 09 September 2008 08:17
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter

Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

  _____  

From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 3:42 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

So womens rights is a collective right? Indigenous land rights is a
collective right?  

No, unless you believe that the rights of woman are completely different
from the rights of men. In other words, patriarchal (or matriarchal)
societies that assign superior or different rights based on gender believe
in collective rights. Liberal societies that afford men, women and the
transgendered equal rights based ontheir status as individuals are based on
individual rights. So now tell me where you count yourself.  ;-)

Indigenous land rights are more complicated. An individualist approach would
certainly recognize the ability of groups (e.g., publicly owned corporations
or even political communities) to own land, but see these as extensions of
individual rights (as Tapani pointed out). However, the property rights of a
very different culture may not be recognizable to a modern legal regime, and
vice-versa, and so it may be better to handle those situations as a kind of
special sovereignty. However, a collectivist approach to property rights can
just as easily work against indigenous minorities as for them. I am sure you
know the history.  

But for the sake of this submission, we obviously need to reflect differing
opinions. Can't we find a simple way forward here? Isn't it as simple as a
statement such as "while differing opinions on individual and collective
rights exist" within the context of the general request, which is to make
rights a main theme for Cairo? (which doesn't seem to be disputed)

That's what I thought my original edit did. I'd be happy to delete the line
about how state-provided internet access might be used to violate other
rights, even though I think the point is true and salient, I recognize that
it may be a bit too in-your-face. 

Internal Virus Database is out of date.

Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.0/1602 - Release Date: 8/9/2008
1:22 PM

____________________________________________________________
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

-- 
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy

-- 
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sivasubramanianmuthusamy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080909/b86385cd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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