correction : [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights
linda misek-falkoff
ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com
Wed Sep 9 16:40:11 EDT 2009
Hi Ginger and all:
Thanks much for sending this statement out (*process*) and for all the good
thought and substantive work (*merits*) that went into it.
I'd like to look at "The Four Freedoms" which are often cited
internationally though penned in a national context (Pres. F. D. Roosevelt)
and see how such virtual gold standards fan out to the Rights ,
Responsibilities, and Principles now sought, claimed, elucidated, and even
if partially - achieved..
Freedom of Speech and Expression
Freedom of Religion (or Belief Systems)
Freedom from Want
Freedom from Fear.
Hope there are 'takers on this';
With warm regards, LDMF.
Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D.)
for i.d. here: Respectful Interfaces Programme, Communications Coordination
Committee for the U.N.,
World Education Fellowship.
Law; Computing; Humanities; cyberspace ARPANet forward.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks to everyone for their work on this. I really like the present draft
> (with Shaily's additions). I think that as CS we must speak out
> unequivocally on this topic.
>
> I agree.
> Best, Ginger
>
> shaila mistry wrote:
>
> Many apologies...I meant STRENGTHEN... as in add strength.... not
> straighten..glad I spotted this !!!
> shaila
>
>
>
> Hi Lisa and Max and everyone.
>
> Thank you all for this combined effort. I was out of town and just got back
> and wanted to make a few suggestions. Hope I am not too late.
>
> I apologize for the lateness of my comments. I have made a few suggested
> changes to Draft 5 as posted by Lisa. My intention was to straightened the
> statement. Please feel free to edit as you see fit. I just felt that we can
> present our cause for human rights with greater determination..
>
> I went to look for this on the website but could not access it .I have cut
> and paste below, in addition I have attached the file so that the changes
> are tracked.Also corrected some typo's
>
> regards
>
> Shaila
>
>
>
>
>
> DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).edited in blue by Shaila Rao Mistry 9-9-09
>
> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the
> programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority
>
> to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda stronglyreaffirmed the centrality
> of human rights in the information society, despite this human rights and
> associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so
> far. This is problematic because :
>
> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of
> expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to
> development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies
> of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state
> and private actors at both national as well as global levels.
> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and
> advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to
> knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance
> these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights
> implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally.
> * International human rights, as contained in the Universal
> Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights
> treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally
> binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies
> has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these
> instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their
> citizens.
> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of
> standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances
> different rights against each other to preserve individual and public
> interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights
> are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues,
> such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance
> with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating
> the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework
> also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other
> stakeholders.
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human
> rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the
> planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human
> rights
> are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This
> should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and
> national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive
> policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The
> Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to volunteer active involvement with
> the
> organizers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to
> support all stakeholders through providing relevant guidelines
> and experts from private and public sector.s and civil society..
>
> The IRP and the Caucus see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as
>
> renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme.
>
> thanks
> Shaila
>
>
> *Life is too short ....challenge the rules***
>
> *Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly***
>
> *Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! ***
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk><lisa at global-partners.co.uk>
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:56:29 AM
> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and
> principles
>
> Thanks for your detailed comments Paul - really useful and make sense.
>
> Since that posting, we've come up with a new draft that emphasizes that
> rights are legally binding. I hope it addresses your concerns.
>
> Wolfgang - you said you didn't understand what we mean in the last
> sentence. In my view, the idea would be to provide session organizers
> with access to information and experts in the IGC who can help them to
> consider the human rights dimensions of the issues that they are
> discussing. Does that make sense? I tried to incorporate the gist of
> your comments as best I could, given that you were working with an
> earlier version.
>
> I've pasted a new draft (v5) below, incorporating the comments we've had
> today.
>
> The deadline for comments is 0900 CET tomorrow, and I hope we're moving
> towards consensus...
>
> Thanks,
> Lisa
>
> --------------------
>
> DRAFT STATEMENT (V5).
>
> The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the
> programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives the required attention to human
> rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda reaffirmed the centrality
> of human rights in the information society, but human rights and
> associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so
> far. This is problematic as:
>
> * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of
> expression, privacy, civic participation, education and the right to
> development are strongly threatened by actions and restrictive policies
> of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state
> and private actors at both national as well as global levels.
> * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and
> advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to
> knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance
> these opportunities.
> * International human rights, as contained in the Universal
> Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights
> treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally
> binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies
> has not changed the legal obligation of states having ratified these
> instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their
> citizens.
> * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of
> standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances
> different rights against each other to preserve individual and public
> interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights
> are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues,
> such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance
> with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating
> the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework
> also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other
> stakeholders.
>
> The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human
> rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the
> planning and implementation of all IGF sessions, so that human rights
> are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This
> should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and
> national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive
> policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The
> Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the
> organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to
> support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines
> and experts.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com]
> Sent: 09 September 2009 17:38
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner
> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and
> principles
>
> In the draft IGC statement below, it refers to the "human rights
> *framework*" (emphasis mine) and then characterizes this framework
> with words and phrases like "internationally accepted set of
> standards" and "has practical as well as ethical value", constitutes
> "guidelines" or "tools" and, in a prior paragraph, refers to
> "opportunities to uphold" human rights in certain areas being "vital."
>
> All of these phrases understate the actual binding status of human
> rights, even while appearing to stress its "vital" importance (a word
> that, unfortunately, almost any lobbyist on any issue no matter how
> mundane will often attempt to claim). In general, it is much stronger
> to be urging the enforcement and upholding of current law (the case
> with human rights) because there is a duty to uphold it, than it is to
> be urging the adoption of a new law or the application of a "standard"
> to a new issue, because those are optional or at the discretion of the
> person or entity being urged to take appropriate action.
>
> The true status of international human rights is more as follows:
>
> (1) Anything less than rigorous and liberal interpretation of the
> rights and principles ultimately means that national or global society
> goes off course, because they've either ignored or understated their
> most important rights and principles, instead of vindicating and
> respecting them at all times. Ignoring rights and principles, even
> if unitentional and even if only in part, is ultimately deadly, and
> often deadly quite soon.
>
> (2) When these rights take the form of constitutional law, as they do
> in the USA in which treaty obligations are higher federal
> constitutional law, they are supreme law three separate ways: (1) as
> federal law, under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution higher
> than state law, (2) as constitutional law, in corporated by reference
> into the Constitution, and (3) as international law, recognized as
> supreme by the US Constitution itself, expreslly in the case of treaty
> ratification, and even without treaty ratification where core human
> rights amounting to war crimes are involved (see Justice Jackson's
> opening statement at Nuremberg, stating the principles equally
> applicable to the victors in WWII as they were to the Germans).
>
> (3) Human rights and their necessary correlative principles are
> nothing less than existing and binding LAW that almost all the
> countries of the world have even specifically consented to, via treaty
> ratification procedures. Nobody is free to ignore them. Nobody is
> free to treat actual or alleged violations of human rights as if they
> were optional "opportunities" to behave correctly.
>
> (4) In the context of a relatively new technology, new contexts for
> issues do arise, but it is the same old rights and principles that are
> applied in the new context, so as to vindicate the underlying
> principles, even if the doctrine ends up changing to accomodate the
> new context.
>
> (5) In light of the above, the "opportunities" "to uphold" are in fact
> binding legal requirements to uphold. "Uphold" is often a word used
> in oaths, and it implies not only compliance with a constitutional
> scheme but more than that: It obliges the person taking the oath to a
> "holding up" -- in veneration -- of the binding principles, just as a
> trustee would be expected to do, who holds and exercises rights on
> behalf of another (We the People). Upholding rights means giving them
> wide sway out of respect, not simply lawyering it to death in order to
> narrow or eliminate its effects, while all the while claiming to
> respect the rights. If this latter sense is the intent of the phrase
> "opportunities to uphold" then it would be ok, IMHO, provided it is
> joined with a stronger statement that makes clear that compliance with
> the law is not an option, it's a binding requirement of law.
>
> (6) FWIW, treaty signature is not always required even though it
> exists in the case of human rights generally speaking. In the case of
> the most fundamental rights like anti-slavery, and the prohibitions on
> torture, mistreatment of prisoners and on genocide, the international
> law prohibiting these is binding even without treaty ratification,
> under the jus cogens principles of international law (one of the bases
> of war crimes tribunals, to which failure to ratify a treaty is no
> defense). The alleged fact, for example, that one was ordered to
> violate these rights is no defense to a charge for their violation.
> (See Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, for example, in which the Chief
> Justice Jackson there also specifically states that these principles
> apply just as much to the victorious countries in WWII as they did to
> the Germans).
>
> As always, the violation of a right does not mean that the right
> doesn't exist. Some may detect violations in the area of war crimes
> in recent US history. No amount of violations will make the right go
> away, even if violated at the highest levels. After all, especially in
> the area of war crimes, one often sees an entire nation's apparatus
> perverted to accomplish rights denials of the most atrocious kinds.
> If the violations themselves did anything to diminish the actual
> rights in question, the Nazis would have gotten off scot free at
> Nuremberg in addition to having a "nice" run of it for approaching two
> decades.
>
> In general, I favor not "lobbying" people to apply human rights LAWS,
> but rather to urge them to do their **duty**, do their job, and uphold
> their oaths (if applicable) by following human rights laws, upholding
> them vigorously, and giving them a reasonably expansive
> interpretation whenever a range of possible meanings exist.
>
> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor
>
> On 9/2/09, Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk> wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > I've pasted a statement below for discussion. I've tried to explain
> (a) why
> > it's important to consider rights and principles and (b) what we think
> > should be done. Over to everyone else for comments and edits.
> >
> > Anja - thanks for your thoughts. In response to yours and Ginger's
> comments
> > I only included the suggestion of offering to work with people to
> ensure
> > that rights issues are addressed. In relation to your last comment
> about
> > being more explicit about violations and commitments, I personally
> think we
> > should try and present the rights and principles discussion in
> positive
> > rather than negative terms in a statement like this. Whilst we should
> of
> > course be clear on what standards are and what constitutes violation
> of
> > them, I think we want to encourage widespread participation and
> engagement
> > with the issues rather than scare people off? Rather than including
> it in
> > this statement, maybe we could do something else, for example start
> > compiling a list of violations to circulate at the IGF or to include
> as
> > guidance for session organizers?
> >
> > As usual, please edit directly or send through explicit suggestions
> for
> > changes rather than more general opinion which can be more difficult
> to
> > incorporate into amendments.
> >
> > Does next Thursday 10th September sound ok as a deadline for this?
> >
> > All the best,
> > Lisa
> >
> > --------------------
> >
> > DRAFT STATEMENT
> >
> > The following statement is submitted on behalf of the Civil Society
> Internet
> > Governance Caucus.
> >
> > The Caucus requests that the human rights are given adequate attention
> in
> > the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis
> Agenda
> > reaffirmed the importance of human rights in the information society,
> but
> > human rights and associated principles have received very little
> attention
> > at the IGF. This is problematic as:
> > * Fundamental human rights including freedom of expression and
> privacy are
> > threatened by current internet governance processes and practice.
> > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and
> advancing human
> > rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and
> resources. It
> > is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities.
> > * The human rights framework is an internationally accepted set of
> standards
> > that has practical as well as ethical value. It contains guidelines
> on how
> > to balance different rights against each other to preserve individual
> and
> > public interest. This makes it a useful tool for addressing internet
> > governance issues, such as how to balance freedom of expression with
> > concerns for security on the internet. The framework also considers
> both
> > rights and responsibilities of different stakeholders.
> >
> > The Internet Governance Caucus calls for human rights issues to be
> addressed
> > during the planning and implementation of all IGF sessions. This
> should
> > include explicit consideration of how policies affect fundamental
> rights,
> > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and
> > accessible internet for all. The Caucus would like to offer
> assistance to
> > the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like
> to
> > support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant
> guidelines and
> > experts.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at cis-india.org]
> > Sent: 01 September 2009 11:49
> > To: governance
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC supporting rights and
> principles
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Sorry for responding to this belatedly - I was travelling last week
> with
> > only sporadic, very slow, Internet access.
> >
> > Thanks Lisa, for these excellent suggestions, and for offering to
> draft
> > a text. There were just two things I wanted to note. In terms of
> > strategy, I have been wondering whether it would perhaps be wiser not
> to
> > include in the statement a request for space in the emerging issues
> > session to reflect on the meaning of "rights and principles". Why,
> > after all, discuss the meaning of rights and principles in the last
> > session, if we have already integrated rights and principles and their
> > implications in IG practice in all preceding ones? If wider support
> for
> > putting the rights debate back on the official IGF agenda does emerge
> > during the planning meeting, this particular suggestion would make it
> > too easy for those opposing such attention to ensure that this
> > discussion is relegated once again to this one session at the very end
> > of the IGF. If, at the planning meeting, we get the sense that a
> > discussion in the emerging issues sessions is probably the best we can
> > get, we can always still make this suggestion right there and then,
> > rather than including it in a written statement already now.
> >
> > I have also been wondering whether it is time that we start using
> > somewhat stronger language and explicitly remind governments not only
> of
> > the international commitments to human rights that they have made, but
> > also of the fact that not actively working to uphold such commitments
> > effectively amounts to condoning rights violations - or am I being too
> > impatient here? Such a phrasing would of course implicate a country
> > like France as much as it would, say, China.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Anja
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> > database 4389 (20090902) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> P.O. Box #1
> Ishpeming, MI 49849
> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> 906-204-4026
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090909/13ba5ab2/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list