Hi all,
Not only, as Ginger said, the statement originated from IGC -- which
focus is general -- and not from a given DC, but also it doesn't put
forward any particular Convention or Covenant. On the contrary, it
refers to "the core human rights treaties and other universal human
rights instruments", which obviously include CEDAW and CRC, as well
as other specific Conventions. When I've asked not to name the two
Covenants, ICESCR and ICCPR, in the statement, it was precisely in
order to avoid this request for inclusion of a "shopping list":
similarly to Gender DC asking for reference to CEDAW and protection
of children on line DC asking for CRC mention, a DC on people with
disabilities would request CRPD, and so on (list of instruments at:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/).
The other reason has been raised on the FoE coalition mailing list:
when we start identifying texts, we have to be precise on their
status (a Declaration such as UDHR is not legally binding, while a
Convention is for States who has ratified it). The result is that the
final statement could have been better written, and in any case the
last additions have only added confusions which, fortunately, are not
that crucial given the statement, its objectives, and the context
where it will be presented.
But there is a double lesson to learn here for all of us:
1/ Keep the general interest objective higher than specific
interests, especially when we're forced to progress step by step.
2/ Refrain from making additions that don't really bring anything to
a statement, and on the contrary reduce its clarity.
Best,
Meryem
Le 15 sept. 09 à 11:42, Ginger Paque a écrit :
> Hi Lisa and Anja,
>
> I understand the concerns raised, but I would like to raise
> another--who are we writing the statement for? Personally, I think
> we write the statement for the members of the IGC. We should draft
> it for our concerns, not because we want other groups to sign on. I
> think we risk diffusing down our focus if we are writing a
> statement with a view towards other possible signatories. We
> already have to reconcile many viewpoint within the IGC.
>
> I am glad to have others to support our statements. But we need to
> write them from the IGC viewpoint. I would prefer that if a group
> does not agree with our statement, they write their own statement
> with their particular emphasis, and the IGC or I as an individual
> have the possibility to endorse it or not.
>
> HOWEVER; people who are interested particularly in child safety,
> gender, persons with disabilities can legitimately raise those
> concerns here, and they should be discussed and included or not in
> the draft based on the the particular statement's purpose.
>
> I hope I was clear that this does not indicate a lack of support
> for the mentioned issues. It is a matter of focus.
>
> Thanks, Best, Ginger
>
> Lisa Horner wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Anja. The Internet Rights and Principles coalition and
>> Freedom of Expression Online coalition have also agreed to support
>> the statement. The A2K coalition expressed interest, but I don't
>> think they had enough time to discuss, similarly for the Privacy
>> coalition. The Protection of children online coalition raised
>> cimilar points to the gender coalition. Although they agree with
>> everything in the statement, they felt it wasn't appropriate for
>> them to sign as it doesn't explicitly mention the rights of
>> children. I think that this is something that we need to think
>> about when drafting statements on human rights in the future. All
>> the best, Lisa ________________________________ From: anja
>> [mailto:anja at cis-india.org] Sent: Tue 15/09/2009 09:47 To:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Gender DC support
>> for IGC statement on rights Dear all, I'm happy to let you know
>> that the Gender DC has agreed to support the IGC statement on
>> rights, even though the group felt it was problematic that such a
>> long statement on rights did not contain any references to women's
>> rights. As was pointed out during the discussion within the group,
>> "the Gender DC sees women's human rights as central to the IG
>> discourse and states have a special duty to address women's
>> exclusion and their rights in relation to the Internet and freedom
>> of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and
>> development, respectively". In recognition of the importance of
>> civil society interventions on rights, the DC decided to endorse
>> the IGC statement as it stands anyways, but also expressed the
>> hope that the above mentioned concerns will receive explicit
>> attention in future statements. Best wishes, Anja
>> ____________________________________________________________ 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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