[IRP] Preamble call - Wednesday at 1700GMT
Wed Dec 15 18:14:51 EET 2010
Hi Lisa and all,
Le 15 d?c. 10 ? 16:24, Lisa Horner a ?crit :
> - I'm not clear what the exact point we're making in point 5 of the
> preamble is: "Whereas the global nature of the Internet is a
> precious asset to increase and sustain a better mutual knowledge,
> understanding and acceptance of people in a global word, beyond the
> significance of local and regional particularities and various
> historical and cultural backgrounds". Is it mainly about the
> universality of rights and the importance of not being culturally
Yes. Moreover, there are a lot of threats currently on this side, the
so-called "defamation of religions" being only one of them. And,
obviously with regards Internet specifities, the justifications for
blocking content in the name of regional partiuclarities and cultures
> If so, isn't that the point being made in the 6th para of the
> preamble: "Whereas the universal, indivisible, interdependent and
> interrelated nature of human rights outweighs the specificities of
> any political, economic and cultural system" ?
I think in such matter we shouldn't be afraid to insist in making a
point. Morever, the 6th para is rather on the universality of rights
(mainly in legal terms), already agreed in 1993 Vienna Declaration,
while the 5th is more a plea for more cultural exchange, acceptance
of others (other cultures) and acknowledgement that different (or
even shocking for some) legitimate expressions of ideas should be
disseminated on the Internet without (blocking) interference.
> - I think it's important to stress the universality of rights and
> to push against cultural relativism. But the Internet is also
> hugely importance for cultural expression, sharing, understanding
> etc. Could we say also that the human rights framework promotes
> and celebrates cultural diversity, but the universal,
> indivisible..... etc?
As I said above, I think these are two different levels of issues,
and thus should be handled in two different paragraphs, although the
current wording is obviously open to modifications/additions.
> - I'm not sure about saying rights should be implemented by
> "progressive measures" in the last para. Some in the Charter
> require progressive realisation, but some can and should be
> implemented now. Could we take this out of the preamble and add a
> para about it in the context section - specifying which rights are
> subject to progressive realisation?
I'm afraid this is a language issue here, due to my bad English. I
actually meant "making progress", rather than "going step by step".
Would "progressist" be better than progressive? I don't know what
would be the right wording here;)
More information about the IRP