[A2k] Dan Pescod: Right to read

Sat May 9 18:59:28 2009

Thanks for agreeing (without stipulating to my colorful language
chosen mostly for sake of brevity) that those seeking treaty
ratification should constantly clarify that they are not seeking new
rights but rather spelling out, without watering down,
already-existing rights for the benefit of what I termed the
"ignorant."

Indeed, people do tend to get confused and think, for example, that
since there's no right specifically mentioned in the text of the
Constitution of Country Y, that therefore the right simply doesn't
exist. This confuses completely what the SOURCE of our rights are, for
if our most fundamental rights come from government then we truly live
in a tyranny, even if ruled in a few cases by relative philosoper
kings, because rights are subject to change at the whims of rulers or
majorities.  It is specifically when majorities oppose rights when
they are most needed.

Requiring rights to already be spelled out in some legal text
somewhere would mean, in the USA for example, there would be no
constitutional right to even heterosexual marriage,  no right to have
children, to seek employment, to wear offbeat clothes, to travel, or
to move interstate, to seek an abortion or to be free from forced
abortion -- because none of these rights are anywhere in the express
text of the US Constitution.  There wouldn't even be an "affirmative"
right to vote since the Constitution speaks only of elections and
assumes the People vote (the history of the USA being largely a fight
over who exactly is "we" in "We the People" but that debate is and
should now be over, forever).  Nevertheless, all of these rights have
been recognized as solid constitutional rights, and so held by courts,
in most examples above for a century or more.

THe only other caveat I would add to this request, one that I
specifically think would help calm waters and minimize
misunderstandings between the alternative approaches of the Blind
Union and other approaches, is not to restrict the anchoring in
pre-existing rights merely to those most narrowly on point for the
disabled, but to anchor them strongly and generally in the rights of
ALL to A2K (the rights of the disabled being a mere application of the
general rule of access to knowledge to the specific factual context of
the disabled, thus requiring special clarification in many instances).

Without the above strong anchoring in the rights of all, we have a
serious problem with the prospects for getting any other
constituencies onto the circumvention lifeboat, so to speak.   For
much the same reasons that folks including myself have been questioned
or challenged on the basis of whether we truly mean to equate our own
"disabilities" (whatever they may be) with the difficult challenges
posed to the blind especially, if there is any merit in this
questioning then that means that the arguments of the non-blind for
additional circumvention rights are NECESSARILY weaker, because the
blind have the most compelling case or amongst the most compelling
case.  This doesn't bode well for future groups making what must be
weaker claims, IF THOSE CLAIMS ARE ANCHORED IN FACTS like the fact of
blindness.

But if the claims are anchored in universal human rights, the problems
above are avoided and we can all win together.  If the claims are
anchored in universal human rights, then it will help insulate the
blind from being used politically to further Digital Reformatory
Mandate [sic] regimes.

The blind could, loudly and proudly, say something to the effect of
"we ain't gonna beg, or get on our knees for our most basic rights,
and we don't presume that anybody intends that for us or for any other
human being, for that matter.  Since we know our own situation based,
we've presented treaty language that will satisfy our own predicaments
on at least an interim basis, but this should in no way be read to
mean that others don't have equal and just as compelling rights to
access to knowledge as we do.  Ours are just more detailed, and
therefore we present them here."

If an approach analogous to the above were taken it would neutralize
most of the debate or objection on this list.  It would mitigate
legitimation of DRM.  I'd still have a concern about legitimation of
DRM but on that level if it is made sufficiently clear that "the blind
can't wait" for the system to be properly re-tooled completely and tus
seek interim circumvention while still opposing DRM in principle, then
I think we'd all be reinforcing each other's claims the vast majority
of the time, and everyone would generally be better off.

Pardon the expression given the context of the blind but the meme of
Martin Luther King Jr and others of "Keep Your Eyes on the Prize" --
with the prize being vindication of the rights of all in full -- and
also keeping our communications such that others always keep their
eyes on the prize, then we have a formula where not only can we all do
our own thing, but we can more powerfully reinforce each others
efforts intead of working at cross purposes, or appearing to, some of
the time.

Paul Lehto

On 5/8/09, Manon Ress <manon.ress@keionline.org> wrote:
> --
> [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
>
> From: "Pescod, Dan" <Dan.Pescod@rnib.org.uk>
> Date: May 6, 2009 9:47:56 AM EDT
> To: <a2k-admin@lists.essential.org>
> Subject: Right to read
>
> Hi all,
>
> I don=92t post very often here, but just thought on behalf of the World
> Blind Union that I might clarify something that came up yesterday.
>
> Paul Lehto yesterday posted to say : "Seeking treaty rights without at
> all times saying in effect "this is just spelling out existing rights
> for officials too ignorant to figure this out" is going down the wrong
> road, and going down the wrong road on one's knees, as it were."
>
> I think I agree this needs to be made explicit, though I might not
> tell the officials in question that they are ignorant!
>
> WBU is indeed using the WIPO treaty proposal to spell out existing
> rights, rather than in effect creating new rights.
> Interestingly, there was debate at one time about whether the UN
> Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) itself
> was needed. The argument there was that it would only rehash human
> rights that already existed. It was finally agreed that the CRPD does
> NOT confer new rights on disabled people that the rest of us do not
> have in other human rights conventions. However, it was deemed
> necessary to proceed with that treaty because it allows society to
> understand HOW it must adjust to fully meet the already existent
> rights of millions of disabled people.
>
> The WIPO treaty proposal would in turn create a mechanism to
> facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights spelled out in the CRPD
> in the specific area of access to published works. We regularly allude
> to this being a way to meet existing rights with the slogan "right to
> read". In effect, the right to read does already exist in law in the
> CRPD - see especially Article 21 (also Article 9). I=92ve posted
> extracts of these at the end of this note.
>
> I hope that helps.
>
> Dan
>
> "Article 21 Freedom of expression and opinion, and access to information
>
> States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that
> persons with disabilities can exercise the right to freedom of
> expression and opinion, including the freedom to seek, receive and
> impart information and ideas on an equal basis with others and through
> all forms of communication of their choice, as defined in article 2 of
> the present Convention, including by:
>
> a) Providing information intended for the general public to persons
> with disabilities in accessible formats and technologies appropriate
> to different kinds of disabilities in a timely manner and without
> additional cost;
>
> b) Accepting and facilitating the use of sign languages, Braille,
> augmentative and alternative communication, and all other accessible
> means, modes and formats of communication of their choice by persons
> with disabilities in official interactions;
>
> c) Urging private entities that provide services to the general
> public, including through the Internet, to provide information and
> services in accessible and usable formats for persons with disabilities;
>
> d) Encouraging the mass media, including providers of information
> through the Internet, to make their services accessible to persons
> with disabilities;
>
> e) Recognizing and promoting the use of sign languages."
>
>
> Furthermore, Article 30, Participation in cultural life, recreation,
> leisure and sport, states among other things:
>
> "1. States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to
> take part on an equal basis with others in cultural life, and shall
> take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities:
>
> a) Enjoy access to cultural materials in accessible formats;
>
> 3. States Parties shall take all appropriate steps, in accordance with
> international law, to ensure that laws protecting intellectual
> property rights do not constitute an unreasonable or discriminatory
> barrier to access by persons with disabilities to cultural materials."
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> --
>
>   DISCLAIMER:
>
> NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is
> confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended
> recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of the
> content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify the
> sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to delete it
> and any attachments from your system.
>
> RNIB endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated by
> its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants.  However, it
> cannot accept any responsibility for any such which are transmitted.
> We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.
>
> Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email and
> any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily
> represent those of RNIB.
>
> RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227
>
> Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk
>
> This message has been scanned for viruses by Websense Hosted Security
> -  http://www.websense.com/content/HostedEmailSecurity.aspx
>
>
> *************************************************************************=
**
> Manon Ress
> manon.ress@keionline.org
> Knowledge Ecology International
> 1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
> Tel.:  +1.202.332.2670, Fax: +1.202.332.2673
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> A2k mailing list
> A2k@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k
>

--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box #1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul@gmail.com
906-204-2333