[IRP] [charter] right to life liberty and security of person --- relevant for internet governance

[Emily Laidlaw]

I agree wtih Shaila. We should not be making assumptions about what
human rights need to be drawn to peoples' attentions and what don't.
I don't think we can assume that anything would be obvious.  If it is
a struggle in the physical world, it is too online.

By accessibility do you mean the right to access the internet? If so,
my first instinct was that it is wrapped up under the right to freedom
of expression as the right to seek, receive and impart information,
but when I think about it more that just does not seem to grasp the
concept of access as a fundamental right.  Although rights such as the
right to assembly, to education etc. all hinge, when it comes to the
Internet, on the right to access information, it still seems
insufficient to me that it would be a principle under article 19.
This might be one of the few new 'rights'. Thoughts?

Emily
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:47 PM, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Max
> Yes it is essential, in the same?way as rights to privacy and freedom of
> expression. Is it then really?essential that we make statements on these ?
> The answer is yes, because the Internet is the very space where these rights
> are being infringed.?The Internet is the very vehicle used to?abuse these
> rights of life and liberty.Is this not the driving focus of our work?in this
> arena?
>
> The?difference between the right to life and liberty and ?the right to
> privacy?and many of the article described?, is that?they are?a demand by
> the?privileged,? ie those who already have a great?many rights and
> privileges and cannot envisage otherwise. Whereas?the right to life and
> liberty applies to an unacceptable growing number?who remain? anonymous and
> voiceless. Surely we speak for them.
>
> I?had originally intended?to work on privacy and freedom of expression, but
> got side tracked when?I noticed that this?one was a little neglected and was
> only doing a?little editing up. Did not? expect an objection.
>
> I also I notice that freedom of accessibility is missing .How can we add
> this.Please comment.I have several thoughts on that.
>
> Many apologies for the rather large font, this was not intentional.?I was
> not shouting :):)
>
> Again , I welcome?input from you and?anyone else's in?editing?the language
> to have greater clarity. .
> regards
> Shaila
> ________________________________
> From: Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com>
> To: shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com>
> Sent: Tue, October 20, 2009 10:02:36 AM
> Subject: [charter] right to life liberty and security of person --- relevant
> for internet governance
>
> Hi Shaila
>
> Thanks for your input. I understand and support your point that the right to
> life liberty and security of person is possibly the most fundamental of them
> all, but is it really necessary to point out that that is also true on the
> internet?
>
> In my view this right does not need an explanation regarding what it means
> on the net. It is straight forward.
>
> It would be good to hear other opinions.
>
> Please pitch in
>
> Max
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:43 AM, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Max
>> I have several comments and have written them down in blue? under yours :
>> please scroll down.
>> I welcome your assistance and any one else s to work on this with me.
>> I also have comments on privacy and the others.
>> regards
>> Shaila
>>
>>
>> Life is too short ....challenge the rules
>>
>> Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly
>>
>> Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming!
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Max Senges <maxsenges at gmail.com>
>> To: irp <Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>; Internet Rights
>> Discussion Group <rights at lists.apc.org>; Annette. Muehlberg
>> <annette.muehlberg at web.de>; Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>;
>> Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>; Emily Laidlaw <emily at laidlaw.eu>;
>> Lauren Movius <lmovius at usc.edu>; "Bodle, Robert"
>> <Robert_Bodle at mail.msj.edu>; shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com>; Jac sm Kee
>> <jac at apcwomen.org>; Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>;
>> wolfgang.benedek <wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at>; Fouad Bajwa
>> <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>; Sami Ben Gharbia <SamiBenGharbia at gmail.com>; Ehsan
>> Norouzi <ehsan.nrz at gmail.com>; Ashraf Mikhail <ami at humanrights.dk>;
>> derechosyprincipiosparainternet at googlegroups.com
>> Sent: Sun, October 18, 2009 2:05:29 PM
>> Subject: [charter] last round before Section 1 milestone
>>
>> Hi folks
>>
>>
>> As promised I have done a good overhaul of the draft. I have aimed at two
>> things: (1) consistency & consolidation and (2) hypertextualizing
>>
>> Basically I tried to either flesh out important bullet points or drop less
>> important ones.
>>
>> Secondly I added thematic subpages and started to set links to background
>> info and references
>>
>> I would like to bring up the following more substantial editorial changes:
>>
>> A) Pursuing our aim to create a compact text that focuses on transposing
>> Human Rights to the online sphere I deleted the rights where we did not see
>> a need to elaborate on how they are effected and I propose to drop the
>> following sections:
>>
>> Article 3 & 4: Security of person and Slavery: I think the points listed
>> here are correct, but they are so broad and in fact acknowledge the paradox
>> of clashing rights, but request all measures not to fall into this most
>> complex trap... My feeling is that these articles are not very powerful as
>> HR policy instruments, but rather water down our text. --- Shaila do you
>> want to comment/agree/disagree
>>
>> The right to life liberty and security of person precedes any other right.
>> Only after these rights are guaranteed can there be a discussion and
>> relevance to assuring personal privacy, freedom of expression etc.? The
>> matter or the body first then the thoughts and expression of rights. I can
>> understand that since we all? have our personal? liberty assured , it is
>> indeed hard to see that there are many who do not!
>>
>> These rights belong here since they are fundamental to existence.
>> Unfortunately the Internet has become a vehicle and a catalyst in enabling
>> abuse of these rights. ?So we need strong statements to? indicate the
>> sovereignty of this right.
>>
>>
>>
>> So yes I do strongly feel they belong here and they do not water down our
>> charter. In fact they strengthen them. I would like the wording to be
>> stronger, but tried to keep it more neutral. ?Can you or anyone else assist
>> in this?
>>
>> shaila
>>
>>
>> Article 11: Presumption of innocence: Again I think the points made make
>> sense; but are we really missing an argument if they are not there?? Rebecca
>> what do you think? Lisa i guess you originally drafted these points
>>
>> Article 17: Property: There is no new aspect to that right on the internet
>> really, is there? Robert please agree or argue for your point.
>>
>> Article 18: Freedom of believe: Again I am not sure as to what degree the
>> internet represents a new context for this right or wheter it simply applies
>> to online expression as well.
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> B) The three BIG Rights when it comes to the Internet: Privacy, Freedom of
>> Expression and (A2K) Article 27: Cultural participation have all received
>> very good input and need to be consolidated now.
>> Could someone from the drafters (or someone like Katiza who hasn't
>> contributed her expertise yet) try to write a coherent and consolidated
>> version?
>> ?? - Privacy was collabowritten by: Jac, Rebecca, Max --- @ Katiza, Jan,
>> could you contribute as well?? ??? I have some comments
>> ?? - Freedom of Expression was collabowritten by: Jac, Emily, Rebecca,
>> Lauren, Max ??? I Have some comments
>> ?? - Cultural participation & interests had input from Shaila, Marianne
>> and Shaila? I have some comments
>>
>> ----------------------------
>> NEXT STEPS
>> I would hope that we can get Section 1 to its first milestone (= coherent
>> version) really soon (before the end of the month). Our next steps then are:
>> (i) to reach out to experts like Wolfgang Benedek, who said he would be
>> happy to check that we do not speak legal gibberish and
>> (ii) to reach out to our communities (local and thematic), spread the
>> work, invite people to join us. (As Robert Guerra pointed out it would be
>> particularly good to have more traditional Human Rights experts and
>> activists participate)
>>
>> Another idea we could consider is if it might be feasible to make a
>> Maker's style version of the charter for the IGF. Remember they use very
>> basic "human-readable" catch phrases
>> http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2006/12/the_makers_bill_of_rights.html
>>
>> Ok everybody THANK YOU very much for the energy and thought and time you
>> invest in this effort.
>>
>> I think, especially with the prospect of having this hypertextual charter
>> evolve over time, we are planting an important humanistic seed into the
>> socio-technological soil that is the internet!
>>
>> Yours,
>> max
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
>