[governance] Call for consensus - Statement by IGC supporting

[Paul Lehto]

The statement is much improved, I freely admit.  However, for the
reasons just stated under another thread, I dissent but only because
the statement does not assert rights STRONGLY enough.  Perhaps this is
better than "consensus" because it tends to indicate (presuming it is
ever repeated) that the statement is already watered down, if you
will, enough, and is not a "manifesto" for positive change that we
seek, or lobby for, but rather is a request or insistence that
officials DO THEIR JOB.

I'd personally love to see someone respond that human rights are NOT
in their job description, or that they deem a request for them to do
their job description to be out of bounds somehow because it is
"negative" in form.  If human rights represent the will of the people
of the world, and it does based on the widespread adoption of human
rights charters, then those public servants who implement them can not
be heard to complain about what their "bosses" and employers, the
sovereign peoples of the world, instruct them to do.  As the UNHDR
itself says, the ONLY legitimate form of governance is through power
derived from the people.

Public officials or public servants are merely trustees with a job
description to uphold these rights.  Just as an employee can't object
to being told, in "negative" terms, to "do your job", neither can
public officials, except in the case of public officials the
employer/employee analogy applies with even stronger force, much
stronger force.  In fact, since the only legitimate sovereign power
under the UNHDR comes from the people, unless it is proved that the
people of the world don't consent to the UNHDR and related rights
documents, then those rights are the commands of the sovereign. In the
old days the sovereign was the king, whom one could not say "no" to,
but today it is the people to whom one can not (legitimately, that is)
say "no" to.

Rights are a territory or legal ground upon which one need not yield,
and of course should not yield, because the yielding is itself a
violation or facilitating one.   If one knows what to do, and how to
argue it, then one can, as I try to do, be both friendly yet very open
to attack, because if anyone attacks "me" (or the rights, rather) on
this specific ground of inalienable human rights, they do so at their
own peril, because the very act of attacking or critiquing those
rights, or refusing to uphold them, constitutes the proof that the
attacker is either not doing their job, or believes in something other
than democracy or republics as forms of governance, or both.  In
either case, the attacker will, metaphorically speaking, go down in
flames.

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

On 9/10/09, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> I support the statement and thank everyone involved in writing it and
> opining.
>
> Please, we need as many people as possible to respond with their agreement
> or disagreement on the proposal. I know it was a short discussion, but we
> had good input, and Lisa did a great job, given the time constraints.
>
> We need to know if we have consensus on this as an IGC statement.
>
> Best, Ginger
>
> Lisa Horner wrote:
>>
>> Hi all
>>
>>
>>
>> We’re now past the deadline for comments, so I’ve pasted a final version
>> below for the consensus call.  Please could you send a message to the list
>> to say if you support the statement or not.  I’ll now hand over to Ginger
>> and Ian to finalise and coordinate it getting read out at the IGF planning
>> meeting.  I’ll also get in touch with the DCs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Shaila – this version includes your edits, apart from in the final para as
>> I think Parminder’s comments made sense.  Hope that’s acceptable to you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks everyone for your inputs.  I think it’s a strong statement now.
>>
>>
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Lisa
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> FINAL STATEMENT (V6) – for consensus call
>>
>>
>> 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 strongly reaffirmed 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 development are strongly
>> threatened by the 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 that have 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 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.
>> We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity
>> to make Rights and Principles a core theme.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


-- 
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